"OR! because you're resisting the spell and the spell targets your physiology to cause pain, it's a fort save to, you know, resist the spell and rest of that stuff you want the spell to do is a subsystem or would be additional effects of the spell potentially allowing for another save similar to phantasmal killer and weird."
If the spell could actually fail because your physiology, then sure, but the spell failing because your physiology doesn't make sense unless you have resistance to magic, but that wouldn't really be physical and anyway, such resistance is already handled by SR. Besides, even if your fort save failed to prevent the spell from affecting you (I wouldn't even begin to know how a fort save could work without breaking the established functionality of spells), you'd still need to make a will save to overcome the pain so you can actually take action despite the pain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pg 53.Wait, what? I'm confused, what book are ya talking about, and what's on page 53?
TS often gets pulled away from the forums for a period of time and has to play catch up in his threads. If I had to hazard a guess, he quoted my post, and posted the page number, so he could come back later and know where to pick up from again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dumb idea sparked by Pokemon: Pathfinder Go app.
You and others walk around with as PCs. You will randomly come across encounters that will be generated based off the number of people in the encounter area. Have quests giver NPCs spawn around town that send you to different locations to solve quests. Fight monsters, save princes, slay dragons.
This was an idea of mine for computer glasses that would oberlay images on top of what you were seeing, but that was before any real ones were publicly announced (I still think my design is better since you don't need to focus on the glasses themselves.).
Just as long as I can pick a drow. :)
Need to go back and read from here.
Crossposted in AMA threads: it's a Paizopaloozaganza!
P vividly you don't work for Paizo, but I'm dropping this in all the AMAs here that I see.
Super-serious series of questions*:
*
If you could have 1d4 different super-powers, what would they be and why?
(Assume corollary powers required to make a given power work are part of it; i.e. Since you'd need super tensile strength/durability to, you know, not-die when you made use of your super-strength power, you get them both when you say "super strength" as a singular option.)
Why?If, instead, you could be a gestalt of 1d2+1 super heroes, who would you gestalt to be yourself? Why? Which comic universe would you run around in? Would you prefer to be in that one, or this one?
On the other hand: BAM! You just gained 3d6+2 levels in a Pathfinder class (or classes)! Which class(es) do you pick, and why? Incidentally, if you could spontaneously switch races, would you? And if so, to which?
Similarly, you won the super-lottery, and gained mythic tiers! 3d3+1 of 'em! (And you gain class levels to match; please feel free to change your previous answer if this does so for some reason.) What path do you take? (Alternate option: substitute...
Most of my answers will contain capes from a great webnovel "Worm" by Wildbow(easilly googleable), so I will also try to explain their powers where possible.
>If you could have 1d4 different super-powers, what would they be and why?
Going for a medium-high powerlevel.
Telekinesis, limitless multitasking, full control over invertebrates in an area of, say, 1 kilometer around you(control what they do, receive information about their relative position, condition and senses).
Second one is a support power for the last one, to interpret all the information you will receive. Last power has great utility-move things around with insects, know where your enemies are by placing a little fly somewhere in their clothing, have effectively omniscience within that 1km because you have eyes on the back of your head, on the wall, on the wall in another room and everywhere around your enemies. Plus, you know, never fear spiders again. Telekinesis because I had a free spot and it gives even more utility.
>If, instead, you could be a gestalt of 1d2 + 1 ⇒ (2) + 1 = 3 super heroes, who would you gestalt to be yourself? Why? Which comic universe would you run around in? Would you prefer to be in that one, or this one?
Depends on the desired power level.
"City-scrubber" That thing I described above. Imagine what a swarm of intelligentblack widow spiders can do to a city. That's effectively what that one is.
"Planet-wide f&~* you": Bonesaw(Worm)+Flash+Grue(Worm)
Bonesaw is like ironman, but for biology. She can make anything biological, starting from highly advanced surgeries and ending at planet-wide plagues from household things, given time. Flash gives her time. Grue can make clouds of darkness, which block all sight and sound, providing ways to escape if caught in a pickle.
"F!+! you, no save": Contessa(Worm)+Eidolon(Worm)+Bonesaw(Worm)
Why is this no save:Ask Who Would Win on reddit. Last time I have seen Contessa vs Justice League matchup there it ended up as 9.5/10 Contessa wins. Two other powers just give her more tools to work with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you could have 1d4 different super-powers, what would they be and why?
Why?
Telepathy (because it would be much easier to communicate with people if I could just project concepts directly).
Time manipulation (because being able to speed up or slow down the flow of time and the things within it would be super handy for everything from getting a few more hours of rest, to preventing bad stuff from happening, to speeding up the workday).
The ability to heal people (because why not?).
If, instead, you could be a gestalt of 1d2+1 super heroes, who would you gestalt to be yourself? Why? Which comic universe would you run around in? Would you prefer to be in that one, or this one?
Magneto (X-Men) Super potential for doing amazing things
Xavior (X-Men) Super telepathElixer (X-Men) Heals people and boosts other mutant powers (synergizes well)
On the other hand: BAM! You just gained 3d6+2 levels in a Pathfinder class (or classes)! Which class(es) do you pick, and why? Incidentally, if you could spontaneously switch races, would you? And if so, to which?
Wizard. Race swap to lich. Why? Well, because I'd bring order to the world. At 13th level, a wizard could control our entire world in a span of a day or so, with no one knowing about it. The irony that I'd be liberating the world through ruling over everything in the shadows isn't lost on me, however.
Similarly, you won the super-lottery, and gained mythic tiers! 3d3 + 1 ⇒ (2, 3, 2) + 1 = 8 of 'em! (And you gain class levels to match; please feel free to change your previous answer if this does so for some reason.) What path do you take? (Alternate option: substitute a single tier for a simple mythic template.)
Probably that one that lets you grant spells to your followers, so that I could make more super heroes capable of healing the sick and animating the dead.
Yet another query: you monster. Specifically, you CR: 1d30 ⇒ 4 (or less) monster! Which are you?! ... and would this have been your first choice? If not, which would be?
