Spellcasting from hiding

[Beruin]

Okay, this may sound a bit stupid, but I can`t remember if I ever read an answer to this one anywhere.

Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more easier.
My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to take the gnoll out.

What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?

Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 03:51 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:

>Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in
>hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard
>silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more easier.
>My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to
>take the gnoll out.
>
>What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the
>players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?
>
>Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

This kind of thing keeps coming up in my sessions too, mostly in regards to
charm spells. I haven`t seen a solution in any of the D&D materials that
is very helpful. There are a few feats that allow spellcasters to cast
their spells in a clandestine fashion (like Silent Spell) but they don`t
really address exactly how to deal with someone trying to attack with magic
without being seen. A more general guideline is necessary.

What I`m thinking of doing is making an attempt to cast a spell without
being seen a simple Hide check, opposed by the target creature`s
Spot. Actually, I use a more generalized skill called Sneak that includes
the functions of both Hide and Move Silently, so this concept fits a little
better because it`s not quite painful to add whole new definitions to
skills if they are meant to be more generalized in the first place. You
could just use Hide, but I think an argument could be made that a
spellcaster might need to make a Hide check for any spell with a material,
focus or somatic component, and a Move Silently check for those with a
verbal component--maybe one for each--all of which would be opposed by
appropriate Spot and Listen checks.

There would be various modifiers reflecting the difficulty of hiding
various types of spellcasting. Things like distance and the type of
material components needed to cast the spell. These modifiers should be
reflected as penalties to the spellcaster`s Hide (Sneak) check.

Condition Modifier
V component -5
S component -5
M component -5
F component -5
Visible effect * -5/spell level
Has surprise +5
Each 30` distance +2

* A visible effect represents the spell having a physical, visible
manifestation such as the energy bolts of a magic missile, the ray of a Ray
of Enfeeblement, etc. Those effects tend to be more dramatic as spell
level increases, hence the -5/spell level penalty. In such cases the fact
that a spell has been cast is, of course, obvious but a spellcaster might
be able to conceal that the spell effect came from him. Charm spells, for
instance, do not have a visible effect and would not suffer this penalty.

In this context, the feats used to hide spellcasting then can be cast as
reducing or eliminating the penalty for a particular kind of spell
component. A silent spell could be cast without suffering the -5 penalty
for V components.

Note that a character could make this opposed roll and then fail the saving
throw for the spell. A charmed character then would know that he was
charmed. That knowledge wouldn`t effect any aspect of the spell`s
effect... at least until the it wears off.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

If you make a save, you know that something happened - but not what, or by
whom.

It says so somewhere under saves in the PH.

/Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph Tiemann" <tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: Spellcasting from hiding


Okay, this may sound a bit stupid, but I can`t remember if I ever read an
answer to this one anywhere.

Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in
hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard
silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more
easier.
My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to
take the gnoll out.

What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the
players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?

Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.



__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

Casting a spell unnoticed out of a shadow is not possible. Sleep has V, S, M components. I would allow it only if the character has something like Silent Spell or if he is really far away from the target.

After the spell the recipient knows that he has been manipulated. Spells like charm person could easily be detected by the recipient, even who has casted it can be found out. Rember, the time of the "awakenig" or clear mind of the target is unknown. In the case of charm person he may remember someone who "gave him the friendly advices"...

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary wrote:

