| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Daggumit. My write-up was killed by a power surge. *shakes fist*
Have to rethink how I want to write about time travel... >.>
So, here's the problem. Unless I get really, exceedingly and weirdly detailed, which my lost post did, I'm not sure how to really discuss the time travel and how it functioned in-game, save in broad, vague terms. I'll do the latter.
To start with, we were in a Harry Potter game (starting in the far-off distant future of 2017).
So, you know what we did (presuming you read the books): time turners.
While the MoM's stock were destroyed, that was never cited as the only place to acquire them.
Beyond that, it's not really possible for them not to experience some amount of time-dilation, as, though the 'Potterverse, allows for the existence of (and presumes) magic that bends or alters the laws of physics, non-magic everything else functions according to the laws of physics, meaning that time-travel must be inherently relative to the local major gravity well you're in, and the local spin rate of the majority of mass based on your destination time and site - else, just like with teleportation, you'd be in space as soon as you traveled anywhere. Due to this latter instance, it is improbable - and indeed exceedingly unlikely - that the time turners were destroyed in a "forever" kind of way. Some sort of time magic would have to be discovered eventually to "reacquire" the stuff into normal-time locality, whereupon it could be either unwoven, or redistributed into proper devices.
Finally, it seems excessively unlikely that they were all stored at the same time and in the same place - the ministry may well have been incompetent in many ways, but they are not entirely made of fools, and there are plenty of secret-keepers and Black Ops-style sub-government agencies that are technically legal (most of the time) while doing things that are technically illegal (for most other than themselves; again, most of the time). The Aurors were some of these, meaning that it was likely at least a few had been squirreled away in their offices.
So, that's the MacGuffin that we used.
Time travel is a really, really sticky wicket to get into.
Before doing anything with it, I had player buy-in with the concept of "invisible rails" (though she didn't know anything specific, and was quite surprised by the time travel when it came up later). Beyond that, I only had one player. Each additional player adds a surprisingly spiked increase to the chaos of a well-ordered GM plan. The character was also exceedingly intelligent, and almost militantly "lawful" (though we effectively excised alignment, as we had none of the spells or other elements that interacted with it present within the game).
Players: this is really important. Be prepared to work with your GM, not against them.
So!
All that set, I arranged a seemingly unrelated, but important-seeming mystery: the disappearance of a number of human wizards (males) who fit a particular (and peculiar) profile.
In the course of investigation, one portkey later, and they were left in the middle of a field near a barn. Together, they investigated, and she was introduced to a conspiracy run by Veela to kidnap the males, do something to them to put them in a permanent daze, and send them backwards in time.
This was when the time travel mechanic was first introduced: she opened the packet she was given, and it included a time turner and some basic instructions. Those followed, she was able to use the device both to escape some traps and also be in "cell" (room to stay in) during the appropriate times she needed to be.
She first went a few months back in time, to learn the gist of the local conspiracy, but was forced to go back through time via her time turner a couple of hundred years, where she used a Port Key to head over to Bulgaria - a time and place where similar disappearances had occurred in history.
The two parts above, with the barn and the field were the most recursive "groundhog day"-esque portions, as she had to continually go back in time to prevent herself from making mistakes, by leaving clues for herself to find, as well as avoiding being caught in traps (by going back in time to when no one was present at that point). I worked with the player, using her character's intelligence to notice things and figure out plans that aided with, but didn't alter the narrative we'd already come up with.
Eventually, after being believed to be part of the enemy (and put into a minor leadership position due to her natural beauty and genius**), the lot were "shipped" (via portkey) from one underground temple (which was used as a site of returning backwards in time) to another temple with eternal sands flowing down, and back up* with haunting music forever repeating.
There she and her friends fought "the Dragon" - a devilish entity of extreme power, sentience, and wizardry - with a combination of machine guns, magic, and ritual subversion. After successfully killing it (which was not easy), they altered the ritual it was going to perform into the ritual it did perform, allowing for the first generation of both Veela and Succubi to form (she was, by necessity, part of the ritual). The rest of the kidnapped people were either allowed to live their life out in the new, local time (as, after all, they already had, if they'd chosen to do so) or placed in a kind of temporal stasis to await their "home time"; while the PC in question (who'd also gone through the ritual and, by default, had become the queen/first of the succubi***) lived through the ages to guard the sleepers and guide the new succubi (who would give birth to Veela, and so on).
Eventually, after centuries of secrecy, she revealed her presence and identity to the Auror office (after the battles with that awful Voldemordt were over), and informed them of the importance of a new young student who just joined Ravenclaw, and a mission she'd need to be sent on in a few years...
... and that's that.
*
**
***
Much shorter and less information than last time, but... not as clear. Ah, well. That's about what I've got time for today! :D
(Unless, as my wife mentions, that only applies to homosexual couples, in which case, uh... I don't know what it's called. But it's "clean" enough and I wanted to share with you guys!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Unless, as my wife mentions, that only applies to homosexual couples, in which case, uh... I don't know what it's called. But it's "clean" enough and I wanted to share with you guys!)
Hey! You can't just link to that thing on both your thread and Ashiel's thread with the same message! Comment bonuses from the same source don't stack!