Wight (possibly cairn wight). It's immortal, doesn't eat, doesn't sleep, and can create more wights simply by slapping people. Lots of potential to do great good with this.
But the wheels of fate-time have spun again, and your everything has been transposed into that of someone else! You've just become a prepublished NPC from an official source! Which prepublished NPC is it?
A Planetar, because they're really cool. They exist as NPCs in Baldur's Gate and they're awesome.
What campaign setting do you run around in? Why?
Mine, because it appeals to me.
As a final thing: blend any and/or all of the above questions into a single ginormous question: an optional blend of a prepublished NPC, monster, and some superheroes all walk into a bar... and out comes you, as a gestalt of those guys, the race you choose, some extra superpowers, and have extra class levels and mythic tiers on top! What are you?! (Other than "awesome" - naturally.)
Soon retired.
Oh, and one more thing: if you lived through a Legend of Zelda (as one of the Links); which would it be, and why?
Dunno, because the greatest argument for me living a deprived life is that I've never really played the Zelda series much. I never got it on SNES, got an N64 at the end of its lifespan and only have a few games on it, and didn't play the Gamecube releases. I should probably get on that, 'cause they're classics.
You only claimed that your idea of an illusion was different. You never clarified why nor defined what your idea of an illusion is. Though I find it odd you don't consider real illusions (like a desert mirage, invisibility fields [yes they exist, just not in a practical form], stage magic, etc) as illusions.no, it's pretty clear from my previous posts (which you seem not to have read entirely), that i disagree with labelling a spell that actually affects the world beyond your perception, an illusion.
right, but i'm saying that i see this as a miscategorization... if you're actually affecting the light then it's not just an illusion. but my idea of an illusion is probably different from yours.
i don't consider it an illusion if a [insert mindless recording device here] would record the same thing because that means the light/air/etc. is actually doing the thing your eyes/ears/etc. are sensing; it's your perception that's flawed, and that has almost nothing to do with the thing itself. a hologram isn't an illusion. the light/image is actually there. it's also probably important to note that i draw a distinction between the kind of things that are optical illusions in the real world and the idea of illusion magic.
I'm not suggesting new mechanics at all. The system was designed to be guidelines, it was not to be a completely exhaustive list of any and all possibilities. Things like resisting torture are fairly easy to figure out once you know the system. Almost everyone would agree that mental resistance is the obvious choice to not tell secrets under torture, so why make a note of it? but things like how far you can jump, or how long it takes to starve to death are not so obvious and not widely known, thus guidelines are more important there.
This concept of treating the rules as being hard and inflexible is a recent thing and totally contrary to the design.
you are, in fact, suggesting a new subsystem. you are proposing new rules because the rules don't address how to go about adjudicating the thing you're talking about. so you would have to make it up. you're free to do that as that's totally what this game is about, but you can expect a) table variation and b) annoyed players if you do this to them with no advanced warning. no one is treating the rules as being comprehensive and strictly permissive; that is a weak argument. but you can't expect things not in the rules as they are written to be common to every game, and if it isn't in those rules, you are introducing something new (even if you're using the rules you were given to determine how exactly you'll do that).
If the spell could actually fail because your physiology, then sure, but the spell failing because your physiology doesn't make sense unless you have resistance to magic, but that wouldn't really be physical and anyway, such resistance is already handled by SR. Besides, even if your fort save failed to prevent the spell from affecting you (I wouldn't even begin to know how a fort save could work without breaking the established functionality of spells)
you use your fortitude to prevent being turned into something else by baleful polymorph. SR is separate. the will save is for a separate effect and written into the spell specifically.
you'd still need to make a will save to overcome the pain so you can actually take action despite the pain.
and that would have to be written into the spell, or you're talking about a new subsystem for dealing with pain (generally not just in a particular spell). if the former, the spell functions like phantasmal killer, weird and baleful polymorph, offering two saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's also probably important to note that i draw a distinction between the kind of things that are optical illusions in the real world and the idea of illusion magic.
I think the biggest confusion is that many have the idea that there's 100% nothing there when dealing with illusions, like the magic itself doesn't really do anything except fool the mind, but illusion magic as a school (which to me seems more akin to groupings of magics that work in similar ways or follow a common theme) does actually create things, it's just the things that it creates are false much like the aforementioned hologram.
The magic produces an image or some other thing that your senses can perceive, but it fools the senses, because you look at this thing and your brain sees a goblin, but if a sword passes through it, you find it's not a goblin at all! It just looks like a goblin. Or smells, or even tastes, because powerful illusion magic is weird. :P
Now, all schools of magic are, essentially, working from a similar foundation. Transmutation may specialize in altering existing things, and conjuration may specialize in creating things where something wasn't before, but all of the schools have a little overlap in these areas, and just specialize in making or changing things in different ways.
On a fundamental level, if we try to define the schools by whether something A) alters, B) creates, or C) channels, rather than more complex applications of those basic magic principles, then the only schools of magic that would exist would be Conjuration and Transmutation because all spells either alter, create, or channel something. However, it's worth remembering that all schools of magic are still magic, just magic used in different ways.
In a sense, it might be easier to think of the different schools of magic as different fields of science and mathematics. At the end of the day, they're all using the same basic math but they're applying in different ways, even if that different ways is simply a more advanced version of the basic principles.
That's my two coppers, at least. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"no, it's pretty clear from my previous posts (which you seem not to have read entirely), that i disagree with labelling a spell that actually affects the world beyond your perception, an illusion."
Problem is, it is impossible, even for magic, to alter perception alone. Either you alter the medium/s the senses operate on, or you alter the electrical signals in specific neurons in the brain, in either case, you are altering something other than just perception because perception is not really a thing, rather it is a class of processes (namely, processes that take information from outside a system, lile a brain, and present it in a useful form to the system) or a concept of one's understanding of their external world, neither of which are a thing to be altered.
If you know programming, you could think of perception like a pointer. You can change what the pointer is pointing at, or you can change where the pointer is pointing, or you could eliminate the pointer, but in each case, you still have information of some sort being taken by the program and affecting it's behavior, aka perception. In essence, you change perception by changing the components of perception, otherwise known as real world things.