> At 03:51 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
>
>> Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the
>> players in
>> hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard
>> silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much
>> more easier.
>> My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like
>> sleep to
>> take the gnoll out.
>> What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of
>> the
>> players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?
>> Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?
>
> This kind of thing keeps coming up in my sessions too, mostly in
> regards to
> charm spells. I haven`t seen a solution in any of the D&D materials that
> is very helpful. There are a few feats that allow spellcasters to cast
> their spells in a clandestine fashion (like Silent Spell) but they don`t
> really address exactly how to deal with someone trying to attack with
> magic
> without being seen. A more general guideline is necessary.
>
> What I`m thinking of doing is making an attempt to cast a spell without
> being seen a simple Hide check, opposed by the target creature`s
> Spot. Actually, I use a more generalized skill called Sneak that
> includes
> the functions of both Hide and Move Silently, so this concept fits a
> little
> better because it`s not quite painful to add whole new definitions to
> skills if they are meant to be more generalized in the first place. You
> could just use Hide, but I think an argument could be made that a
> spellcaster might need to make a Hide check for any spell with a
> material,
> focus or somatic component, and a Move Silently check for those with a
> verbal component--maybe one for each--all of which would be opposed by
> appropriate Spot and Listen checks.
>
> There would be various modifiers reflecting the difficulty of hiding
> various types of spellcasting. Things like distance and the type of
> material components needed to cast the spell. These modifiers should be
> reflected as penalties to the spellcaster`s Hide (Sneak) check.
>
> Condition Modifier
> V component -5
> S component -5
> M component -5
> F component -5
> Visible effect * -5/spell level
> Has surprise +5
> Each 30` distance +2
>
> * A visible effect represents the spell having a physical, visible
> manifestation such as the energy bolts of a magic missile, the ray of
> a Ray
> of Enfeeblement, etc. Those effects tend to be more dramatic as spell
> level increases, hence the -5/spell level penalty. In such cases the
> fact
> that a spell has been cast is, of course, obvious but a spellcaster might
> be able to conceal that the spell effect came from him. Charm spells,
> for
> instance, do not have a visible effect and would not suffer this penalty.
>
> In this context, the feats used to hide spellcasting then can be cast as
> reducing or eliminating the penalty for a particular kind of spell
> component. A silent spell could be cast without suffering the -5 penalty
> for V components.
>
> Note that a character could make this opposed roll and then fail the
> saving
> throw for the spell. A charmed character then would know that he was
> charmed. That knowledge wouldn`t effect any aspect of the spell`s
> effect... at least until the it wears off.
> Gary

Travis Doom´s 3E Manual already had a mechanic for "quietly" casting
without someone noticing. A concentration check against DC 15+spell
level. Bluff of 5+ ranks gave 2 synergy bonus. Concentration because
it´s harder to cast and concentrate on your spell, when you do not want
someone else to notice, what I see as fitting.

The suggestion for a Hide/MoveSilently vs. a spot check I do not like if
the caster is not in a line of sight to the target of the spell.
If the gnoll in question does look the other way, and the only thing
that happens is the sleep spell, then I think not spot, but a spellcraft
check would be proper to see if the gnoll does not only notice a strange
tingle he can´t identify and does not care about or if he the target
recognizes the strange feeling as a magical attack. As most gnolls would
not have the spellcraft skill, the gnoll who is not much more than a
beast, would notice a strange feeling, would be unable to identify it
and shrug it off without doing anything IMO.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:51:16PM +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
> Okay, this may sound a bit stupid, but I can`t remember if I ever read an answer to this one anywhere.
>
> Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more easier.
> My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to take the gnoll out.
>
> What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?
>
> Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

I think that the "cannon" answer is that a magical attack is noticable
as an attack. The "Save" process supposes that the target notices the
effect and uses their natural or trained talents to fight of the
effect. Thus, any character that makes a saving throw should be aware
of the "general" attack.

Like an arrow shot from the darkness, however, simply knowing that you
were attacked does not tell you who/where the attack came from. I`d
say that listen and spot checks to detect spell casters should be
more or less on par with detecting any ranged attack from ambush.

LISTEN:
Generally spellcasting is quite loud, so a fairly easy listen check (DC
5 + 1 per 10 feet, if memory serves) should allow the target to
determine the general direction. If the check exceeds the DC by 20 I
think that the caster`s location would be identified to the exact 5ft
square. If the spell is cast silently, then the DC would be dependent
on spoting. If the spell is cast silently, then there should probably
still be an opposed Listen VS. Move Silently check to ID the caster`s
movement.