OOC: Nyahahahahahah~! The rules don't apply to me, I'm mythic~!
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel: I'm not sure how to tell you this, but...you've been voted off the island.
Evocation: What? What do you mean? I'm fireball!
Ashiel: Well, see, that's kind of it. That's pretty much all you are, and you're not very good at it. See, there's a shocking amount of overlap with you and conjuration (creation), and conjuration (creation) doesn't get blocked by magic resistance, which is one of the big reasons why blasting kinda sucks.
Evocation: B-but, I've got...uhh, force effects!
Ashiel: And so does abjuration, and...conjuration does too. Remember mage armor?
Evocation: Well, uhhh, how about [light] and [darkness] spells? I got those, right?
Ashiel: Yes, but not for long. See, you didn't have any subschools or anything that defines you or what you do, and it seems like light and darkness spells should probably go into the Illusion school which is actually known for making shimmering patterns and things like colorspray and major image while also having an entire subschool literally dedicated to shadows.
Evocation: But...I'm...I'm a sacred cow!
Ashiel: Technically, you're a sacred cow like Alteration was.
Evocation: Alter-who?
Ashiel: Exactly, though Alteration was kind of Transmutation's older brother. Don't worry though, fireball will carry on without you.
Evocation: Oh, geeze. And here I laughed and made fun of Necromancy when they took all her healing spells away moving into 3E.
Ashiel: Yeah...about that.
Evocation: Wait, wha---?
Necromancy: Heeeey! Heal. Check this out! Raise dead! They gave me back the life part of my dominion over life and death!
Evocation: Oh for crying out loud, what are you going to tell me next? That you and Divination are dating.
Speak With Dead Mama!
Evocation: ...That's it, I'm out! I'm going to go find a game where elves and dwarves are their own classes and have level limits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I take it all of Evocations schticks are going into Conjuration then. Boy, Conjuration best school, you get to blow s*%@ up AND call in friends AND control the field.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I take it all of Evocations schticks are going into Conjuration then. Boy, Conjuration best school, you get to blow s!$# up AND call in friends AND control the field.
That's not far off, really. Conjuration lost all the healing stuff but gained the blasting stuff (which it already had some blasty stuff like acid arrow, acid fog, incendiary cloud, and more stuff outside of core, like corrosive touch, and snowball).
Though some of evocation's shticks are getting subsumed into other schools, like illusion (for light/dark spells), or universal (such as contingency, though I'm thinking of tweaking abjuration a bit to place contingency into it based on wards/triggers).
A number of spells are going to be shared across multiple schools. For example, speak with dead is both a divination and a necromancy spell.
While I realize that conjuration is already considered one of the better schools of magic, evocation has little to nothing to justify it's existence (it's description can be summarized as "evocation is magic").
However, since we currently have no intention for preventing people from drawing from all the schools when building their characters, the issue of having some schools being more or less niche than another is greatly diminished. Further, given the variance between the different subschools of conjuration, I don't really see many instances where the breadth of the school would pose a huge advantage since feats and specializations that improve a certain aspect of that school would have little use in other aspects of the school (augment summoning would do little for anyone intent on throwing fireballs, and a feat that gives bonuses to overcoming defenses with your blasts would likewise have little use to a summoner).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Ashiel: And while we're talking, ummm... I don't know how to tell you this...
Evocation: Now what, oh harbinger of ill news!
Ashiel: You used to have a twin named Invocation...he died during 3.0 birth.
Evocation: !! <slams door on way out>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So necromancy regains the ability to make a corpse ineligible as a target for Speak With Dead (by regaining Raise Dead)...is Speak With Dead moving to Divination, or staying in Necromancy?
Evocation: Oh for crying out loud, what are you going to tell me next? That you and Divination are dating.Speak With Dead Mama!
It actually falls into both schools (schools are kind of like super descriptors now).
Let's say some feature of yours lets you learn/ready a divination or a necromancy spell. Speak with dead is a legal choice for either option, because it's both a Divination and a Necromancy spell.
Similarly, some of those iconic spells that never quite seemed right in terms of what schools they fell into (abjuration is about shields, wards, and protective magics, but mage armor was conjuration) will simply be dual-schooled. Mage armor being another example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well actually Augment Summoning does make your blasts better! Because you need Spell Focus Conjuration to use it. :3
|
Ashiel: I'm not sure how to tell you this, but...you've been voted off the island.
Evocation: What? What do you mean? I'm fireball!
Ashiel: Well, see, that's kind of it. That's pretty much all you are, and you're not very good at it. See, there's a shocking amount of overlap with you and conjuration (creation), and conjuration (creation) doesn't get blocked by magic resistance, which is one of the big reasons why
*Somewhere a needle drags along a broad vinyl disc spinning at thirty-three rotations per minute.*
Evocation: B-but, I've got...uhh, force effects!
Ashiel: And so does abjuration, and...conjuration does too. Remember mage armor?
In a blast of lightning Natula appears and shoves that milksop Evocation out of the way and tells it to "Shut the Nine Hells up!"
