|
|
Post by gaptooth on Nov 10, 2010 13:18:55 GMT -5
Do casters have to rest and/or meditate to recover WZ in your game, or does recovery happen automatically. If automatically, shall I assume 1 point of recovery for each passing turn?
Edit: Fix typo.
|
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Nov 10, 2010 13:30:14 GMT -5
1 point per normal non- combat turn. If you spend the turn in some very stressful circumstances - fleeing for your life, being tortured, drowning - no recovery. But that should only be about half of the non- combat turns in this game.  |
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Nov 10, 2010 20:58:38 GMT -5
1 point per turn of non-strenuous activity.
Meditation permits more... make a meditation/int talent SR, level is player choice, and is also number recovered in 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Nov 15, 2010 10:09:01 GMT -5
No need to do a SR on a basic (L0) detect magic. We'll take it as a given that 'Nasan can sense the presence of magical energy, and I'll try to remember to add it to my descriptions of your environment. If you want to spend 1 WIZ, treat it as a L1 spell, 2 WIZ, treat it as a L2 spell.
|
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Nov 23, 2010 10:11:35 GMT -5
I've been struggling to come up with a consistent way to deal with SRs on certain things - especially with regards to exploration. My default rule is that a SR shouldn't be allowed for things that have no in-game effect, or where the outcome is the same regardless of whether you succeed or fail at the SR. So what happens when you explore an area that has nothing in it?
Let me give some examples.
Scenario 1: You are in a room and there is a secret door. You say "I want to look for secret doors and the like" and make a SR. Here, there was something to find and either you find it or you don't, but either way, you get the AP.
Scenario 2: You are in a room and there is stuff that you may not see right away when you first enter the room. (For example, the paw print in the first cave). Here a player could simply say "I'm going to take a careful look around the room, examining the floors and the walls for anything out of the ordinary." You would find the paw print or whatever. No SR needed. Or, as in Bitsa's case you could do a SR and find it in the same way, but with a risk of failure. However, you would get the AP. Here, the paw-print had an in-game effect since it gave you information about what you could potentially be facing in the cave.
Scenario 3: There's something in a room that you may not see at first glance that has no in-game effect. For example, the traces of ancient troll habitation in the second cave. Nice to know, but doesn't help you. Again, you could find this by simply saying "I examine the area very closely, looking for anything unusual" with 100% probability of success. Or you could make a SR and find it, with a risk of failure, but get the AP. Here, because the information has no in-game effect, I ruled that a SR wasn't necessary.
Scenario 4: You're in a room with nothing in it that is hidden, secret, or non-obvious. You could say "I examine the room closely" and would find nothing. You could make a SR, and success or failure, you find nothing. But here's my dilemma - the quality of finding nothing in the two cases is not the same. If you fail the SR and find nothing, you might assume that there IS something hidden but you failed to find it. If you succeed on the SR and find nothing, you KNOW there is nothing to find. So even though the outcome is the same, it does give you some useful in-game information - namely that there is nothing to find in the room.
So here's the way I'm going to play it, but I would welcome your input on whether you think this is fair.
If there is something in a room that is simply non-obvious; not hidden, just not something you would take in at a first glance, you can find it with 100% probability by simply saying something like "I take a close look around the room." Or you can make a SR and find it, or risk failure, but get AP in either case. However, if what you would find has no in-game effect, I'm going to rule that a SR wasn't neccessary.
If there is something in a room that is actively concealed, it will take a SR to find it, or without that, a detailed description of what you are looking for or how you are looking, e.g. "I lift up all the pots on the floor and look underneath them for any signs of secret passageways."
If there is nothing in a room to find, you can take a careful look around the room or make a SR. I'm going to say that a SR in this case should get you AP because you do gain information, even if it is negative information - namely that there is nothing to find.
Or am I just making this all too complex?
|
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Nov 23, 2010 16:59:30 GMT -5
Scenario 4: You're in a room with nothing in it that is hidden, secret, or non-obvious. You could say "I examine the room closely" and would find nothing. You could make a SR, and success or failure, you find nothing. But here's my dilemma - the quality of finding nothing in the two cases is not the same. If you fail the SR and find nothing, you might assume that there IS something hidden but you failed to find it. If you succeed on the SR and find nothing, you KNOW there is nothing to find. So even though the outcome is the same, it does give you some useful in-game information - namely that there is nothing to find in the room. This can be avoided by simply not telling the player the level of SR that they are making. Just say: "Make an IQ SR" or whatever. If they succeed in making the roll at the level that you need them to, and there is something to find, they find it. If they fail, or there is nothing to find, you tell them that they find nothing but they don't know if there is nothing to find or if they just failed the roll. If they fumble, they'll know that they failed, but still won't know if there was anything to find (but will be more likely to search again). Or you can make the SR yourself, and don't show them the roll. More work for you, and the players don't get to make rolls that could have a large impact on their characters, but it's an option. This is not necessarily too complex, but the real question to ask yourself is, is the level of complexity acceptable to you? The players won't necessarily even be aware of the complexity. If you can live with it, use it. If you can't, keep looking for something that you can live with. |
|
kwll
3rd Level Troll
Posts: 238
|
Post by kwll on Nov 24, 2010 5:42:13 GMT -5
Well, the problem is that there is a house rule here where AP are granted per attribute for SRs. So this would mean that MM keeps track of the APs alone, and reveals the total at the end of the game. I guess that's his call...