SPOT:
Casting a spell requires some fairly serious gyrations (possibly with
pyrotechnics, glowing tracery in the air, and other special effects).
The special effects of spell casting are left fairly open, I think.
(In any event, I can`t quote a rule for it). My gut would be to go
with the same general DC as the listen check - a base DC of 5 or so.
If the caster has the still spell feat, then their would still be the
oppotunity to have an opposed Spot Vs. Hide check to find the caster
after alerted.

I`d avoid the use of the "SCRY" check to detect the spell casting.

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 06:10 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:

>Travis Doom´s 3E Manual already had a mechanic for "quietly" casting
>without someone noticing. A concentration check against DC 15+spell
>level. Bluff of 5+ ranks gave 2 synergy bonus. Concentration because
>it´s harder to cast and concentrate on your spell, when you do not want
>someone else to notice, what I see as fitting.

A Concentration check would probably be appropriate given that casting a
spell "on the quiet" would be more difficult than doing so outright, bit it
doesn`t really have much to do with whether or not the spellcasting itself
is noticed, though, does it? It`s more about wether or not the spellcaster
can successfully get his spell off rather than whether or not the target
notices the effort.

>The suggestion for a Hide/MoveSilently vs. a spot check I do not like if
>the caster is not in a line of sight to the target of the spell.
>If the gnoll in question does look the other way, and the only thing
>that happens is the sleep spell, then I think not spot, but a spellcraft
>check would be proper to see if the gnoll does not only notice a strange
>tingle he can´t identify and does not care about or if he the target
>recognizes the strange feeling as a magical attack. As most gnolls would
>not have the spellcraft skill, the gnoll who is not much more than a
>beast, would notice a strange feeling, would be unable to identify it
>and shrug it off without doing anything IMO.

It seems to me there are three aspects of this issue that are getting a
little confused, so let me try to break them down a bit.

The first issue is whether or not the spellcaster can successfully get his
spell off. This assumes that he`s trying to cast the spell in a way that
will not attract a lot of attention, and that if most spellcasting is
obvious (the spellcaster waves his arms in the air and speaks his
incarnation in a loud, clear voice) then an attempt to cast a spell without
calling attention to the spellcaster would require a Concentration check in
order to make the spell function. Something like the low end of the
Concentration check (DC 10 + spell level) seems appropriate to me here. DC
15 + spell level with a Bluff skill synergy modifier seems a bit high to me
considering that a DC 15 Concentration check equates to a galloping horse
or taking 5 hp of continuous damage.

Second, if the spellcaster is trying to conceal his spellcasting then there
needs to be some sort of way to gauge how well he concealed his
activities. At the very least there needs to be a way for people in the
area to recognize the spellcasting taking place. Doom`s rules for casting
spells quietly would appear to assume that a Concentration check to
successfully cast a spell covertly means it isn`t noticed, but I think I`d
prefer to have that handled by the relative skills/abilities of the
creature doing the observing (or not) rather than based that solely on the
skill of the spellcaster. I suggested Hide in the previous post, but I
could also see an argument for Pick Pockets, since that skill really
includes many sorts of sleight of hand type activities, not just picking
pockets. At this point I could see an argument for either--which means I`m
probably going to playtest either before/if I settle on one or the
other. One could apply the Bluff synergy bonus here, since I think it
would be more appropriate to the concealment attempt than to the ability to
get the spell off.

Third, the target of a successfully cast spell who makes his saving throw
will realize he`s had a spell cast on him. According to the PHB (p150) "A
creature that successfully saves against a spell without obvious physical
effects feels a hostile force or tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature
of the attack." If, however, he didn`t observe the spellcaster (or
recognize that the spellcaster was casting the spell) then he`d not know
the source of the attack. Nor does he necessarily know the type of spell
being cast on him. A Spellcraft check would be appropriate for the latter
issue.