Natula: (with more vocal fry than choir singing in a burning tenement) Mage armor is a force affectation not an effect.
Evocation: Well, uhhh, how about [light] and [darkness] spells? I got those, right?
Natula: Did I say you could open your magic mouth?
Ashiel: Yes, but not for long. See, you didn't have any subschools or anything that defines you or what you do, and it seems like light and darkness spells should probably go into the Illusion school which is actually known for making shimmering patterns and things like colorspray and major image while also having an entire subschool literally dedicated to shadows.
Natula: Illusion? Really? Does that school even exist?
Evocation: But...I'm...I'm a sacred cow!
Natula: You're going to be a well-done hamburger if you don't keep quiet.
Ashiel: Technically, you're a sacred cow like Alteration was.
Natula: I guess we're going for a double cheeseburger here.
Evocation: Alter-who?
Natula: That's it!
Ashiel: Exactly, though Alteration was kind of Transmutation's older brother. Don't worry though, fireball will carry on without you.
Natula: Damn straight it will. Azarath Metrion Zinthos!
*Natula atomizes the conversation, leaving this portion of the messageboard a smooth featureless reflective plain. (Turn off you monitor or phone for the full effect.)*
Natula: Damn. I killed Necromancy too. Oh well, never had much use for it myself. Hmm, maybe now's the time to melt Transmutation down to size. I'm always baffled how it gets away with all the crap it pulls.
One blast of lightning later and Natula is gone.
Divination: (poking its head in slyly) Well, I never saw that coming. I guess I'll have to adopt speak with dead. Heheheheheh.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why not make 'blasting' not 'suck'?
That's in the works, actually. However a lot of it is going to be less in the form of "moar damage" in a direct damage sense. For example, one could theoretically just up the damage of things like fireball and improve blasting, but that doesn't actually change the general reasons why blasting is pretty bad for PCs unless you're more or less one-shotting enemies and at that point blasting is just too strong.
Blasting Now vs When
For example, even in core Pathfinder, where blasting is pretty "meh", it can very quickly become frightening in the hands of NPCs where it becomes a very consistent form of damage and gets very frightening when you're dealing with mixed groups of NPCs rather than a single foe.
For example, a trio of 5th level wizards are only CR 7. However, dealing with multiple instances of 5d6 save for half pushes damage really hard really fast (that's about 21.25 damage per round assuming saves are made, which can very rapidly tear up a party). If we did something like raise the damage of blasting to +2/die or 5d6+10 or something, it's very likely that a number of PCs would simply die in the first round or two even if their saves were made unless they currently were heavily resistant to fire.
So what we're generally looking at is most blasting spells will come with kicker effects that don't generally stack with multiple castings of the spell (preventing grouped NPCs from having a huge action economy advantage vs PCs) but also make the spell more useful overall.
Currently, we're looking at having most blasting spells apply certain effects along with their damage, such as melting the ground or making a sheet of ice, or setting enemies on fire, or slowing their movement, or causing them to convulse with electric shocks, or creating thick clouds of smoke and cinders, and stuff like that.
Essentially, most blasting will have a much greater presence in the game than "I cast a spell and roll some fire damage and the spell is done", rather "I cast a spell and roll some fire damage, the ground sizzles and melts into a layer of molten sand, thick smoke chokes the air and burns your eyes, and some of those in the blast are covered in flames that need to be doused or they'll soon die".
Martials will be the quintessential kings of damage dealing. You'll probably never out-damage a martial in terms of laying on hurt unless you're comparing total damage done vs a lot of enemies in an AoE or something, but your blasts will have a commanding presence that makes them difficult to ignore and do things that will make them very appreciated by your team.
But blasting is getting a radical overhaul.
Evocation as a school
Evocation just doesn't really add anything to the game. Here's the description for Evocation in the magic chapter.
Evocation
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
Okay, so let's break this down. The first sentence just describes magic and has nothing to do with the school. The second sentence actually describes the Conjuration (creation) subschool. The third sentence can be summarized as "causes flashy damage". That's not enough to warrant the school's existence.
So rather than make a redundant school that is primarily known for just being "blasty" more of a thing, we'd rather work with the schools that actually have a reasonable presence. There's already so much overlap with conjuration in terms of dealing energy damage and intended manipulations (such as smoke, steam, fog, etc) that that it's a natural fit (likewise, creating a ball of fire and hurling it seems pretty 'creation' to us). It also stealth-buffs it in the sense that blasting will be more reliable (being {creation} effects means they ignore magic resistance, which means that the fire you create is essentially real and can do things like burn golems even when other magics are useless).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evocation: Dispelling things for as long as opposing wizards have had bad reflex saves.
Evocation: Counterspelling things for as long as opposing wizards have had terrible hit points.
As an aside, blasting spells tend to make darn good counterspell options, to be sure. So much so in fact that actual counterspelling, while cool in theory, is far too limited and overshadowed by the fact that it's a lot more efficient to just shove a lightning bolt into the wizard's nervous system. :P
That said, I've never seen evocation actually dispel anything, unless the goal was "kill something currently under the effects of a buff" or something to that extent. I might be overlooking something though... o_o
Just make all blasty DD spells on work on a roll to hit, let AC sort it out.
