|
I apologize for my frustrated remarks.As do I. I have to go and edit a few.
I've tried to explain the difference between the two handwavings. See my above post to TriOmega.
Its a degree of discretion. One negates the challenge of the disease by GM Fiat. One does so by player ability.
I understand what you're saying. I even think what you're doing is a fine solution, and would never argue with you at a table you're running. But what I'm saying is that you not requiring casters to roll the level check to get rid of the disease as per RAW is also a form of GM Fiat. It seems odd to insist that others cannot exercise fiat with respect to saving throws while you can with respect to caster level checks. That was all.
The reason I'm making that semantical difference in GM Fiat between Saving Throws and "FREE" Caster Level Checks, is because its FREE.
If it costs money, then I don't handwave the caster level checks.
But if there is no chance of monetary expenditure or death... then it doesn't make sense to require them to roll for no reason.
But to maintain the integrity of the challenge of the disease, handwaving the disease in its entirety is not appropriate.
|
|
Unless there is a charge for food, water, and shelter between scenarios, the saving throws are also free.
But handwaving the disease at this level damages the integrity of the challenge that the disease is supposed to represent by GM Fiat, instead of by PC Ability.
Diseases are supposed to represent a challenge. And only the nature of organized play damages that if you handwave it. Presumably in a home game, a GM can carry out the individual rolls per day as the character traverses the daily adventures they go on. You can roleplay the slow decay of their faculties.
But in organized play, usually an adventure lasts a few in game hours, and then you move on to indefinite time.
To maintain the integrity of the challenge a disease is supposed to represent, you can't handwave it to saving throws will eventually be made land.
|
how is this "Correcting erroneous chronicles "?
I was looking for advice on how to correct a mistake on a chronicle - can I get a VO to correct an error, or do I need to find the judge who signed the original chronicle?
You're absolutely right -- sorry.
I just poked my VL (a co-worker), and he said he wouldn't hesitate to initial a reasonable correction, but he doesn't know anything official. He said he'll kick it up the chain.
|
If a diseased player was being attended after the scenario by a party member capable of casting lesser restoration and remove disease, I personally would waive the need to witness dice rolls so long as their caster level was sufficient to remove the disease. Eventuality combined with unspecified downtime between adventures dictates that a successful role would be made, and use of lesser restoration would prevent death and/or unconsciousness from occurring.
If a player desired to fight off the disease on their own or with only the heal skill (read: no use of magical means), I would allow them to roll it out until they were on the verge of death or unconsciousness. At that point it's time to spend gold or pp on a remove disease, folks.
|
|
If a diseased player was being attended after the scenario by a party member capable of casting lesser restoration and remove disease, I personally would waive the need to witness dice rolls so long as their caster level was sufficient to remove the disease. Eventuality combined with unspecified downtime between adventures dictates that a successful role would be made, and use of lesser restoration would prevent death and/or unconsciousness from occurring.
If a player desired to fight off the disease on their own or with only the heal skill (read: no use of magical means), I would allow them to roll it out until they were on the verge of death or unconsciousness. At that point it's time to spend gold or pp on a remove disease, folks.
Again, no one is saying this approach is unreasonable...merely that it isn't RAW. RAW would be to have the caster make the level checks, because if they fail, you're in exactly the same boat as you would be if you had failed all your saves.
But I think we've beaten this horse quite enough.
|
|
But handwaving......like saying a friend casting remove disease X times per day will automatically cure you.Nice out of context nitpick there.
Keep ignoring the actual meat of my statement to make your point.
Guys, we're talking past each other.
Andrew, not requiring the caster level checks is hand-waving. It's hand-waving that I agree makes sense, but let's call a spade a spade.
TOZ, I appreciate the support, but that Andrew is saying that to him, magic makes a clear difference. Personally, I'll prefer if the rules explicitly required the caster level checks, and then required bringing in outside help if the failed. Or better yet, just said that any stat reaching zero due to disease is fatal. *shrug*
As it stands, I think the RAW (you can survive non-fort diseases indefinitely) works against the RAI (all diseases have consequences).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, when I'm a GM, I will (a) always roll the disease out (but then, I have an electronic dice-roller that will happily show me d20 rolls 25 at a time), but (b) never let a character die from a non-CON affliction.
This is because (a) I think it's a cool part of the character's background to discover that he was immobilized by a filthy frog bite for 174 days; that'll strike the Fear of Frog into 'im. But (b) having your Wisdom bottom out when the GM didn't have time to watch you finally make a successful saving throw, and the two remove disease spells you paid for didn't work--that's a lousy way for a PC to die. In my opinion, it's frustrating, unsatisfying, and humiliating.
Put another way, I allow Take 20 on the Constitution check.
--
Constitution-affecting poisons are different. I've watched as a party slowly succumbed to the diseases in an early Mark Moreland-written adventure. When the last villain fell, the whole party was alive; when the Chronicle sheets were signed, only one Pathfinder remained.