So let`s say we`ve got an NPC guard that a wizard is casting sleep on. The
wizard stands there humming, rocking back and forth on his heels with his
hands folded behind his back and casts his spell as quietly and carefully
as he can. "Hmm, hmm, hmm. Somanbulum ecto homin... hmm, hmm." He
twiddles his fingers a bit here and there, and casually points at the
guard, sprinkles some sand and drops a live cricket. This is more
difficult than simply saying the spell`s verbal components outright while
pointing dramatically at the target and tossing sand and insects at
him--the typical way of casting a spell in dramatic D&D fashion--so the
spellcaster much make a Concentration check to pull it off. Furthermore,
the guard may or may not recognize that a spell is being cast in his
presence. He may not even see the spellcaster`s twiddling fingers, nor
hear the mumbled words or sand and insects hitting the floorboards. Note
that the Hide (or Pick Pocket) check should still be made whether or not
the Concentration check was successful. If the Concentration check failed
and the guard did not recognize that a spell was being cast he would have
no magical effect to save from and, therefore, no "force or tingle" to
notice. He may just look up and say, "Pardon me, sir, but you appear to
have dropped your cricket." If he did recognize that a spell was being
attempted, however, he`d jump up and sound the alarm.

OK, so here`s it spelled out.

Step #1: The spellcaster makes a concentration check to cast a sleep spell
on a guard without the guard noticing.

Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he must
also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard gets an
attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I listed in the
previous post might come into effect. How far away is the spellcaster from
his target? What kinds of components does his spellcasting require? What
is the physical manifestation of the spell? Things like that.

Note that a guard with his back turned standing 200` away probably wouldn`t
have much of a chance to recognize a spell being cast. The DM should take
notice of the fact that he`s not seeing the spellcaster who should not,
therefore, suffer penalties for S and M components. In fact, in retrospect
it would probably be better for those modifiers to effect the target(s)
Spot check rather than the spellcaster`s Hide (or Pick Pocket) check since
there could be two or more characters in the area who might recognize the
spellcasting attempt.

An already hidden or otherwise concealed spellcaster probably could still
have to make either of these checks. Several of the modifiers would to see
the spell would not apply, but he could still hear (Listen check) a spell
with a verbal component being cast, or notice some disturbance out of the
corner of his eye as somatic components are being performed.

Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been cast
if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He does not
necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized the
spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows and if the
spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two and two
together. (Depending on the circumstances.)

I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted this
has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think a set of
guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad thing. In
practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play out, even if
the explanation was verbose.

Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise bewitching
NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an irony considering
such spells are a very real physical assault, and it was the mere
accusation of such powers that got many people burned at the stake, dunked
in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit more pause in this area
are probably a good thing.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary wrote:

> ...
> Step #1: The spellcaster makes a concentration check to cast a sleep
> spell on a guard without the guard noticing.
>
> Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he
> must also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard
> gets an attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I
> listed in the previous post might come into effect. How far away is
> the spellcaster from his target? What kinds of components does his
> spellcasting require? What is the physical manifestation of the
> spell? Things like that.

That is perhaps irritating. Concentration to succeed getting the spell
off, despite murmuring instead of clearly speaking and weaving arms only
slightly instead of like windmills - if the Concentration check would be
to "cast a sleep spell without the guard noticing" then the hide check
would not be necessary. As far as I understand the Concentration check
is to see if the spell succeeds being cast despite the higher effort to
hide the spell with a hide check, right?

> Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been
> cast if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He
> does not necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized
> the spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows
> and if the spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two
> and two together. (Depending on the circumstances.)
> I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted
> this has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think
> a set of guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad
> thing. In practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play
> out, even if the explanation was verbose.
> Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise
> bewitching NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an
> irony considering such spells are a very real physical assault, and it
> was the mere accusation of such powers that got many people burned at
> the stake, dunked in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit
> more pause in this area are probably a good thing.
> Gary

I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
came, nor even if it was a spell.

To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.