AOE spells can be pretty easily avoided though, by early-mid level.
Are you reworking DC or save calculations?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just make all blasty DD spells on work on a roll to hit, let AC sort it out.
AOE spells can be pretty easily avoided though, by early-mid level.
Well, to be clear, I don't think that blasting spells doing "chip damage" is a bad thing. It definitely has its place in combat, especially at high levels and adds enhanced value to things like resist energy (because spells like resist energy are a hard counter to tons of elemental chip damage, while things like spell immunity are the counter against things like unholy blight spam from fiends).
Merely that, when designing blasting spells we feel the answer is not more dakka (blasphemous as that may be). In Regular D&D/Pathfinder, there is precious little difference between cone of cold and fireball, save for whether or not your foe was more or less resistant to frost or fire. We'd like to make the abilities more interesting to play around with as a whole and by giving them small kicker effects that can be achieved.
Are you reworking DC or save calculations?
Not a whole lot. The biggest difference is that saves are treated more like Armor Class now, and there is no class-based defense bonuses to specific saves (instead, all saves are now a base amount + ability modifier + 1/2 your level). Essentially there's no defense that's so weak at 20th level that you're lagging behind by 30% chance of failure (a bit of a nerf to casters but they'll be okay :P).
As to the DC, our current projection is making DCs for most abilities (including spells) scale at +1/2 level + ability modifier (similar to how monster abilities, like breath weapons, do). There's a few reasons for this:
1. It keeps 3/4 and 1/2 casters relevant for things other than buffing. Page through the Paladin's spell list and despair at the number of cool spells they get that are negated or made useless by a successful save, as you realize that Paladins (save for a special archetype) will never have saves that are relevant.
2. It makes it easier in terms of bookkeeping (which is nice for players AND GMs), and it also helps newbies learn a bit easier as well (your have one magic attack bonus that scales with your level, rather than having 10+ different save DCs for different spell levels), and it also saves a fair amount of print-space on statblocks since you don't need to list save DCs next to each spell unless they're affected by a feat or something (this is minor but it's still a perk).
This is essentially a buff to low-level spells at high levels since things like fireball or charm person will keep relevant save DCs, though due to action economy cost vs reward, you'll likely still see PCs favoring their high level guns when not sweeping trash mobs.
3. Many offensive spells will have varying degrees of power relative to your target's defenses. The game is designed so that level advantage is a pretty big deal, and when you exceed the defenses of something by a large margin with your spell or ability, you'll often get a stronger effect.
For example, if you were using cone of cold, against someone with a strong Reflex defense (e.g. level appropriate) then you'll probably deal some cold damage and maybe apply an irritating penalty (such as a penalty to attacks and speed for being chilled), but you might turn the BBEG's mooks into popsicles (freezing them solid and helpless for a few rounds, allowing for Sub Zero style shattering sprees) because your magic attack bonus crushes their Reflex so utterly.
That sounds good.
I've noticed that for alot of spells like Paladins or Inquisitor spells, it's usually not that difficult to save against their spells for a level appropriate creature. So then you wonder, are they only good against mooks? Was that the intention? I don't want to have to depend on the opponent rolling a 1 to use my class abilities :P
Blasting is similar, as you've noted, in the sense that most BBEGs are going to slough off your damaging spells, and maybe take reduced damage after save due to resistances. I loved the warmage from 3.5, so you can see why there was a wee bit of a sore spot. Course, adding INT to damage really helped offset some of those defenses...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have my way, blasting will be a...well, blast. It should not only be effective but feel a lot more "epic" in usage. Especially with the mid to high level blasting spells (basically fireball+).
Blasting has been kind of lagging behind a lot of other spells for a while now. I'd like to bring it up a bit. Rather than just pushing more damage, we'll be seeing blasting spells that have more debuffs, DoTs, or battlefield control elements in addition to simply dealing damage.
(^_^)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have my way, blasting will be a...well, blast. It should not only be effective but feel a lot more "epic" in usage. Especially with the mid to high level blasting spells (basically fireball+).
Blasting has been kind of lagging behind a lot of other spells for a while now. I'd like to bring it up a bit. Rather than just pushing more damage, we'll be seeing blasting spells that have more debuffs, DoTs, or battlefield control elements in addition to simply dealing damage.
(^_^)
Yeah, that's kind.d of the only real way to play a blaster right now unless you build your entire character to boost damage. Like the crossblooded sorcerer with orc/elemental bloodline and goblin fire drums etc.
Best blaster I've ever seen in play was an eleven wizard I played. She was built specifically to specialize in fireballs with the admixture evocation school, eleven FCB, two traits to reduce metamagic costs on fireball, rime/dazing spell and the ability to spontaneously cast fireball via preferred spell/spell perfection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice build! I've seen similar with orcs because of racial traits and such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have my way, blasting will be a...well, blast. It should not only be effective but feel a lot more "epic" in usage. Especially with the mid to high level blasting spells (basically fireball+).
Blasting has been kind of lagging behind a lot of other spells for a while now. I'd like to bring it up a bit. Rather than just pushing more damage, we'll be seeing blasting spells that have more debuffs, DoTs, or battlefield control elements in addition to simply dealing damage.
