|
On January 02 2015 12:06 TheYango wrote:
Sure, but that's basically the difference between going for the squishies before they've acted vs. going for them after they've had a round to cast spells.
exactly. and by the time they have cast spells turning your back on the guy engaged with you is nonsensical, even if the spellcaster is a big threat. you'd send someone doubling up to take care of it rather than have your bandit party of 5 all drop from their combat and bum rush the caster. unless there was SOMEONE directing them.
As opposed to the idiocy of:
Sure but then you're just depending on the good graces of your DM to play all the intelligent monsters as emotionally compromised and untrained/inexperienced.And similarly for dumb monsters to be exceptionally dumb (woodland animals successfully differentiate between prey and predators) and also always come into situations in which they attack the tank firstand switch to the tank of he stands near them.
goumindong is saying that bandits or whoever would always decide to attack the unarmed people, ignoring the armored swordsmen even without knowledge that the group contains a spellcaster or someone to direct them.
that if a bandit group ambushes a caravan with a merchant, they would go for the merchant first and the guards last. because the merchant MIGHT be a wizard.
|
United States47024 Posts
Most cues toward identifying magic users would not be based on identifying the magic itself but rather seeing equipment/symbols that are indicative of a magic user, such as scrolls, spellbooks, magical spell component pouches, symbols of an arcane order, etc.
These things can be hidden, but a caster would have to go out of their way to hide them on their person and would impede their accessibility in a fight. Stuffing all your scrolls into your backpack means you can't pull them out as easy if you need them in the thick of combat. I'd give a caster doing such things the benefit of the doubt since they're making a deliberate tradeoff, but not making an explicit attempt to hide the fact that you're a spellcaster will probably give you away fairly easily once you have a sufficient number of such items. There are just too many signs of a wizard once you've got some scrolls in a hip case on one side, a belt pouch of eyeballs and strange herbs on the other, and an amulet or robe identifying you as a member of some arcane order. Even if they miss some of the signs, you'll eventually reach critical mass at some point where its easier to assume that you are a spellcaster than to assume that you aren't.
Of course, by the time you've accumulated that many, your power as a Wizard has probably reached the point where it's really not a big deal if they go for you first, cuz you'll pop a Fly/Invisibility and they'll have to go for the fighter anyway. Which really is the crux of why this is really a non-issue: by the time the Wizard casts enough spells to actually be dangerous as a spellcaster, he's also defensively potent enough that going for him first is no longer actually a problem for him because he has enough personal outs from sticky situations that it's really just the same (or even BETTER) if the enemies all try to go for him first.
|
yeah pretty much once you can be identified from afar, you can also kill them before they touch you, or evade them.
|
United States47024 Posts
On the other issue of whether Asmo's giving away too much info, I'll watch the VOD and give some feedback. Though with a fresh group, I think erring on the side of giving more information is better than giving less because, again, a new group is often not going to know what to ask for, and it's not really fair to force the new players to do that (though you can start getting them into the habit of it).
|
People also need to keep in mind this was supposed to be a one-shot. No point in setting campaign standards for what is essentially glorified auditions.
|
United States15536 Posts
Not to mention just practice for me, since I need it with both the rules and running the campaign.
|
On January 02 2015 12:33 Gahlo wrote:
People also need to keep in mind this was supposed to be a one-shot. No point in setting campaign standards for what is essentially glorified auditions.
True, true. And I didn't mean perception, I guess I meant search. I'm not really used to 5e changes or whatever. But this was what I was looking at recently when they were playing. So I was just fumbling around d&d rules and comparing them.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Search_Skill
yeah, so for a sense magic on a search check is like 60+, and that's just "magical presence" without any indiication on number strength, or type of effects.
The reason I got the natty 20 cuz of the "Epic Check" part, but I guess I was misreading, which meant that being able to sense magic is an epic check.
|
United States47024 Posts
Yes, I pointed that out, but as I said, that's totally not applicable here. It's a function of the search skill, for someone searching an object or area and detecting the presence of a magical spell or effect in place over that object or area with no other indicator.
It's irrelevant to the question of identifying a spellcaster. Because virtually all means of identifying a spellcaster would have no practical relevance to the presence or absence of magical effects (as I said, they would be based more on mundane identifiers of the person as a spellcaster based on other things, which would be knowledge-based, not perception-based). The only relevant perception-based check would be identifying someone in the act of casting a spell, which by comparison is trivially easy.
|
For reference; In 3.5 the spot check to see a non hiding humanoid creature is non opposed and so automatically succeeds. The opposed hide check made after making an attack is at -20 so that gives us an idea that the spot check to see a non hiding creature should be around -20 or lower. Something barely even achievable. The spot to read lips at 50 feet is 20. No one has much difficulty seeing details about things they're looking at.
After you cast one spell(so round one of combat, possibly before the enemies act) the enemies know what you are and it makes absolute sense to go after them at that point and eating a measly one reaction attack from moving past the fighter is 100% totally worth it (except very early when enemies have low hp) On January 02 2015 07:16 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2015 05:10 Goumindong wrote:
Sure but then you're just depending on the good graces of your DM to play all the intelligent monsters as emotionally compromised and untrained/inexperienced. And similarly for dumb monsters to be exceptionally dumb (woodland animals successfully differentiate between prey and predators) and also always come into situations in which they attack the tank first and switch to the tank of he stands near them. Why is it necessary for characters to fall into MMO tropes? An intelligent monster who recognizes a spellcaster as a greater threat as a fighter is going to attack the spellcaster. This is logical. What's illogical is artificial mechanics that impede this logical course of action. This is also why spellcasters have self-only defensive spells that would be WAY too powerful if they could be targeted on others (see: Mirror Image).