In the second point about charms used too often without second thought I
agree wholeheartedly.
The roleplaying issue of enchantment/charm school spells and their
practioners shunned in Anuire (as per the Book of Magecraft) does not
interest most players as they can justify somehow the use or even
knowledge of spells an NPC would think perhaps even as evil due to
cultural bias. And what I miss in the 3E charm person description is the
sentence of the 2E charm person spell: "Note that the subject has full
memory of the events that took place while he was charmed". A good
example is the charming that the Wizards does in "The Hag´s contract"
with Parniel Bowspear - Bowspear knows that he had been charmed when the
spell wears off...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary wrote:

> ...
> Step #1: The spellcaster makes a concentration check to cast a sleep
> spell on a guard without the guard noticing.
>
> Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he
> must also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard
> gets an attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I
> listed in the previous post might come into effect. How far away is
> the spellcaster from his target? What kinds of components does his
> spellcasting require? What is the physical manifestation of the
> spell? Things like that.

That is perhaps irritating. Concentration to succeed getting the spell
off, despite murmuring instead of clearly speaking and weaving arms only
slightly instead of like windmills - if the Concentration check would be
to "cast a sleep spell without the guard noticing" then the hide check
would not be necessary. As far as I understand the Concentration check
is to see if the spell succeeds being cast despite the higher effort to
hide the spell with a hide check, right?

> Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been
> cast if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He
> does not necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized
> the spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows
> and if the spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two
> and two together. (Depending on the circumstances.)
> I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted
> this has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think
> a set of guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad
> thing. In practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play
> out, even if the explanation was verbose.
> Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise
> bewitching NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an
> irony considering such spells are a very real physical assault, and it
> was the mere accusation of such powers that got many people burned at
> the stake, dunked in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit
> more pause in this area are probably a good thing.
> Gary

I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
came, nor even if it was a spell.

To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.

In the second point about charms used too often without second thought I
agree wholeheartedly.
The roleplaying issue of enchantment/charm school spells and their
practioners shunned in Anuire (as per the Book of Magecraft) does not
interest most players as they can justify somehow the use or even
knowledge of spells an NPC would think perhaps even as evil due to
cultural bias. And what I miss in the 3E charm person description is the
sentence of the 2E charm person spell: "Note that the subject has full
memory of the events that took place while he was charmed". A good
example is the charming that the Wizards does in "The Hag´s contract"
with Parniel Bowspear - Bowspear knows that he had been charmed when the
spell wears off...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

I swear that I read somewhere (I just can't find it) that if a person is charmed, once the charm wears off he doesn't realize that he was under the influence. This makes a lot of sense since the person while charmed actually believes that whatever he is doing is his own idea and that it was the "right" thing to do at the time. I believe this is why the 3rd ed version of the spell had the description modified.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1389
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> I swear that I read somewhere (I just can`t find it) that if a person is charmed, once the charm wears off he doesn`t realize that he was under the influence. This makes a lot of sense since the person while charmed actually believes that whatever he is doing is his own idea and that it was the "right" thing to do at the time. I believe this is why the 3rd ed version of the spell had the description modified.
>
In 2E this was definitely not so. The victim of a charm spell DID
remember what he did and who suggested what "as his best and most
trusted friend" and certainly is likely to guess that he was charmed
after the effect wears off and he knows that the person is not the
friend he was.

The "Forget" Spell was there to give the caster of a charm spell the
option to charm someone, manipulate him and then make him forget that he
had been charmed and manipulated (p. 183 2E PHB).

If in 3E a victim of a charm spell would not know that he had been
charmed, that strangely a stranger or enemy suddenly was "his best and
most trusted friend" then the 3E Charm spell would be much more powerful
than the 2E version. It would be in fact two spells combined (Charm
Person + Forget).

