Anyway, I think I've made my point. If people want to read it as hostile or whatever, then so be it.
BTW, I don't personally think that truth can exist only in a textbook, nor do I think that textbooks always contain truth. Good for you with the degrees, lots of us have those. Bad form in my opinion to credential-drop like that though.
Supply and demand are absolutely operative in every country, and also were operative everywhere before there were countries. It is not created by humans, it is simply a consequence of limited resources. Where there are laws or conventions that attempt to ration scarce resources, if those rules defy a significant supply-demand imbalance then they will be ignored or circumvented.
BTW, if you read Freakonomics you will note that even animals partake in resource rationing, not so unlike humans as you might expect.
This isn't politics, it's economics. I'm not arguing that nothing can be done and nobody should try to influence things, I just think anger at "capitalism" is totally unproductive and misplaced. It's not right or wrong, anymore than gravity is right or wrong. That was my point.
I would. IMO, casting a spell should not be treated any different than sneaking along, drawing a weapon, etc. Granted verbal components are meant to be announced loudly, but a cautious caster could try to mask those sounds with other ambient sounds, depending what they are. Would I always allow the stealth check? No, but neither would I never allow it. A heavy wood door between me and the enemy plus any ambient sounds from the enemy's side of the door, I could be persuaded to allow a stealth check albeit with a penalty. Perhaps with the hard or very hard adjustment.
Except that there are specific feats for casting spells stealthily. So allowing anyone to do it renders those feats worthless. Conceal Spell and Silent Spell.
I definitely would not let the wizard roll Stealth if the spell had a verbal component unless Silent Spell was used. Probably not Arcana either, though that would depend on which spell was being cast. I usually allow Arcana for initiative when the caster's exploration activity was Detect Magic, but I'd also probably consider it appropriate if they were using other divination spells like Clairvoyance.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What browser do you use? As a rule, everything works better in Google Chrome.
No, just like you couldn't use an ability 3 times in 3 minutes with a cool down of 1 minute. It would be twice.
I recently played a PFS game where a level 2 cleric tried to cast a second level spell.
My point is that characters created by new players who are unfamiliar with the rules should have their characters checked by someone who is familiar with the rules. Even a quick once-over. That is regardless of whether the character was created using tech or not. If absolutely nobody at the table knows the rules, then nobody is likely to notice mistakes, tech or no.
Well nothing can be audited, regardless of the source, if nobody at the table actually knows the rules. So if the players and the GM are all relying on technology alone, I think that's a bad idea.
I'm distrustful of technology to implement complex sets of rules (unless I wrote the program myself). I've seen too many people with wrong builds resulting from using character builders.
Relying on those can affect game balance quite a bit, which will in turn negatively affect enjoyment of the game. If you don't know the rules then you'll never notice if a rule is being implemented wrong by the tech.
And let's not forget the humorous possibilities for stowing things using the Iron Gut spell.
"What's that? You're hungry? Hang on, I have an extra muffin... PHLAAaaaarf!
Too bad the heightened version doesn't increase the number or bulk of the items you are able to store that way, only the duration.
I'm not sure most people use the VTTs for creating their characters, as you apparently do. Personally, I create my character the old-fashioned way and then put the info into the VTT sheet.
Even those that rely on drag-and-drop functionality I suspect are mostly interested in spells, feats and gear. I guess your bar is a lot higher than mine.
Because you only have to set up your character sheet once, and you can't click a button on a pdf to roll for attacks, spells, damage, saves, etc.
I am just providing a counterpoint to your assertion that Roll20 "doesn't work". I have played dozens of games on it as a player, and several as a GM and my experience has been that it works just fine. To get started for $0 it is a great platform IMO. It is true that there is a fair amount of manual entry, but that doesn't bother me and didn't take that long. Once the sheet is set up it is trivial to maintain and level up, and play is smooth.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, it seems pretty simple to me. Bringing in whether something takes 1 action or 2 has nothing to do with anything. If it says you can't use it for X rounds after using it, then you can't use it for X rounds after using it. That you can't use such an ability in the very same round is too obvious to even state, regardless of how many actions it takes.