--
There are scenarios where the PCs are very inconvenienced at the end (stuck in deep Garund, for example) without easy or straight-forward means to get back to Absalom. Unless they're in hazard's way, we don't kill off those PCs because they need to trek across a desert and might die of thirst before the next adventure.
|
|
If a diseased player was being attended after the scenario by a party member capable of casting lesser restoration and remove disease, I personally would waive the need to witness dice rolls so long as their caster level was sufficient to remove the disease. Eventuality combined with unspecified downtime between adventures dictates that a successful role would be made, and use of lesser restoration would prevent death and/or unconsciousness from occurring.
If a player desired to fight off the disease on their own or with only the heal skill (read: no use of magical means), I would allow them to roll it out until they were on the verge of death or unconsciousness. At that point it's time to spend gold or pp on a remove disease, folks.
Again, no one is saying this approach is unreasonable...merely that it isn't RAW. RAW would be to have the caster make the level checks, because if they fail, you're in exactly the same boat as you would be if you had failed all your saves.
But I think we've beaten this horse quite enough.
I understand. To be slightly more clear to my position, what I am saying is that sticking strictly to RAW is unnecessary in this individual instance when one has endless free lesser restoration and remove disease from a party member. Let common sense and basic math triumph over RAW there.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
To bring back the topic, this was first steps one. Unfortunately, we did the silver crusade supplies before we did the sczarni warehouse, and the judge wouldn't let us go back to get healed. At level one, the 150gp is a decent chunk of change.
A lot of the options brought up aren't really available at level one.
I realize this has turned into a more general discussion though.
|
1) The session is over when the GM signs the chronicles and says, "See ya next time!"
2) If the session runs right up to the end of the time where the Venue is about to kick you out (which is a real problem that many, many, many folks complain about), then you may barely have time to sign the chronicles and clean up to leave. There may not be 5 minutes to roll out saving throws.
3) I'm willing to be lenient and favorful to the player, however there is a limit. I won't waste my time sitting there while they roll 100 or 1000 times. At some point, a line has to be drawn that says, "sorry, you gotta pay for it. I haven't eaten all day and need to get dinner."
Good points...how about you have until I get to your sheet to roll it out? That is what I usually do...and the people who need to roll out conditions get their sheets last.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
I am sorry if this is continuing to beat this horse, but I have a question.
Let's say that a player spends the 150gp for remove disease. That spell requires a roll, correct? So, if that's the case, paying the 150gp doesn't mean the spell automatically succeeds, does it?
I mean, if the spell would require a PC to make the check to see if it is successful, why wouldn't the same apply to an NPC caster?
Mark
|
|
Wait, so you're telling me that there are GMs that remember if players have diseases to resolve? Sorry, but I don't buy it.
I am guilty of forgetting a few times I admit...usually when we are at time limit and I am furiously filling sheets, it does tend to slip my mind. C'est la vie. I should try harder not to forget however in those situations....
|
|
I am sorry if this is continuing to beat this horse, but I have a question.
Let's say that a player spends the 150gp for remove disease. That spell requires a roll, correct? So, if that's the case, paying the 150gp doesn't mean the spell automatically succeeds, does it?
I mean, if the spell would require a PC to make the check to see if it is successful, why wouldn't the same apply to an NPC caster?
Mark
Yes, it requires a roll in either situation. Which is why it is recommended that you buy the Remove Disease at higher then minimum caster level, to improve the chances of a successful cast.
@James:
Consider the following situations:
Level 1 Witch, Con 8, playing in a sub-tier 4-5 game, contracts a disease that lowers stat X-not-Con. (Note, I have had a player create his Witch with exactly that Con, so it is possible, and it is also, still, possible to wind up playing up)
Fort save? -1 for the Witch
Fort Save DC? 13 or higher.
Let's be kind, and say 13, with two consecutive saves to cure.
First successful save is at a 35% chance of success. So is the second save needed. What are the odds of that? 7 in 20, times 7 in 20, means 49 times in 400 rolls, on average.
Meantime, after a few failed saves, that Witch has Stat X at zero, and, without a caster using Remove Disease, or someone providing long-term care of some sort, he will wind up starting to suffer the effects of dehydration. (That'll probably kill him before he starts to suffer from starvation, as well.)
Caring for someone who is unconscious, other than casting spells or using Heal for Deadly Damage, is not really defined in the rules.
Now, if you have someone in the party willing to volunteer their PC's time to help, especially if their Heal skill is high enough to make that disease DC check reliably, it would help.
I would allow the person assisting to T10 on their Heal check, which gives, if successful, a +4 to the diseased person's saving throw against the disease.
But, if, as is typical from what I have seen here, where once the main mission is over all the party members scatter back to whatever Dreng summoned them from, then the diseased person won't have anyone helping.
Note, also, that the Treat Disease option requires one-on-one aid. What happens when the party has two or more diseased members, and only one person able to reliably treat disease?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the venue closes in 10 minutes and we have to wrap up fast and a character has some disease or condition that hasn't been resolved I have to either
1) Resolve it on the sidewalk outside after the venue closes.
or
2) Mark the character as dead.
So...no. No, that's not going to happen. I'm not going to do that regardless of what the rules say. I'm going to leave the condition off the chronicle sheet as if it never happened and go home without a single pang of conscience about it. I'm not going to hassle with that because someone failed a fort save and someone who wasn't even there wants to be dogmatic about the rules. Forget it. That's not going to happen. You can call it handwaving or whatever you want to call it. I don't care.