|
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Nov 24, 2010 9:18:09 GMT -5
And I am keeping track separately... I like mahrundl's suggestion, but I think it would work better in a live game. Also, I don't believe a SR is mandatory to search a room. Maybe I'm a little bit old school, but if a PC describes how they are searching the room and that would lead to finding things that are hidden or non-obvious, that's good enough for me. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfGremlin on Nov 24, 2010 11:10:13 GMT -5
Why not simply have the PC's state IC how they will search the room. From there, you can decide to simply either award a set amount of AP for the search or request a SR. Use the interstitial post to request the player make the SR and then a second one for the results?
|
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Nov 24, 2010 11:13:56 GMT -5
You are talking sense Prof. I like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Nov 25, 2010 3:23:08 GMT -5
Also, I don't believe a SR is mandatory to search a room. Maybe I'm a little bit old school, but if a PC describes how they are searching the room and that would lead to finding things that are hidden or non-obvious, that's good enough for me. I did not mean to suggest that you should always require a SR. I was just giving an idea of how to handle the players knowing whether they succeeded or failed. Certainly if even the most basic search will find something, or if the specifics of how they search make it obvious that they will find it, a SR is pretty pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Jan 15, 2011 14:05:59 GMT -5
I was reviewing the 7.5 rules for missile combat. Adds for missiles seem to be unspecified. I propose we use DEX and LUK adds for missiles, since hitting the right spot is the key thing. Thoughts?
Didn't version 5 use double your DEX adds or something like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfGremlin on Jan 15, 2011 15:36:37 GMT -5
From the 5th ed Abridged:
So, a Dex SR vs target number to hit the target. Personal adds for missiles are (Dex)x2.
I'm fine with your adjudication of Dex+Luk for your missile adds.
|
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Jan 15, 2011 19:15:53 GMT -5
5th edition: Melee adds = ST adds + LK adds + DEX adds Missile adds = ST adds + LK adds + DEX adds + DEX adds 7th edition: Melee adds = ST adds + LK adds + DEX adds + SPD adds Missile adds are not specified, so I'd either use the same principle as 5th edition (DEx adds are doubled), or assume that they are the same as Melee adds. Those are 'official' (other than 7th Missile adds, which are entirely my interpretation), but you can of course use any method that you like, with or without justification. Missile adds = CHR adds? The target is less likely to dodge the arrow if they're checking out your legs...  |
|
|
|
Post by monstermike on Jan 16, 2011 11:09:10 GMT -5
The missile table in 7.5 is a bit different, giving no modifiers for target size.
Point Blank (1 ft. or less) = Level 1
Easy (up to 30 feet) = Level 2
Challenging (up to 100 feet) = Level 3
Difficult (up to 300 feet) = Level 4
Remarkable (over 300 feet) = Level 5
Targets taking evasive action (i.e. moving rapidly or intentionally dodging missile fire) double the difficulty of the SR. The GM may otherwise adjust the difficulty of the SR if the target is unusually large or small, or if other beneficial or detrimental conditions exist.
[Begin rant]
My two cents on this is that both missile tables are probably a bit unrealistic.
I bowhunt. Granted, I use a modern compound bow with a sight and all the doodads that make a bow more accurate. But I used to shoot with a recurve bow which isn't dramatically different from the bow technology of 1000 years ago, or more. If I were to give myself T&T stats, I would definitely be a citizen with STR 14, DEX 12-13, LUK 10-11, or thereabouts. Certainly no significant adds. Yet I can sink shots into a six-inch circle all day long at 50 yards. That would be a nearly impossible L4 (v. 7.5 rules) or L7ish (v. 5 rules) shot according to these tables. Even at point-blank range, it would be roughly a 50-50 chance of me being able to hit a human-sized target. Huh?
Granted, taking a shot in the heat of combat or in the heat of buck fever is different than taking a shot at an inanimate target, and I understand that the tables are the way they are to keep the element of uncertainty at play in the game. But a 100 foot shot is simply not a challenging shot with a bow or crossbow to someone who has had any training and practice in their use. 30 - 40 yards is a really common range to practice at for bowhunting, and your target isn't the size of a deer. It's the size of the heart-lung-liver organ cluster on a deer, which you usually treat as a six-inch circle.
[End of rant]
With all that said, I suggest we use the v. 7.5 table, which is a bit more realistic than that v. 5 table, and I'll modify the SR level up or down as appropriate based on the size of the target and whether it is taking evasive action. We'll use DEX and LUK adds as our missile adds.
|
|