(^_^)
Good, then maybe I can resurrect my warmage ;)
He was hella fun, king of damage and battlefield control.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have my way, blasting will be a...well, blast. It should not only be effective but feel a lot more "epic" in usage. Especially with the mid to high level blasting spells (basically fireball+).
Blasting has been kind of lagging behind a lot of other spells for a while now. I'd like to bring it up a bit. Rather than just pushing more damage, we'll be seeing blasting spells that have more debuffs, DoTs, or battlefield control elements in addition to simply dealing damage.
(^_^)
Good, then maybe I can resurrect my warmage ;)
He was hella fun, king of damage and battlefield control.
Well, one thing my friend Jay (ArcaneIntellect on the forums, IIRC) has really liked about some of the pre-alpha tabletop demos of some of the mechanics is how BAB and magic can interact.
He was playing a rather martially inclined hybrid character (kind of a bard/cleric/druid thing, but without actually being a druid, more in just he took a bunch of spells typically known for druids like produce flame and flame blade) who primarily existed as a party buffer (bards fawkin' rawkin' at that).
However, he was pleasantly surprised that his "librarian" was actually really good in combat. See, she wasn't very strong but the bonus damage from her +6 BAB applied to anything she was making attack rolls with (including spells), and she got to apply her Dex to hit/damage w/ touch attacks / light weapons. So when she popped flame blade, she would be spinnin' the blade around for surprisingly robust damage, and her little produce flame shots were dealing 1d6+5+2d6 damage.
She and one of the party's two rogues ended up fighting a group of goblins and some elite ogres (ogres w/ levels and some classes, essentially). When one of the ogres came up to her, she declared him her smite target and proceeded to Jedi-duel him with her flame blade and took him out.
The long and short of it is, there are a few new options for building martial-mages. Especially since they can combine the martial prowess with certain spells (pretty much any spell requiring attack rolls) and get a bigger bang out of it. Scorching ray would hurt a hell of a lot more in the hands of a character who's a highly skilled martial (for example, at +6 BAB, you get +2d6 bonus damage on attacks, so if you lobbed a scorching ray at someone, each ray would get +2d6 damage because you're just damn good at using them).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the party bypassed a significant portion of your campaign (i.e. killed the BBEG during his first appearance, when he is just supposed to scare the party with his awesome power) by using a clever solution to the problem (wherever a creative use of tools at their disposal, an interesting build decision or something else), and that solution was 100% legal and in-character, what would you do?
Would you allow it? If yes, would you then make this particular solution unviable later on? If yes again, would it be through various bans or through different encounter/campaign design?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the party bypassed a significant portion of your campaign (i.e. killed the BBEG during his first appearance, when he is just supposed to scare the party with his awesome power) by using a clever solution to the problem (wherever a creative use of tools at their disposal, an interesting build decision or something else), and that solution was 100% legal and in-character, what would you do?
Would you allow it? If yes, would you then make this particular solution unviable later on? If yes again, would it be through various bans or through different encounter/campaign design?
While I know I'm not Ashiel, I figure it doesn't hurt to give what I do while he writes up his (probably better) ideas!
This just happened in a game we're playing at present.
The short version is that, exactly like you, I had the main "boss" of the entire series of adventures show up (after a fashion*), just to terrify the player with, "Wow, that's big; we need to get ourselves enough power to overcome that!" and to set the tone right for the rest of the game. They assaulted the portal she'd opened, pulled a fast-one based on the rules I'd just introduced to them to destroy the portal* and, as a side effect via random chance, got sucked into the boss battle. Though it was a hard, grueling battle (all but three were entirely taken down, two of which died by the end**; and practically all of their minions were destroyed), they not only took down the "first" main boss***, but then killed the "second" main boss****. And that was it - that was the main bad guy I'd set up for a whole series of adventures, and they'd taken her/them down thoroughly and irrevocably.
So, as I do in most such situations, I rolled with it. The leveled and gained power and ludicrous amounts of wealth, but were stuck far from the Empire they called home. Now they have to go about cleaning up the messes the boss created locally and abroad, and finish the other missions originally given to them. That's an adventure in and of itself!
* Really, it was just her magical portal-carriage that allowed her to send literal armies wherever she wanted.
** Sort of. Well, they died, but they got better.
*** A powerful reality-bending creature without a soul. They did so by... displacing the demon that was acting as her soul with the soul of one of the PCs. Shouldn't have ever succeeded, but the boss botched the roll with those sweet, sweet nat 1s.
**** A physical demon that could (and probably would) down them in a single blow, when successful.
When you're running an AP, I find the rails to be harder to bend, sometimes.
At one point, I was running Council of Thieves and the PCs had gained the power to not only defeat one of the bosses, but turn said entity over to their side. I honestly couldn't come up with a method of either saying no in-character, or progressing the AP as-written - it would have destroyed the whole story*.
I had to sit and talk with the players and let them know that the AP was either finished, or ask for an alternate strategy, because, honestly, I just couldn't run the rest of the pre-written AP if they did that.