======
All that aside, I'm curious what you do with figments, such as silent image, in your games, since mechanically they are not mind affecting and are also explicitly stated as being a thing and not a mental projection. Do you just change the terms, switch their school, change their mechanics?
"because the rules don't address how to go about adjudicating the thing you're talking about."
Of course the rules address how to handle such things. Will save represent mental resilience, ergo, if you need a check for someone's mental resilience, regardless of the reason or source, you have the will save. You don't need an explicit list of every possible reason a mental resilience check might be needed in order to consider those things addressed.
"you use your fortitude to prevent being turned into something else by baleful polymorph. SR is separate. the will save is for a separate effect and written into the spell specifically."
Aye, but notice that the spell doesn't affect the mind of the target, nor inhibits that mind's ability to do anything a mind normally does except the part that is affected by the will save. Everything else is a purely physical thing, and therefore makes sense to be resisted by fort.
To say that physical pain can cause you to lose an action because of how agonizing it is should be a will save, because while the spell affects the body to create the agonizing pain, pain itself does not physically prevent action, only the mind itself can be strong or weak enough to overcome/succumb to the pain. Big difference there.
Tasers cause a bit of a stir here, but tasers use electricity, and the body responds to electrical signals, therefore interference can occur, but even then, it is known that the mind can overcome even tasers, so it is still a will save.
Also, a pinched nerve couldn't stop me from focusing, so I think I can freely claim experience with mind overcoming pain.
"and that would have to be written into the spell"
Well duh, it only makes sense that in describing a spell you'd describe it's direct and primary physical and mental effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you talking to yourself, what's going on here, I'm a little confused.
I'm quoting, but on a phone, hitting reply and deleting all the excess text is difficult at best and if the original is too long, the latter part doesn't get quoted anyway.
Okie dokey, just had to ask. :-)
I think the biggest confusion is that many have the idea that there's 100% nothing there when dealing with illusions, like the magic itself doesn't really do anything except fool the mind, but illusion magic as a school (which to me seems more akin to groupings of magics that work in similar ways or follow a common theme) does actually create things, it's just the things that it creates are false much like the aforementioned hologram.
it's not really a confusion as much as a disagreement that that should constitute an illusion in a world with actual magic.
On a fundamental level, if we try to define the schools by whether something A) alters, B) creates, or C) channels, rather than more complex applications of those basic magic principles, then the only schools of magic that would exist would be Conjuration and Transmutation because all spells either alter, create, or channel something. However, it's worth remembering that all schools of magic are still magic, just magic used in different ways.
why does it almost seem as though you're all defending this system of magic as though you think it is perfect and cannot be improved upon? i understand how it works; i just don't like the way it works. it could easily work differently.
Problem is, it is impossible, even for magic, to alter perception alone.
at least as far as you're concerned. this is where i stop trying to make magic work in the real world. so no, that's not a problem for me.
Either you alter the medium/s the senses operate on, or you alter the electrical signals in specific neurons in the brain, in either case, you are altering something other than just perception because perception is not really a thing, rather it is a class of processes (namely, processes that take information from outside a system, lile a brain, and present it in a useful form to the system) or a concept of one's understanding of their external world, neither of which are a thing to be altered.
amusingly enough, this is an argument in favor of reducing all fort/will saves to the same thing and rendering the discussion moot. all will saves should be fort.
All that aside, I'm curious what you do with figments, such as silent image, in your games, since mechanically they are not mind affecting and are also explicitly stated as being a thing and not a mental projection. Do you just change the terms, switch their school, change their mechanics?
i haven't run anything in a while, but in my setting, all illusions are mind-affecting. "figments" would be created by some sort of evocation, though i'm considering redoing the school system to be more similar to the spheres in mage: the ascension.
"because the rules don't address how to go about adjudicating the thing you're talking about."
Of course the rules address how to handle such things. Will save represent mental resilience, ergo, if you need a check for someone's mental resilience, regardless of the reason or source, you have the will save. You don't need an explicit list of every possible reason a mental resilience check might be needed in order to consider those things addressed.
so how much damage is painful enough to start triggering will saves and how exactly does it impact your actions? how does this work mechanically? in the event of causing pain but not causing hit point damage, how does this work? or is it only for spells that cause pain? interestingly, of the spells with the [pain] descriptor, repel vermin is the odd man out in allowing a will save.
Aye, but notice that the spell doesn't affect the mind of the target, nor inhibits that mind's ability to do anything a mind normally does except the part that is affected by the will save. Everything else is a purely physical thing, and therefore makes sense to be resisted by fort.
To say that physical pain can cause you to lose an action because of how agonizing it is should be a will save, because while the spell affects the body to create the agonizing pain, pain itself does not physically prevent action, only the mind itself can be strong or weak enough to overcome/succumb to the pain. Big difference there.
the problem is that the spell you suggested still targets fort in order to cause the pain. if they pass the fort save, there's no pain, so they make no will save. that's how the mechanics of pathfinder currently work. the target of the spell you suggested is the subject's physiology. your spell has the effect of "causing pain" which isn't defined in the system and would, therefore, have no effect without one written into the spell itself.
"and that would have to be written into the spell"
Well duh, it only makes sense that in describing a spell you'd describe it's direct and primary physical and mental effects.
the point is you're talking about pain causing these effects, not a spell. pain causing these effects is a subsystem most people aren't playing with. if the spell says it does that in it's description, then that's what it does, but you don't start applying will saves to arbitrary instances of pain because you've read such a spell.
Topic, pain mechanics
The system relies on rulings (not the same thing as a rule) to handle corner cases, providing guidelines that make rulings easy, though I grant that the actual presentation of the rules (all of them, not just this part) sucks horribly.
The number scale for example. 40 is epic, the border between the supernatural and what real people can attain. Olympic competitors get results in the mid 30s. On the other end, 10 is borderline easy, the average person has about a 50% chance of success if rushed, but can reliably attain this if they are calm and focused. This provides a scale for which a gm can simply ask "How difficult would this be compared to a 10 or a 40?" and then they have a number to use directly as a dc.