I'd run it as immediate save upon casting, then saves afterwards only for creatures ending their turn within the cloud. So you could hold your breath and run through it, but if you were in the area when cast, it forms quickly enough that you may or may not have a chance to hold your breath (thus the fort save).
But I can see the other interpretations as valid as well. I think an initial save upon casting makes sense for a third level spell, otherwise it's not practically much better than Obscuring Mist.
What you describe is a lack of features you want. That is very different from a flat statement that they "don't work". Yes, there is some manual entry, but it most certainly works once you have it set up with the right information.
Well the OP had 3 reasons: 1. Verisimilitude, 2. Balance and 3. Fairness.
#1: Well, anything can fail if you make the assumption of a worst-case scenario. This easily works though, if you assume instead that what is being drawn are two potions (or anything else, really) from the pockets of a bandolier.
#2: Balance is unchanged in any significant way with either interpretation. But with my way there is less standing around after using up all your actions drawing things, so the game flows better, IMO. We've all experienced those totally anticlimactic turns where all we did was get ready to do something in some future turn. Less of that is always a good thing, IMO.
#3: I don't have an issue with fairness at all. As stated above, I see no significant change to game balance at all, just an improvement in the way the game flows for everyone.
That is not correct, the character sheets for PF2 work fine in Roll20. Maybe whoever set up your games did not specify that it should use the PF2 custom sheets.
Spells and feats can be dropped in only if you pay for the compendium, which I have not done. But some GMs have that enabled and it is easy enough to add things manually, IMO.
I pay for the lowest-cost level of subscription at Roll20 only for the character vault import/export functionality. But that is really not necessary to get started with it and get used to it.
I always use warhorn. There are various VTTs, but Roll20 is by far the most common, and most games use that for the maps/rolls, with Discord open in a separate window for voice.
Gary Bush wrote:
Is there a feat like that? If so, I wouldn't advocate just allowing it for everyone. But since, to my knowledge there is not...
I think I wasn't clear. I was saying that the ability to do what I'm suggesting is not a significantly bigger advantage for a Two Weapon Fighter than for anyone else. Any character who happens to have 2 free hands (or is willing to drop whatever is in them) has advantages as well. An alchemist can draw 2 bombs or mutagens, a wizard can draw 2 scrolls, etc. And the enemy can do the same.
So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.
Gary Bush wrote:
Yes, we disagree on how significant that is for TWFs vs everyone else.
I don't know, Grams was a real badass.
Game balance is not affected if everyone can interact to draw an item with each hand at the same time.
And I'm not talking about playing a harpsichord with one hand and transcribing poetry with the other at the same time. Talking about picking up two things, one with each hand. That's not remotely the same as making a Strike at the same time as doing something else, IMO. It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.
Interesting that the discussion had been entirely focused on drawing a weapon with each free hand. I guess the OP did showcase this as his main issue, but from my perspective it's more generalized.
For example, if a player has 2 free hands and 2 potions in a bandolier, does it take 2 actions to draw both? If yes, then only one can be consumed that turn. If not, both can be consumed.
I'm just having trouble visualizing someone standing there stupidly, only taking one item from their bandolier at a time, as if one hand is tied behind their back.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
But what would be the harm in making it dismissible?
Not contrived either. Consider anytime combat occurs in a city street, the courtyard of a castle, a crowded marketplace or tavern. That wall is going to be a problem for someone. These are all very common scenarios which I personally have experienced.
It depends whether the enemy has reason to suspect (or outright knows) that there are enemies nearby. If they do, then you'd be undetected. If they don't, then you should be unnoticed.
Obviously this assumes you have terrain to hide behind, are invisible, or some such that keeps you from being observed. If you don't have a way to be at least concealed to start with then I don't know if you can do much with it except use it for initiative. If you at least have concealment somehow then you can first Hide to become hidden and then Sneak to become Undetected.