Eventually, they came up with an alternate strategy, but it was massively unsatisfying for all involved.
The AP went on hiatus for about a year almost immediately thereafter due to general business, and somewhere in there I had an epiphany: I knew exactly how to progress it, even if they'd seduced the boss to their side, and to make it even more epic, powerful, and difficult.
Eventually we got back together, and I explained what I'd been able to learn/accomplish. This was much more satisfying to pretty much everyone, and we all agreed to retcon the previous as an illusory demonstration (a simulation, as it were) that was snuck into the boss' brain of one more reason as to why it was better to ally with the PCs than oppose them (and cementing loyalty, as the boss knew what would happen, if it ever betrayed them).
I then started pulling the boss' connections into the AP as a side-story, making the PCs have to politically negotiate things with that character's allies, and using the Boss for that purpose, while still running the AP as-written... made for a much more dynamic and powerful experience for everyone!
... but I was only able to run it after a break, and after I was able to shake off my preconceived notions of how the AP was supposed to run. Without that epiphany, we'd have always had that unsatisfying black mark in our gaming experience.
* As you'll see, that was a fault of mine, not the fault of the AP, which actually does have wiggle room for things like that within it.
Those are both examples of my own actual experience, however. Tables vary, and Ashiel seems like he's usually a better GM over-all, so... take that as you will! Hope that helps (or feel free to ignore it, if you like)! :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the party bypassed a significant portion of your campaign (i.e. killed the BBEG during his first appearance, when he is just supposed to scare the party with his awesome power) by using a clever solution to the problem (wherever a creative use of tools at their disposal, an interesting build decision or something else), and that solution was 100% legal and in-character, what would you do?
Make a new BBEG. :P
Would you allow it?
I don't see why not.
If yes, would you then make this particular solution unviable later on?
If it was rules legal but an exploit of a loophole or oversight, I'd probably talk it over with the group and come to a compromise. For example, back in 3.5, my friends obtained a method to get wish as a spell-like ability (which ignores components). In 3.5, wish could be used to create magic items but increased the component cost based on the value of the items, so this meant they could wish for more or less anything.
We discussed it for a bit and I met them in the middle. I opted to allow the wish thing to be used, but we modified wish so that you couldn't wish for magic items like that.
However, if it was something like the party's cleric cast death ward on somebody and they proceeded to rip the BBEG apart with a life-drinker or something...no, not at all. That's just good play (this is actually how they killed the BBEG of the campaign, which is a funny story).
If yes again, would it be through various bans or through different encounter/campaign design?
Mostly situational. Some things I've outright banned (like aroden's spellbane and Antagonize) but generally it'll fall into two cases.
1. It's something that was something you could rationally, reasonably prepare for. So I just have them act accordingly in the future (such as not bunching up too closely in a world where fireballs are common), which is more or less about the GM learning more about fantasy life versus reality.
2. It's something that just happens to be really strong in a given situation (such as a life drinker vs most melee beasts without magical support). In which case...well, the party just has a really good tactic against a certain set of enemies. I'll let them enjoy the tactic. It's no fun to get something like charm animal and then never see any more animals because you charmed the big bad's gator into eating him, or meeting tons of fire-retardant enemies because you happened to nuke your way through the last adventure with various combinations of scorching ray, fireball, and flamestrike.
Wish as a SLA? On a PC? I...I can't even. How do you even balance around that without making the ability useless?
On an unrelated note, what are your recommendations for getting into character?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have my way, blasting will be a...well, blast. It should not only be effective but feel a lot more "epic" in usage. Especially with the mid to high level blasting spells (basically fireball+).
Blasting has been kind of lagging behind a lot of other spells for a while now. I'd like to bring it up a bit. Rather than just pushing more damage, we'll be seeing blasting spells that have more debuffs, DoTs, or battlefield control elements in addition to simply dealing damage.
(^_^)
Good, then maybe I can resurrect my warmage ;)
He was hella fun, king of damage and battlefield control.
Well, one thing my friend Jay (ArcaneIntellect on the forums, IIRC) has really liked about some of the pre-alpha tabletop demos of some of the mechanics is how BAB and magic can interact.
He was playing a rather martially inclined hybrid character (kind of a bard/cleric/druid thing, but without actually being a druid, more in just he took a bunch of spells typically known for druids like produce flame and flame blade) who primarily existed as a party buffer (bards fawkin' rawkin' at that).
However, he was pleasantly surprised that his "librarian" was actually really good in combat. See, she wasn't very strong but the bonus damage from her +6 BAB applied to anything she was making attack rolls with (including spells), and she got to apply her Dex to hit/damage w/ touch attacks / light weapons. So when she popped flame blade, she would be spinnin' the blade around for surprisingly robust damage, and her little produce flame shots were dealing 1d6+5+2d6 damage.
She and one of the party's two rogues ended up fighting a group of goblins and some elite ogres (ogres w/ levels and some classes, essentially). When one of the ogres came up to her, she declared him her smite target and proceeded to Jedi-duel him with her flame blade and took him out.
The long and short of it is, there are a few new options for building...