Topic, pain spell
"spell you suggested still targets fort in order to cause the pain. if they pass the fort save, there's no pain,"
On the contrary, this depends on whether the spell can actually be negated physically and/or rendered moot. If the body could shrug off the magic so it failed to have any effect, that woukd be a fort save, but if the spell caused pain, either from a failed fort or by simply saying the spell can not be negated by the body, then a will save would be needed to render the pain moot. At that point, as a designer, it makes sense to say that the magic can not be shrugged off by the body alone, thus simplifying things to a single save, thouh you could stick to two saves if desired. Not all can be simplified as smoothly, not to mention that despite how it might function, requiring two saves here would throw the balance off, making it easier to avoid the effect (a consideration required of the designer but rarely one for the players/gm).
Topic, pain mechanics
The system relies on rulings (not the same thing as a rule) to handle corner cases, providing guidelines that make rulings easy, though I grant that the actual presentation of the rules (all of them, not just this part) sucks horribly.
The number scale for example. 40 is epic, the border between the supernatural and what real people can attain. Olympic competitors get results in the mid 30s. On the other end, 10 is borderline easy, the average person has about a 50% chance of success if rushed, but can reliably attain this if they are calm and focused. This provides a scale for which a gm can simply ask "How difficult would this be compared to a 10 or a 40?" and then they have a number to use directly as a dc.
yes, you've just described how easy it is to create a new subsystem for your games. still a house rule. still nothing wrong with that.
Topic, pain spell
"spell you suggested still targets fort in order to cause the pain. if they pass the fort save, there's no pain,"
On the contrary, this depends on whether the spell can actually be negated physically and/or rendered moot. If the body could shrug off the magic so it failed to have any effect, that woukd be a fort save, but if the spell caused pain, either from a failed fort or by simply saying the spell can not be negated by the body, then a will save would be needed to render the pain moot. At that point, as a designer, it makes sense to say that the magic can not be shrugged off by the body alone, thus simplifying things to a single save, thouh you could stick to two saves if desired. Not all can be simplified as smoothly, not to mention that despite how it might function, requiring two saves here would throw the balance off, making it easier to avoid the effect (a consideration required of the designer but rarely one for the players/gm).
i'm still asking for the existing spell that works the way you're describing. until you can provide that, you're talking about how you would like magic to work, not how it does work. currently, the body can shrug off magic so it fails to have any effect (see: baleful polymorph) in pathfinder and that is how the spell you are describing would work. it would be either transmutation or (more likely) necromancy, have the [pain] descriptor, and would target fort. if the target failed the fort save, they would be subject to a will save to resist whatever penalties you want the pain to impose (except it could just not allow the will save like eyebite, pain strike, retribution, and symbol of pain). people would probably avoid the spell the same way they avoid phantasmal killer because it allows two saves before having any effect.
it's not really a confusion as much as a disagreement that that should constitute an illusion in a world with actual magic.
Fair enough. I was just commenting on something I've noticed over the years pertaining to the idea that illusion magic "must be mind affecting", leading a lot of GMs to (wrongly) have mindless creatures ignore illusions entirely (such as having golems and zombies simply walk through illusory walls).
On a fundamental level, if we try to define the schools by whether something A) alters, B) creates, or C) channels, rather than more complex applications of those basic magic principles, then the only schools of magic that would exist would be Conjuration and Transmutation because all spells either alter, create, or channel something. However, it's worth remembering that all schools of magic are still magic, just magic used in different ways.why does it almost seem as though you're all defending this system of magic as though you think it is perfect and cannot be improved upon? i understand how it works; i just don't like the way it works. it could easily work differently.
Not sure, probably 'cause Alicorn seems pretty hyped about this. I'm pretty indifferent either way and I'm not really defending but giving my take on it. I'm not particularly anchored to the rule system for sake of tradition, since I've already given the axe to Evocation for having no real purpose and shifted some stuff around throughout the schools (such as placing healing spells in the Necromancy school, and making [Light] and [Darkness] spells illusion, etc).
Perhaps I am just failing to grasp a school of magic that does nothing. What I mean by that is, I don't see how any magic can even exist if it doesn't alter, create, or move something. It may be that my abstract thought capability is failing me at the moment, but I cannot rightly fathom something being an illusion but requiring the illusion to be somehow existing outsider of any means to produce the illusion.
As I try to wrap my head around it, the idea that schools like conjuration or transmutation must have a monopoly on anything that creates or alters irreverent of theme or effect leads me to believe the only reasonable alternative would be to just get rid of schools of magic altogether because as spells are broken down, they inevitably will end up sharing the same school. For example, all of the Necromancy school could be argued to belong to Conjuration and Transmutation because you are doing things like transporting positive or negative energy or altering things (like corpses) to be something else.
In a similar fashion, the entirety of illusion could be broke into those two schools. As could abjuration. And enchantment. The only one that doesn't easily break down into these basic things is probably Divination because it's usually more about perception and clairsentience.
However, I don't think I'm ready to pitch magic schools or jumble them together so haphazardly for a few reasons. IMHO, the schools of magic serve as both stylistic and mechanical benefits. They create clear trends in "styles" of magic which can help both in conceptualizing and roleplaying characters, groups, and abilities. They also form an anchor for mechanical effects and character options like Feats and Class features, allowing you more control over specializing a character as a player and more control as a designer when producing new content (for example, a feat like Spell Focus is a no-brainer if it applies to all magic, but if it applies to one school then it's down to the player to decide if they intend to use that magic frequently enough to justify its cost).
If you made any examples of an alternative, I may have missed it, but I'm all ears. It's a curious subject. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crap, I just realized my quote is broken and now my post reads horribly but it's too late to edit. T_T
EDIT: Specifically, it was supposed to have said...