Well before going on its not an mmo trope. It's a dnd trope, right from the white box and then explicitly expanded upon in ADnD 2, which mmos copied. Just like the focus on the tactical aspect was there right from the beginning.
Additionally there is nothing artificial about marking mechanisms. It's literally the thing that xizor is claiming that the fighter does naturally (except without the actual mechanic to do so); punishing people for not paying attention to him.
All that being said there isn't really anything wrong with not having those tropes. They are super useful for providing interesting combat situations and also for ensuing that everyone has something to do but they aren't necessary. All I said was that the royal "you" shouldn't expect much protection because there isn't much that a fighter can do to protect you. if you take a shield and the shield protection and you're within 5 feet of the fighter the fighter can induce 1 attack to be at disadvantage per round. good, but not great (and well I avoided shields because of how strong they are)On January 02 2015 12:16 TheYango wrote:
Of course, by the time you've accumulated that many, your power as a Wizard has probably reached the point where it's really not a big deal if they go for you first, cuz you'll pop a Fly/Invisibility and they'll have to go for the fighter anyway. Which really is the crux of why this is really a non-issue: by the time the Wizard casts enough spells to actually be dangerous as a spellcaster, he's also defensively potent enough that going for him first is no longer actually a problem for him because he has enough personal outs from sticky situations that it's really just the same (or even BETTER) if the enemies all try to go for him first.
Nah I don't buy it. Wizards don't have enough spells to waste like that on defense continually.(plus the one reaction/round rule) Especially since those spells prevent them in many situations from using offensive spells (since you can only have one concentration active at a time and almost all the best offensive spells have concentration components). The HP and defense differential is almost always high enough to make it worthwhile to attack the wizard. Remember that defense is a multiplicative stat in 5e. Higher AC multiplies your already higher HP and for the most part you're looking at at most a one round deficit in Mage identification. (Plus the advantage of disrupting those concentration spells makes targeting mages even more advantageous)
On January 02 2015 12:23 PrinceXizor wrote:
yeah pretty much once you can be identified from afar, you can also kill them before they touch you, or evade them.
only if every combat starts at 150+ feet with the enemy being surprised and/or no cover and also doesn't have archers. I mean you're a wizard. Who do you target with your spells first? The guy with lots of HP or the guy with few?
Edit: somewhat ironically fighters protect mages against archers better than against melee as creatures provide cover and so the fighter can generate cover for his back line.
|
is the shitposting done yet?
no?
k
|
United States15536 Posts
Okay, TEAM 2, how does next Tuesday Wednesday, Jan 07 2:00am GMT (GMT+00:00) sound for YOUR first session (and hopefully last because "one-shot")?
TEAM 1, perhaps we can finish ours off later in that week. That or we could wait until the week after and just watch AGDQ all next week (other than TEAM 2's one-shot).
|
On January 02 2015 22:54 AsmodeusXI wrote:
Okay, TEAM 2, how does next Tuesday Wednesday, Jan 07 2:00am GMT (GMT+00:00) sound for YOUR first session (and hopefully last because "one-shot")?
TEAM 1, perhaps we can finish ours off later in that week. That or we could wait until the week after and just watch AGDQ all next week (other than TEAM 2's one-shot).
Believe I am free all next week in the evening outside of friday.
|
I think next Wednesday (1/7) is the only day I'm not available.
|
On January 02 2015 22:54 AsmodeusXI wrote:
Okay, TEAM 2, how does next Tuesday Wednesday, Jan 07 2:00am GMT (GMT+00:00) sound for YOUR first session (and hopefully last because "one-shot")?
TEAM 1, perhaps we can finish ours off later in that week. That or we could wait until the week after and just watch AGDQ all next week (other than TEAM 2's one-shot).
I will be available... but I don't know if i will even have access to a computer. (RIP my life for the last 4 years). I will try my best to make arrangements to borrow someones because I have been looking forward to this so much.
heh cool im an archon
|
On January 03 2015 00:02 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2015 22:54 AsmodeusXI wrote:
Okay, TEAM 2, how does next Tuesday Wednesday, Jan 07 2:00am GMT (GMT+00:00) sound for YOUR first session (and hopefully last because "one-shot")?
TEAM 1, perhaps we can finish ours off later in that week. That or we could wait until the week after and just watch AGDQ all next week (other than TEAM 2's one-shot). I will be available... but I don't know if i will even have access to a computer. (RIP my life for the last 4 years). I will try my best to make arrangements to borrow someones because I have been looking forward to this so much. heh cool im an archon
If you have a phone with Skype and internet it'd work as well coma.
|
On January 03 2015 00:45 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2015 00:02 ComaDose wrote:On January 02 2015 22:54 AsmodeusXI wrote:
Okay, TEAM 2, how does next Tuesday Wednesday, Jan 07 2:00am GMT (GMT+00:00) sound for YOUR first session (and hopefully last because "one-shot")?
TEAM 1, perhaps we can finish ours off later in that week. That or we could wait until the week after and just watch AGDQ all next week (other than TEAM 2's one-shot). I will be available... but I don't know if i will even have access to a computer. (RIP my life for the last 4 years). I will try my best to make arrangements to borrow someones because I have been looking forward to this so much. heh cool im an archon If you have a phone with Skype and internet it'd work as well coma.
I could do that but iuno about tabbing out to use roll20 or w.e.
|
Hm... if we used google hangout maybe? can we test that to see if you could do it?
|
hangout's integrated roll20 interface isn't too bad
|
On January 03 2015 01:09 jcarlsoniv wrote:
hangout's integrated roll20 interface isn't too bad
i wonder how it is on mobile though. if coma has to use a phone.
|
I don't want people to compromise for me anyway but thanks for thinking of it! I'll find a computer to use that shouldn't be toooo bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