That sounds fantastic. Do primary casters get a bonus? Seems they should do more damage than a dabbler?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wish as a SLA? On a PC? I...I can't even. How do you even balance around that without making the ability useless?
There were a few ways to get wish as a SLA in 3.5, but the easiest way was planar binding, which was a rather simple way to get access to a SLA-wish.
Wish has been nerfed to hell and back by comparison to those days though. Miracle is the heavyweight of the two now, because the main reasons you'd want to use either spell doesn't come with a 25,000 gp price tag w/ miracle.
On an unrelated note, what are your recommendations for getting into character?
I think it varies from person to person, but for me, I usually have to kind of "meet the character" initially. I'll have a general idea for the character when I start out, but I've found that the imagined character and the character at the table often have subtle differences or grow in ways you didn't expect. Sometimes they'll develop a personality quirk you hadn't planned.
Because of this, when designing a character now, I try to keep a bit of room to grow. I'll usually have a basic concept or outline, a couple of details such as contacts/family, and build on the rest (sometimes with improvisation) as the game goes on. Which actually works pretty well, 'cause most people don't display their life stories within moments of coming together.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds fantastic. Do primary casters get a bonus? Seems they should do more damage than a dabbler?
They get other benefits, such as faster spell access, and they do get a bonus when their BAB reaches certain values, just like everyone else.
The thing is, this particular bonus is based on how skilled your character is at maximizing their damage with weapon-based attacks. When a high BAB caster casts scorching ray and deals extra damage with it, it's not because he's casting a stronger scorching ray spell than his more sagely peers, it's that he's levering his ability to aim and wield that ray to greater effect.
It's kind of like, anyone can swing a sword, but that doesn't make anyone a swordsman. The same character wouldn't get that bonus damage on spells that aren't skill-related (such as fireball or lightning bolt), but would get that bonus with combat-spells like shocking grasp, chill touch, flame blade, scorching ray, ray of frost, and any other spell that uses attack rolls.
This is kind of cool, I think, because it allows more martially oriented casters to leverage their low-level spells more effectively by being more martially inclined, while full casters receive less bonuses in that regard but get more spells/higher-level spells and have quicker access to spells that don't use attack rolls.
Have you ever had a moment like the second spoiler of mine above?
If so, what was it about? Why? How did you handle it?
Ever have a GM that did the same? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds fantastic. Do primary casters get a bonus? Seems they should do more damage than a dabbler?They get other benefits, such as faster spell access, and they do get a bonus when their BAB reaches certain values, just like everyone else.
The thing is, this particular bonus is based on how skilled your character is at maximizing their damage with weapon-based attacks. When a high BAB caster casts scorching ray and deals extra damage with it, it's not because he's casting a stronger scorching ray spell than his more sagely peers, it's that he's levering his ability to aim and wield that ray to greater effect.
It's kind of like, anyone can swing a sword, but that doesn't make anyone a swordsman. The same character wouldn't get that bonus damage on spells that aren't skill-related (such as fireball or lightning bolt), but would get that bonus with combat-spells like shocking grasp, chill touch, flame blade, scorching ray, ray of frost, and any other spell that uses attack rolls.
This is kind of cool, I think, because it allows more martially oriented casters to leverage their low-level spells more effectively by being more martially inclined, while full casters receive less bonuses in that regard but get more spells/higher-level spells and have quicker access to spells that don't use attack rolls.
Ahh, yeah that makes sense. I have to remind myself these characters won't be as married to classes as traditional d20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I generally see APs as more like really grand suggestions. In virtually every AP I've ever been involved with, there's been some heavy tweaking at points. Mostly 'cause I'm really not into rails.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, Council of Thieves. I enjoyed it, shockingly as a fighter into Hellknight. It might be the only adventure a fighter might work because 90% of your enemies are Rogues. Go figure huh? And for everything else, Hellknight. No I wasn't that aware that fighter had issues at the time. My DM became aware of why I was doing good though. So he turned my armor into a bomb. Turns out I was never actually a Hellknight. It was a trick. And my armor was a scry beacon/bomb. I'm not actually sure why it was a trick or what was to be gained from it, but yeah. So I became estranged from the group cus I didn't want to give up the armor and had to let some devils be kinda dickish but not outright monstrous evil to some nobles or they'd blow up my armor. Cus rogues couldn't hit me.
Also we won the campaign by the summoner rolling diplomacy against the final boss and convincing him to abandon his plot. Cus evidently I was so overpowering that any fight would have ended shortly.
So once those happened, it left a bad taste in my mouth kind of. Second time I came very close to quitting a campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, Icehawk. Just wow. Do you need a hug? <(Q_Q)>
Wow, Icehawk. Just wow. Do you need a hug? <(Q_Q)>
Seconded!
CoT was a pretty great AP for us, over-all (though it could really have benefitted from Vigilantes, and the last three adventures should really have been in a different order from the get-go).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the worst example of encounter design you have ever seen(i.e. how not to design encounters)? Best example?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the worst example of encounter design you have ever seen(i.e. how not to design encounters)? Best example?