Not sure, probably 'cause Alicorn seems pretty hyped about this. I'm pretty indifferent either way and I'm not really defending but giving my take on it. I'm not particularly anchored to the rule system for sake of tradition, since I've already given the axe to Evocation for having no real purpose and shifted some stuff around throughout the schools (such as placing healing spells in the Necromancy school, and making [Light] and [Darkness] spells illusion, etc).On a fundamental level, if we try to define the schools by whether something A) alters, B) creates, or C) channels, rather than more complex applications of those basic magic principles, then the only schools of magic that would exist would be Conjuration and Transmutation because all spells either alter, create, or channel something. However, it's worth remembering that all schools of magic are still magic, just magic used in different ways.why does it almost seem as though you're all defending this system of magic as though you think it is perfect and cannot be improved upon? i understand how it works; i just don't like the way it works. it could easily work differently.
Then everything after that. >_<
"yes, you've just described how easy it is to create a new subsystem for your games. still a house rule. still nothing wrong with that."
It isn't a houserule.
Think of it like this,
Is mvlar an english word? Any native speaker would say no, they would even say with certainty that it couldn't be a a word that simply didn't know because it just doesn't sound like english. The truth is, the italicized part is actually referencing something most people have such an innate understanding of that they are not consciously aware of it. That something is a set of rules called phonological constraints. People speak english every day following these rules even without knowing about them, without any explicit lessons in them. They aren't taught in grade school.
Phonological constraints are something I call an "underlying structure," though most people come to understand such through "reading between the lines."
Any system has structure, usually several structures, some explicit and obvious, others not so much.
A more obvious example are the bab and save progressions. Most players recognize that these follow a simple math formula despite it not being explicitly called out. In fact, if you tried to create a class that vastly stepped away from those established patterns, it would get rejected as not being right and following suitm despite the fact the rules don't explicitly deny such a possibility.
The same is true everywhere in the system. There are subtle patterns that go unnoticed by most players, but they exist, and players will notice when they are broken, even if they aren't consciously aware of why the the whatever-it-is-that-breaks-pattern is wrong, they just know it is.
I am pointing out some of these underlying rules. They are how the system works. The rules don't need to be explicit about them for them to be integral to the functioning of the system, much like the phonological constraints of english are not explicit yet still integral to how english works.
In all fairness, adding new rules, even new rules based on the underlying framework of the game, are still new rules Alicorn. New house rules. I think that much is pretty obvious. I'm always tinkering with new subsystems and 100% of them are based on the core framework of the game I'm dealing with, but they're still house rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's my experience that exercising isn't all that hard. It's just super unappealing. I'd much rather be doing almost anything else rather than exercising. I tend to get the most exercise when I'm getting it as a side effect of something unrelated (such as being on my feet all day at work and walking around a lot). When presented with options of exercising or doing something like playing games with my friends over Discord, well...
The weights can wait. >_>
However, I don't think I'm ready to pitch magic schools or jumble them together so haphazardly for a few reasons. IMHO, the schools of magic serve as both stylistic and mechanical benefits. They create clear trends in "styles" of magic which can help both in conceptualizing and roleplaying characters, groups, and abilities. They also form an anchor for mechanical effects and character options like Feats and Class features, allowing you more control over specializing a character as a player and more control as a designer when producing new content (for example, a feat like Spell Focus is a no-brainer if it applies to all magic, but if it applies to one school then it's down to the player to decide if they intend to use that magic frequently enough to justify its cost).
this is also where i am. as i mentioned previously, i was (until relatively recently) considering reworking schools to me more like the sphere's in mage: the ascension. however, it occurred to me at some point that the way magic was organized is as much culture as "science".
really, though, reworking the schools needs to be secondary to the task of pruning the spell lists for me. there are a lot of spells i'd prefer used some sort of ritual mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like if there were fewer spells, with each having more options and growing in power as you level, similar to power point options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's my experience that exercising isn't all that hard. It's just super unappealing. I'd much rather be doing almost anything else rather than exercising. I tend to get the most exercise when I'm getting it as a side effect of something unrelated (such as being on my feet all day at work and walking around a lot). When presented with options of exercising or doing something like playing games with my friends over Discord, well...
The weights can wait. >_>
In my experience, the hardest part is actually starting the exercises... Once I finally manage to get up and start, I have no problem continuing it.
But getting up is so freaking difficult... XD
In all fairness, adding new rules, even new rules based on the underlying framework of the game, are still new rules Alicorn. New house rules. I think that much is pretty obvious. I'm always tinkering with new subsystems and 100% of them are based on the core framework of the game I'm dealing with, but they're still house rules.
It isn't adding new rules, it is making rulings. That is how the system is intended to work, as reference to guide GM rulings to cover any possible circumstance.
The one thing that gets ignored most in the books is the constant reinforcement of how the system is a set of guidelines, especially in the dmg book/section.
I'm not sure if I want to fuel this particular pyre, but here is a thing:
** spoiler omitted **
So distraction, the opposite of focusing, is for some reason resisted by fort, rather than will. Maybe fortitude also accounts for the mental discipline needed to train one's body? I mean, if exercising was a cakewalk, obesity wouldn't be a problem. Well, I digress. PF is weird sometimes.
The fluff here is rather odd, but the mechanical effect, including the fort save, fits very well to certain pressure points, such as the solar plexus, which cause direct physical issues. Physical fitness and constitution highly effect this.
That said, the nauseated condition should in my opinion allow a will save to perform other actions rather than outright banning them, but then again most people would fail at this. So, flaw in the nauseated condition rather than the Distraction ability, unless you consider poor fluff and a mechanic to fluff mismatch to be flaws.
(I mean really, who considers actually hitting your target a distraction?)
And what does any of that have to do with rulings? Though I do generally agree with what you said, except you mention rulings as how you got there topic wise but didn't say anything about rulings.
Just for clarification,
A ruling is making a judgment call on how a situation will be handled when the rules don't explicitly say or when there are mitigating circumstances that imply ths normal method should be modified or even not used for that situation.
In essence, a ruling is a structure created on the fly for a single event. A rule is a structure established as the basis for handling all similar events.
To quote Alexandrian,
quote
There is, I think, a legitimate philosophical divison being alluded to here: The difference between “do what you want and we’ll figure out a way to handle it” and “you can only do what the rules say you can do”.
unquote
A system can be designed with either of these philosophies at it's core.