Really, the only practical difference between Undetected and Unnoticed is that in the latter case, the creature has no reason to even use a Seek action to try to find you. In the former case, he probably would, unless he has other things going on that are more urgent, like being attacked by something he can see which seems more dangerous.
Invisibility is up there with illusions as something players conceptually want to be able to exploit to great effect, but really, really don't want it used against them with the same level of power.
Note that Invisibility, itself, is Illusion magic.
Also, while I don't disagree with your statement, my comment was about misunderstanding the rules in general regarding Invisibility. A player who understands and builds for the rules finds himself in an awkward position when he has taken feats like Conceal Spell and Silent Spell with invisible casting in mind, but then GMs routinely grant the same abilities to virtually every invisible creature. Or when that same character invests in Stealth and Deception in order to maximize his chances of remaining undetected, using actions to Sneak, but then finds that the GM treats all invisible creatures as undetected at all times - even after casting spells or attacking, without ever using actions to Sneak or making Stealth checks. Feels like a whole lot of wasted feats and skill investments.
The idea about tutorials sounds good, but I'm starting to feel like all those rules are effectively TL;DR for most people, and I'm skeptical they'll take the time to watch videos either. Frankly regretting my attempt to play an Illusionist in PFS at this point.
I think the inability to dismiss illusory object is a deliberately limiting factor on it
Really? Because Illusory Object is so extremely powerful that it needs to be limited that way? The only way I can think of it being abused is by taking advantage of its long/permanent duration as you describe with your chaos demon. Making it dismissible would not make it more open to abuse or even more powerful as far as I can see.
As an aside to illustrate how little this spell needs to be limited beyond its regular functioning, I had a GM recently who completely disregarded my casting of this spell. He simply had enemies run straight through it without even rolling dice.
At the metabalance level this lack may be an oversight though IMO it doesn't matter much at all. I don't even understand why you insist an illusionist would "really need to prepare and waste a Dispel Magic". Really? How often?
Well, if you've created a wall during combat, at the point where it would be the most significant obstacle to anyone attempting to pass, it just may be possible that at some point after the combat is over, other beings may wish to pass that point who have the right, the need, and the expectation that they can pass that point without hindrance. Sometimes less than ten minutes after combat, and with increasingly higher likelihood as more time passes.
Alys Kindletrick wrote:
If my response seems ungentle to you, please know that was not the intent. Written comments can be interpreted a number of ways, I was just trying to understand and answer your questions. I hope you will view my words in that light.
Alys Kindletrick wrote:
According to Table 11-3: Scroll Statistics at p. 565, which compares spell level to item level, there's no such thing as a second level scroll, hah!
I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously there are scrolls with second level spells, but since a second level spell is something that becomes available to a character only upon reaching third level, scrolls and other items granting access to second level spells and effects are normally third level items, and so on for higher level spells. You may be confused between spell level and character level.
Magical Crafting would allow you to get a free formula for "1st Level Scroll" if you wanted it. If you wanted the formulas for higher level scrolls you'd just have to pay for those formulas.
As for only 1st level scrolls being common, that is just completely wrong. Table 6-12 in the Equipment chapter is a convenient list of items "that a 1st level character could most frequently access." It is not comprehensive in any way. Any spell or item that does not have a rarity tag is common. (See the definition of "rarity" on page 635 CRB).
So you create this illusion, and now you're stuck with it for 10 minutes - unless you cast a heightened version, in which case you're stuck with it for an hour, or even forever. Should an illusionist really need to prepare and waste a Dispel Magic every time they cast Illusory Object?
To add further asininity, there are no exceptions or special treatment for dispelling one's own magic RAW that I am aware of, so one could potentially fail to dispel their own illusion and waste another spell slot in the attempt.
As an aside, expect a fair number of GMs not to have a good grasp of the rules regarding invisible creatures, hidden vs undetected, casting spells while invisible and the effect upon the hidden or undetected status of the caster, the use and effects of Silent Spell or Conceal Spell, etc. At least, this has been my experience in PFS.
Ok, but I can't think of any non-contrived circumstances.