Where can I find statistics for a tavern window?
|
Where can I find statistics for a tavern window?
Actually, it does not look so difficult now that I am looking at the hardness rules.
My guess is that glass has an AC of 10, a hardness of 1 and 1 hit point.
So, my party actually just triggered the "readied attack VS teleportation magic" clause - my question now is, for purpose of the ensuing concentration check, how does one determine the "spell level" of a Conjurer's School Power spell-like ability?
|
My table grabbed five rubies in round one and is now laying the smack down on some cleric of Gorum. I don't think they've even considered leaving yet. They may end up jailed. I was hoping someone would try to use a teleport spell but it looks like my group is extremely combat heavy, and not so much utility spell heavy.
So, what are the rules if, say, my table wanted to trade another table a glowing ruby? Is that even legal?
|
|
I suspect the 50% + 5% is designed to make sure tables who have played well are very likely to have a glowing ruby, as well as to have a spare (or two) to help other tables that didn't fare as well.
I believe my table has 5-6 rubies. They've destroyed the encounter so far. So I have no problem with rewarding them with a 75-80% chance of their individual rubies glowing.
|
Actually, it's worse than assuming 50% per ruby. With that formula, if you have 2 rubies, then there is a 55% chance of having one that glows. If you assume 50% chance for each, and roll for each individually, then you have a 75% chance of at least 1 glowing.
The appropriate formula for probability that at least one ruby glows is (1 - Pg ^ x) where Pg is the probability that a single ruby glows (in this case 50% or 0.5) and x is the number of rubies collected.
Likewise for your party, if you had 6 rubies and assumes 50% chance per ruby, then the chance of at least one ruby glowing would be (1 - 0.5 ^ 6)= 98.4%. The formula as given would be 50% + 5 * 5% = 75%.
In fact the only point at which the given formula is better than rolling each separately is if you have collected 11 rubies, giving you 50% + 10 * 5% = 100% chance of having at least one glowing ruby. If you roll separately for each ruby at 50% odds, then the chance of at least one ruby glowing would be (1 - 0.5 ^ 11) = 99.95%.
So once you've collected 11 rubies the formula as printed in the scenario gives you a 0.05% better chance of having at least one that glows. Additionally the formula as printed gives no chance of multiple glowing rubies for the purpose of sharing with other tables. It is likely that at the time of writing this special that interaction between tables was to be kept to a minimum and this is deliberate.
Additionally the formula as given may be intended to prevent the overseer from needing to track the total number of rubies collected. We have 17 tables running right now, and if every group caught 5 rubies, 85 rubies would have been collected by pathfinders alone. Each group will be facing off with at least 1 aspis group, probably multiples, who also got a glowing ruby. Assuming the encounter in the sewer and the encounter in the theater is a different aspis group (after the prior encounter eliminated the opposition) that would lead me to believe that 17 * 2 = 34 glowing rubies were collected by NPCs. Given a 50% chance of any ruby glowing, I'd assume that an additional 34 rubies were likely collected by NPCs that didn't glow, putting us up to 68 rubies collected by NPCs. This certainly doesn't jive with the description that 100 rubies were thrown, so all in all the math is pretty fuzzy around this encounter. I suspect its simply an abstraction to keep variance between tables.
|
|
It is a bit funky that's for sure.
On a macro level, the 'concluding Act 1' announcement still makes sense, its just that they are watching the event unfold from the comfort (and popcorn) of outside where it doesn't really impact on them - but they are aware of what has gone down.
So it will get posted up so they know what happened, they just aren't impacted by it.
***
There are a few bits and pieces in these multis that could use an edit. Will never happen though :p
|
|
I'm giving a general post of 'what next' as we go.
The run sheet was posted, but its on a 6/Day but we are on a more relaxed 5/Day pace - so where the scenario gives 35 mins for this section that works out as 7 days.
OK, post up - over to the GM's!
You can give knowledge rolls at the start of combat.
You should now start the ACT 1 encounter brawl on pages 7-9.
We will have 7 days to complete this section.
And there's also the Overseer posts being logged:
HERE***
In about 36 hours we will be moving to the brute squad/raid/ruby resolution section.
|
|
Batpony... How did you determine that two glowed? I'd love to know how you did the math for that. I am wracking my brain to figure out if there is a way of determining if you got a second or third glowing ruby.