Better yet, do a homebrew best and worst and a published best and worst.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, Icehawk. Just wow. Do you need a hug? <(Q_Q)>
Eh it's been a few years so I'm over it, but it's stuff like that that really get's me. I'll save the horror stories of curse of the Crimson Throne for another day.
What is the worst example of encounter design you have ever seen(i.e. how not to design encounters)? Best example?
Personally, I've not seen that many great ones. Most AP battles are essentially slog fests or stomps against solo enemies. Or BBEG's that are so out of your league and you need story reasons for them to be in beatable ranges
I'm vague but this is one AP sorta deal that irks me but it does relate to actual in campaign stuff so click own risk etc.
I'm kinda struggling to get a best or worse encounter though because they've all been pretty forgettable for me. Not that I've a good memory to begin with, but it is kinda telling that they've so little impacts on me. Hm.
I think my favorite was the final portion of the first book of Kingmaker.
Worst published encounter, ehhh... Every time they set us against a solo bbeg? The one time the BBEG was a fighter? That lasted all of 3 rounds. Hm... Back in 3.5 in Rise of the Runelords, which had it's fair share of TPK machines, the one that irked me the msot was a stone giant wizard. By my metrics he should have been worth way more exp than he was. I got in a big argument with the dm about how it's fair cus he's not as strong physically as most giants, to which I point out while yes giants do not make dc destroying spells, his being a wizard means his str is irrelevant (and still higher than most of ours) and he wasn't using many spells with saves ANYWAYS. Personally I don't think wizard should be a non associated class to any monster role. It's not stat dependent enough to care beyond negative scores.
Best Homebrew... Gonna be honest, I've got nothing.
The very worst... Mmmf. Well I wasn't there for that one but I heard all about it. It was homebrewed.
Ashiel: I'm running a drow-themed game (different system) and need a male version of a concubine. I found out, to my surprise, that concubine is explicitly a female term. After looking around a bit, the best I could kludge together was "concubare" - but what about you? Got a better term?
(Similarly, "harem" seems to be explicitly female, even though all it really means is "forbidden place"... so far, I've just left that one as-is.)
EDIT: Oh, come on. How could I have misspelled Ashiel's name? Stupid dyslexia... >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Concubinus was the male version.
Concubinus was the male version.
Hm... sounds... "heavy" for a drow thing. Maybe, though...
Thanks! Where is this? Do you have a link? :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concubinus was the male version.Hm... sounds... "heavy" for a drow thing. Maybe, though...
Thanks! Where is this? Do you have a link? :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage#Ancient_Roman_concubinae_and_conc ubini
linkyConcubinus was the male version.Hm... sounds... "heavy" for a drow thing. Maybe, though...
Thanks! Where is this? Do you have a link? :D
Thanks!
Looking at it, "concubinus" is compared to "concubina" - that extra "a" on the end sounds just as "off" for a drow/elven/etc "style" as the "us" does, to my ear (as well as weird for modern variants).
Of course, I could just call them "incubi" (and the females "succubi") - that has a very "drow" feeling to it -, but I'm looking for a different sound.
Still, thank you very, very much! I really appreciate it! Good find, Icehawk!
Ashiel: I'm running a drow-themed game (different system) and need a male version of a concubine. I found out, to my surprise, that concubine is explicitly a female term. After looking around a bit, the best I could kludge together was "concubare" - but what about you? Got a better term?
(Similarly, "harem" seems to be explicitly female, even though all it really means is "forbidden place"... so far, I've just left that one as-is.)
EDIT: Oh, come on. How could I have misspelled Ashiel's name? Stupid dyslexia... >.>
It almost sounds too nice to have drow refer to their male sex slaves as concubines or concubinus, or anything so technical. I'd actually expect something more harsh and degrading, maybe even moreso than calling them their whores or something.
I'm not sure what that explicitly would be, but from what I gathered reading Homeland, I get the distinct impression that a lot of them probably enjoy rubbing in the fact that they're both beneath them and wholly possessed by them, whenever possible.
What is the worst example of encounter design you have ever seen(i.e. how not to design encounters)? Best example?Better yet, do a homebrew best and worst and a published best and worst.
I'll think about it and post something this evening. ^-^
Ashiel: I'm running a drow-themed game (different system) and need a male version of a concubine. I found out, to my surprise, that concubine is explicitly a female term. After looking around a bit, the best I could kludge together was "concubare" - but what about you? Got a better term?
(Similarly, "harem" seems to be explicitly female, even though all it really means is "forbidden place"... so far, I've just left that one as-is.)
EDIT: Oh, come on. How could I have misspelled Ashiel's name? Stupid dyslexia... >.>
It almost sounds too nice to have drow refer to their male sex slaves as concubines or concubinus, or anything so technical. I'd actually expect something more harsh and degrading, maybe even moreso than calling them their whores or something.
I'm not sure what that explicitly would be, but from what I gathered reading Homeland, I get the distinct impression that a lot of them probably enjoy rubbing in the fact that they're both beneath them and wholly possessed by them, whenever possible.
Hah! Fair enough. My drow are... not like those drow.
(Different system, different world.)
Thank you, though! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consort might work too...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Ashiel, just wanted to let you know that I started a game recently with your skill casting system, with a few changes.