For example, 4e use the latter for powers and combat, then uses the former for most other things.
But 3rd uses the former philosophy throughout the entire system, but differs from how 4e uses it, in that 3rd gives broad and detailed support for it and tries to achieve the following,
quote
...provides a robust and open-ended mechanic which can be used to make any number of rulings.
unquote
quote
... But, in my opinion, a properly designed ruleset is a flexible foundation on which an infinite number of structures can be securely built.
unquote
Quotes from here,
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3924/roleplaying-games/rules-vs-rulings
Though despite the title, the article is more about gm fiat vs rules being the true conflict in arguments about old school vs new school, and without really defining "rulings" which isn't really important to the article's topic.
It is like arguing about a symptom rather than a cause. Most see the symptom and don't realize it is merely a symptom of something deeper, similar to Alexandrian's discussion about dissociated mechanics in which he struggled with the concept himself for a long time and describes those troubles in others during a section titled realism vs association,
quote
This seems to primarily arise because people struggling to explain why they don’t like dissociated mechanics – often without a firm conceptual grasp of what it is that they’re dissatisfied with – will try to explain, for example, that it’s just not realistic for a football player to only be able to make a single one-handed catch per game.
unquote
quote
Our hypothetical One-Handed Catch ability is infinitely more realistic than a fireball, and yet the latter is associated while the former is not.
unquote
In essence people complain about the once-per-day one handed catch ability but not the ability to cast a fireball and they argue on the basis of realism, but as Alexandrian points out realism isn't the true problem, dissociation is.
I'm not sure how I went on that tangent, but oh well.
To quote Alexandrian,
quote
There is, I think, a legitimate philosophical divison being alluded to here: The difference between “do what you want and we’ll figure out a way to handle it” and “you can only do what the rules say you can do”.
unquoteA system can be designed with either of these philosophies at it's core.
For example, 4e use the latter for powers and combat, then uses the former for most other things.
But 3rd uses the former philosophy throughout the entire system, but differs from how 4e uses it, in that 3rd gives broad and detailed support for it and tries to achieve the following
3.x (and by extension Pathfinder) also uses both philosophies... certain parts of the ruleset are intended to be strictly permissive.
re: your tangent
that doesn't really mean that realism isn't a problem. it's still an issue of realism when things that are easily doable in real life are not accomplishable by characters in game. we've already accepted that the world has magic so we're willing to suspend our disbelief regarding that, but the existence of magic doesn't logically lead to "mundane things become more difficult", so when they do, that is what's unrealistic. i'm not saying dissociation can't be used to describe the issue, but realism also can, and the fireball is entirely irrelevant to the issue of "it’s just not realistic for a football player to only be able to make a single one-handed catch per game."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only thought on rulings or rule zero:
The more concise and well written the rules are, the less need for GM rulings, and less table variation (excluding homebrew, of course).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only thought on rulings or rule zero:
The more concise and well written the rules are, the less need for GM rulings, and less table variation (excluding homebrew, of course).
...and more time for the GM to spend on the part of GMing that's actually fun and interesting, like creating NPCs and dungeons. :)
Indeed!
"3.x (and by extension Pathfinder) also uses both philosophies... certain parts of the ruleset are intended to be strictly permissive."
Not really, first of all, the second philosophy is not permissive, strictly or otherwise, it is restrictive. A good way to rewrite the second philosophy is to say "players can not do anything unless the rules say they can."
Further, having rules is not against the concept of supporting rulings, and a good set of rules acts as a foundation to make the rulings easy. Further, making rulings is subject to the underlying structure as I talked about before. A GM can make whatever ruling they want, but that doesn't make the ruling automatically valid according to the rules. For example, you can't take mvlar*click* as a word and just add it to the english dictionary no one would accept it as an english word because it breaks the rules upon which english is built. Likewise, using a cha check to physically lift a one ton weight is clearly invalid as the rules state how cha is a non-physical stat and therefore using it for a purely physical interaction is contrary to the established structure of the game. That is not to say there won't be disagreements, particularly about the more subtle nuances of the game, but you can objectively place a ruling as following closely to the structure or clearly breaking the structure (with a scale inbetween those extremes).
Not everyone will gain the same understanding of the rules, but the better written they are, the more similar all the player's understandings will be, not only to each other but to the devs.
"The more concise and well written the rules are, the less need for GM rulings"
On the contrary, less rules equals more rulings, and more rules equals less rulings, in general there is some variance but the inverse relation stays intact. Fatal can tell you what size nipples are, but 3rd can't, therefore, if for some weird reason you needed to know what your character's nipple sizes were, you'd just follow the rule in Fatal, but you'd have to make a ruling (or a houserule) in 3rd since that system doesn't give a rule. Less rules means running into more situations the rules don't explicitly cover.
Also, more general and broad rules will have mitigating circumstances more often (since they cover a larger scope of possible activities) that will require rulings to handle.
The better written the rules are, the more obvious and simple the ruling becomes. (Contest for pulling 18 wheelers? Strength check obviously).
Truth be told, when there is debate over whether a rule applies or not, a ruling is made, even if that ruling is to follow the rule that was in question.
I would put it like this "the better written the rules, the less need for arbitrary rulings." Arbitrary being the key word of importance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"3.x (and by extension Pathfinder) also uses both philosophies... certain parts of the ruleset are intended to be strictly permissive."
Not really, first of all, the second philosophy is not permissive, strictly or otherwise, it is restrictive. A good way to rewrite the second philosophy is to say "players can not do anything unless the rules say they can."
pardon my misuse of jargon. you obviously still knew what i meant and said nothing to counter the argument other than "not really". a human cannot have a tail that could be used with racial heritage and the kobold tail attack feats (despite some actual humans having tails, it being a fantasy game, and a two feat investment one of which explains your anomalous anatomy) because the rules don't say you can.