So... The mechanic states you have 50% +5% per extra ruby of having a glowing gem. It does not state what the chances are of having other gems glow in your set, which would make trading far easier.
If I was writing this with trading in mind, I would do it as Schrödinger's Ruby. A party dumps all their rubies in a bag. The GM rolls the percentile. If they get a glowing gem, it's the first one they pull out. Then the rest of the gems are a mystery... Schrödinger rubies, able to be traded.
But that is hardly realistic, as most parties would check the bag.
So really, I am stumped here.
Hmm
|
|
There are a few things in this module that could do with some better editing.
Like the mob write up and the application of non-lethal damage, the ruby rules, the 'no double move' corner case etc.
With regards gathering and sharing of rubies, it was more a case of it being perfectly able to be done BEFORE any dice are rolled - we have tables with 8+ rubies and some with only 2 or 3.
With regards consistency between F2F and PbP, we're still consistent with the common practice re:rubies. I'm also taking the guidance/feedback left on the VC/VL forums between the writer/developer and the VO's that ran it. To be frank they were pretty brutal about some of the shortcomings, even I winced.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also...
Relief GM system has been working well. We have already had one permanent GM swap out with a reserve taking over a table due to a GM leaving play due to a legit reason and we were able to get that managed in a matter of hours.
Similarly we have had a weekend relief cover by Magabeus which seems to have equally gone smoothly.
So please use the process if you need :)
***
Next Overseer update in ~24 hours.
|
Yeah, So my interpretation of the rules was that each ruby would have that 50% + (5 x N)% chance. The way it is written, I don't interpret it limiting it to one glowing ruby per team. But I guess I can understand why, you would limit it based on the interpretation that having a lot of rubies would cause all the glow.
On the bright side, the first roll using the 65% chance suggested the ruby glows. And if there is no cross table sharing, my mistake doesn't cause too much correction. But I'll likely recton and have one ruby stops glowing.. defective ruby >.<
|
|
As a note, there is a local convention near me in southern California that takes place President's Day Weekend (Feb 17-20). I'll be out at that and my posting will be very very limited that weekend if existent at all, so if we are in a tight spot I may request relief cover for that weekend. If my party is flying I may just put in a brief nightly post, but if there are other GMs here in the southern California area in the same boat lets make sure we don't cause a run on relief GMs. Also if other people are going to Strategicon let me know so we can meet up!
|
|
A very conscientious healer at my table is asking if he can help with healing at the other tables.
@GM Skipper/Miklos, Your player is welcome to make a cameo in my table's Gameplay thread >>Here<< to offer his services, if Shifty's OK with it.
I can't say whether the party will take him up on his offer, but a bit of socializing between tables might be a cool change of pace.
|
|
Also...
Relief GM system has been working well. We have already had one permanent GM swap out with a reserve taking over a table due to a GM leaving play due to a legit reason and we were able to get that managed in a matter of hours.
Similarly we have had a weekend relief cover by Magabeus which seems to have equally gone smoothly.
So please use the process if you need :)
Yes, please reach out to me if you need me to take over for any length of time. It was great fun to take over GM Hmm's table for the weekend.
|
|
Just checking in...
@GMS & YIM - I love the guys enthusiasm, but as written there isn't really an opportunity for cameos and cross table support at this point. So although we love a civic minded Pathfinder who shows solidarity with his comrades, he's a bit stuck behind the virtual wall of the scenario. In YotSL there were a couple of explicit points at which there could be cross table support, and later on it became aid tokens, but for this one its all very silent.
If one of your players has a bad time because of some horrible rolls and you believe they had some unfair outcome happen to them beyond your capability to handwave though, come plead your case and I can escalate it to the Gods for review.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a note, there is a local convention near me in southern California that takes place President's Day Weekend (Feb 17-20). I'll be out at that and my posting will be very very limited that weekend if existent at all, so if we are in a tight spot I may request relief cover for that weekend. If my party is flying I may just put in a brief nightly post, but if there are other GMs here in the southern California area in the same boat lets make sure we don't cause a run on relief GMs. Also if other people are going to Strategicon let me know so we can meet up!
Go ahead and reserve a relief GM now. This is exactly what they are meant for!
Hmm