"The more concise and well written the rules are, the less need for GM rulings"
On the contrary, less rules equals more rulings, and more rules equals less rulings...
that is what he said... read it again.
also, nothing you've said changes that your rulings involve things that aren't in the rules (the rules aren't balanced around and don't require you to make a will save to resist pain nor do they really define pain) and that makes them house rules when you start applying them consistently. there's nothing wrong with your house rules. but they're house rules.
no one has argued against the idea that there is a structure available upon which to base rulings, nor have they argued that you can't add house rules based upon said structure. with whom are you arguing what and why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Completely unrelated to anything but...
A friend of mine just noted that Harley Quinn has a pair of granddaughters in Batman Beyond, with Blonde and Red hair. He noted that perhaps "Grandpa" was actually Poison Ivy. I had never thought about it but given Ivy's mastery over manipulating biology, the idea that she could have used some of her own cells to produce offspring with Harley is an interesting idea and one not terribly out there.
EDIT: Here's the pitch.
So.... You know in batman beyond it was revealed that Harley had grand children
And they had red blond hair...
I think her an poison ivy had children...
Pretty certain actuallyBecause the only thing the joker had a boner for was batman
And poison ivy actually used plants to grow children of mixed dna
But they all came out looking the same... Like clones
And Dee Dee both look the same
With features that vaguely match both ivy and Harley
So... And you know... They were sorta in lesbians with each other after Harley finally left the joker
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She manipulates plant biology, though... Far more likely, it's:
- Hair dye.
- Harley (or one of her kids) simply had children with another red-headed character. Which does open the possibility that Harley's kids married/had children with Ivy's children.
I'll let you know I'm delightful in parties! XD
(all that said, I do recall an episode of Batman TAS where Ivy had "children" that were actually plant golems made to look and act like humans).
EDIT: NINJA'd by Ashiel's EDIT.
As revenge, I'll point out that Harley never really left the Joker. She broke up with him a few times, but always ended up coming back .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scientists can turn female skin cells into sperm cells. They can't fertilize, but it's a breakthrough in the field. Considering how much more advanced science is in the "modern" comics/animated material, let alone the "future" ones, it's entirely possible that Poison Ivy could have perfected it. She may focus mostly on plants, but she's a brilliant scientist and this is something she may* be passionate enough about to pursue.
*by may, I mean, "highly likely."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely unrelated to anything but...
A friend of mine just noted that Harley Quinn has a pair of granddaughters in Batman Beyond, with Blonde and Red hair. He noted that perhaps "Grandpa" was actually Poison Ivy. I had never thought about it but given Ivy's mastery over manipulating biology, the idea that she could have used some of her own cells to produce offspring with Harley is an interesting idea and one not terribly out there.
EDIT: Here's the pitch.
So.... You know in batman beyond it was revealed that Harley had grand children
And they had red blond hair...
I think her an poison ivy had children...
Pretty certain actuallyBecause the only thing the joker had a boner for was batman
And poison ivy actually used plants to grow children of mixed dna
But they all came out looking the same... Like clones
And Dee Dee both look the same
With features that vaguely match both ivy and Harley
So... And you know... They were sorta in lesbians with each other after Harley finally left the joker
I choose to think of a lewder method instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I choose to think of a lewder method instead.Completely unrelated to anything but...
A friend of mine just noted that Harley Quinn has a pair of granddaughters in Batman Beyond, with Blonde and Red hair. He noted that perhaps "Grandpa" was actually Poison Ivy. I had never thought about it but given Ivy's mastery over manipulating biology, the idea that she could have used some of her own cells to produce offspring with Harley is an interesting idea and one not terribly out there.
EDIT: Here's the pitch.
So.... You know in batman beyond it was revealed that Harley had grand children
And they had red blond hair...
I think her an poison ivy had children...
Pretty certain actuallyBecause the only thing the joker had a boner for was batman
And poison ivy actually used plants to grow children of mixed dna
But they all came out looking the same... Like clones
And Dee Dee both look the same
With features that vaguely match both ivy and Harley
So... And you know... They were sorta in lesbians with each other after Harley finally left the joker
I've seen some things. (O3o)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
really, though, reworking the schools needs to be secondary to the task of pruning the spell lists for me. there are a lot of spells i'd prefer used some sort of ritual mechanic.
I would like if there were fewer spells, with each having more options and growing in power as you level, similar to power point options.
Well, I'll explain how I'm intending to handle the development of spells in general, though it may lead to my having to revise spells known if it produces a spread that's too advantageous to any given style.
Currently, things like Heighten Spell have been pruned. The idea is that you can just cast a spell with a higher slot if you want and that may grant special advantages as described by the spell. For example, casting a fireball with a higher level slot would raise the damage cap naturally, and (subject to some tweaking) may come with other perks like expanded AoEs or something. Some spells may not have any obvious benefits for casting via higher level slots aside from making them harder to avoid (such as with lesser globes of invulnerability) or making them take priority (such as when dealing with [light]/[darkness] spells). That's the idea anyway.
A lot of this is in theoretical states and will be refined as more spells are produced. I've spent this afternoon working on the spell schools some more and solidifying abjuration as the [Force] spell school (which means abjuration isn't 100% about defense now as magic missile and such also belongs here).
It's a tricky balancing act, I feel, because I don't want to step too much on psionics' toes but I dislike how a lot of spells are just step-up versions of existing spells (such as charm person->monster) which I feel hurt spontaneous casters needlessly (if you want your sorcerer-type to be a good enchanter type character you'll burn half your spells on essentially the same things over and over again over your career). I also dislike how so many spells fall out of usefulness, which makes it more difficult for new players to use spells they've become familiar with at higher levels (since by the time you're really proficient with those spells as a player, they're on the way out). I still feel like psionics would be king of versatility however, so I'm not particularly worried about it while mulling it over in my head.
I'm going to try working on the spell list more deeply soon (hopefully starting on it by tomorrow). In an effort to reduce redundancy, I'm going to try to try to keep the number of spells at each level of each school fairly tight at first, looking for staples. Then expand out a bit from there.
I've also added [Size] and [Morph] descriptors to certain abilities, designating whether they change a creatures size or poly/meta-morph them. This will help at a glance to see what spells and effects can stack or overlap with each other. Morph effects in general are being designed more like the psionic powers metamorphosis, where instead of dumpster diving through bestiaries you'll be given a set of options that you can use to emulate different forms, limited by the spell itself, with higher level versions of the spell allowing additional options or stronger options.
This particular method for shapeshifting abilities makes it easier to balance (no worries about someone publishing a 6 armed humanoid in a book and it suddenly becoming a valid way for alter self to turn you into a blender), and easier to add new features to (because you could add things like feats or class features that expand your options when using those effects, such as allowing you to take on planar traits, or undead traits, or whatever).
i wish i was more familiar with the psionic spells. i need to familiarize myself, though, since my setting replaces sorcerers with wilders.
but i agree that the redundant spells are annoying. i kind of understand why the spells exist like that, but it does have the unfortunate side effect of punishing spontaneous casters unnecessarily. i'm actually switching over to spell points so most casters are essentially going to be spontaneous, but that doesn't really affect the spells known issue.
Is psionics going to be a completely different magic system in D20 Legends? Of is it going to be the same as the arcane/divine magic? If it's the same system, then how will any toes he stepped on? If it's not the same, why are you making it different? Wont that mean you have to, basically, reinvent the wheel you just reinvented?
Based off what you've posted in the past, it seems many aspects of psionics will be built into the new magic system you're creating. For example, being able to "upcast" spells by using higher slots for more effects or damage. If you're already merging the two magic systems together to remove redundancies, it seems kind of odd to go through the trouble of making a new psionics system that has many, if not most, of the same spells, only psionic, and a few that are unique to psionics. Instead, you could just make psionic spells that are only available to those with the psionic casting.
I am not writing the same response a third time. (eaten posts)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is psionics going to be a completely different magic system in D20 Legends? Of is it going to be the same as the arcane/divine magic? If it's the same system, then how will any toes he stepped on? If it's not the same, why are you making it different? Wont that mean you have to, basically, reinvent the wheel you just reinvented?
Based off what you've posted in the past, it seems many aspects of psionics will be built into the new magic system you're creating. For example, being able to "upcast" spells by using higher slots for more effects or damage. If you're already merging the two magic systems together to remove redundancies, it seems kind of odd to go through the trouble of making a new psionics system that has many, if not most, of the same spells, only psionic, and a few that are unique to psionics. Instead, you could just make psionic spells that are only available to those with the psionic casting.
Essentially, one of the things I see as a strength of D20 is that there's no wrong way to eat a Reese's. Some people prefer the mechanics of psionics to spell slots and vice versa. While I'm trying to simplify the spell slot process, there are still those who would likely prefer a point-based magic option.
For example, a friend of mine who really loved playing barbarians couldn't stand playing slot-based casters (not even sorcerers, the closest he played was a bard) but he loved playing a Psion. The mechanics felt more intuitive to him and he played one well into the upper teens feeling quite good about them.
In a similar fashion, there are those who really like the spell slot system and want to stick with spell slots and stuff. There are many reasons for this, from it being the system they learned first, to their brains just getting it really well, to having that classic D&D feel of x/day spells.
I don't really feel that either player should be left wanting. Especially since even with spells that you can scale up without things like Heighten Spell, there are certain mild advantages each has over the other (for example, spell slots benefit from "free scaling" where casting a magic missile is stronger at 5th level than 1st level but with less overall resources invested; while psionics can be energizer bunnies by repeatedly manifesting low-level powers at low power levels, which was a favorite tactic of my witch Agatha who got a lot of mileage out of supporting her party with many castings of the psi-equivalents of grease, charm person, and powers like entangling ectoplasm and astral construct).
In a similar vein, I already have the groundwork for a "passive magic" system in my head for a 3rd magic route, for people who are less interested in tracking resources real-time and more comfortable with things like the old Incarnum system where you invest a certain amount of resources into different abilities and they remain invested throughout the day or until some sort of ability lets you tweak them. I was planning to refer to this tradition of magic as "chakra magic" and it would be an ideal system of magic for the more martially minded who wanted to do wushu-type.
I want people to have options. Before I start on those things though, I'm trying to get the basics done, which has unfortunately been taking more time than I'd like (which in all honesty is partly because I haven't been writing when sleepy/fatigued because it produces errors, and my work schedule has flip-flopped me around to different shifts while various folk have been taking their vacations this summer. But I've got some breathing room now so I'm back to the grind).
I'm going to do my best to get at least the first 10 levels in a playable state so that demos would be practical. When it's about ready for demo-time, I'm going to see about editing some youtube videos that discuss major changes from D20->D20 Legends, break down character creation, etc. Mostly because I understand that rules can read a little dry sometimes so I intend to put such videos on the SRD to help new players who aren't familiar with RPGs get a head-start.
i wish i was more familiar with the psionic spells. i need to familiarize myself, though, since my setting replaces sorcerers with wilders.
but i agree that the redundant spells are annoying. i kind of understand why the spells exist like that, but it does have the unfortunate side effect of punishing spontaneous casters unnecessarily. i'm actually switching over to spell points so most casters are essentially going to be spontaneous, but that doesn't really affect the spells known issue.
I would advise caution if you're using a spell-point system for casting traditional D&D spells. Unlike the 3.5->PF psionics system, core magic wasn't explicitly designed for that sort of thing, which means some spells are very good when you go from slots to points.
The variant point system you decide to go with also would have a large impact on the potency. The spell point system from Unearthed Arcana (3.5) was loaded with issues (generally speaking it's like someone briefly skimmed the psionics book, thought that seemed simple enough, and just applied a few of the concepts to core casting in a way that make blasting even less appealing and spamming god spells like black tentacles even more attractive). However, there are probably some methods that you can use to keep it relatively on point (off the top of my head, directly converting existing slots into a point value and then letting you cast out of the point value with normal free scaling would probably not be too bad. Though they'll have a greater ability to capitalize on that free scaling, so keep that in mind).
The tl;dr version is basically "proceed with caution, but good luck!" :)