In my opinion, if this is actually so, it should not be so.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 08:31 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:

>>Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he
>>must also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard
>>gets an attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I
>>listed in the previous post might come into effect. How far away is
>>the spellcaster from his target? What kinds of components does his
>>spellcasting require? What is the physical manifestation of the
>>spell? Things like that.
>
>That is perhaps irritating. Concentration to succeed getting the spell
>off, despite murmuring instead of clearly speaking and weaving arms only
>slightly instead of like windmills - if the Concentration check would be
>to "cast a sleep spell without the guard noticing" then the hide check
>would not be necessary. As far as I understand the Concentration check
>is to see if the spell succeeds being cast despite the higher effort to
>hide the spell with a hide check, right?

That`s basically it. I think it sounds like more trouble in that
description than it really is. It`s just an opposed roll more than many
combat situations. Spellcaster makes concentration check in order to cast
spell properly in an unusual situation (there are many circumstances when
spellcasting provokes a concentration check) followed by Hide or Pick
Pocket roll to portray how well he is able to conceal his efforts. I also
described the results of the saving throw because it seemed to be getting
confused with one of the other two aspects of the situation, but that
description was no different than the standard system presented in the 3e
materials. I just included it in order to differentiate it from a target
actually noticing someone casting a spell that he`d been trying to conceal.

>I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
>his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
>the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
>came, nor even if it was a spell.

That`s under the assumption he`s unaware of the spellcaster,
right? Generally, spellcasting is described in literature, the movies,
etc. as having a pretty noticeable effort.... Having spellcasters` efforts
go unnoticed automatically would be a pretty hefty change in the status quo.

>And what I miss in the 3E charm person description is the
>sentence of the 2E charm person spell: "Note that the subject has full
>memory of the events that took place while he was charmed".

I think that`s pretty much assumed. There is no "memory wipe" or other
effect for such spells, so a charmed character (or slept one, for that
matter) who fails his save knows he was attacked by a spell when the spell
wears off even more readily than one who failed his save would. In a world
where these kinds of magic exist how stupid would someone have to be not to
realize that he`d been bewitched if he somehow miraculously survived combat
with a red dragon for a round or two?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 06:31, Michael Romes wrote:

Gary wrote:





> Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been
> cast if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He
> does not necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized
> the spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows
> and if the spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two
> and two together. (Depending on the circumstances.)
> I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted
> this has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think
> a set of guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad
> thing. In practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play
> out, even if the explanation was verbose.
> Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise
> bewitching NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an
> irony considering such spells are a very real physical assault, and it
> was the mere accusation of such powers that got many people burned at
> the stake, dunked in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit
> more pause in this area are probably a good thing.
> Gary

I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
came, nor even if it was a spell.

To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.

dumb gnoll humanoid? - while it`s pretty fair to say that it`s highly
unlikely that there be any great gnoll genius running guard duty -- just
how `stupid` do you think gnolls are?

Given their cultural development, use of tools and weapons etc (and
descripotion of intelligence within human range)-- gnolls are not that
much less advanced than humans - and their actual brain size is likely
somewhat similar. I would not penalize a gnoll in any way due to their
intelligence in this matter. A gnoll would have (IMO) just as much
chance to know as a human.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Peter Lubke wrote:

>On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 06:31, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>...
> I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
> his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
> the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
> came, nor even if it was a spell.
>To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
> in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
> I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
> cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.
>
>dumb gnoll humanoid? - while it`s pretty fair to say that it`s highly
>unlikely that there be any great gnoll genius running guard duty -- just
>how `stupid` do you think gnolls are?
>Given their cultural development, use of tools and weapons etc (and
>descripotion of intelligence within human range)-- gnolls are not that
>much less advanced than humans - and their actual brain size is likely
>somewhat similar. I would not penalize a gnoll in any way due to their
>intelligence in this matter. A gnoll would have (IMO) just as much
>chance to know as a human.
>
Gnolls are hyenalike humanoids who think with their stomaches and have
below average INT (8).
Humans have at least 8 as this is the score that costs nothing in the
buypoint system, and on average 10-11 (p. 9 PHB 3E).

As Gnolls are described in the novels they are cunning predators - like
the animal they resemble. Hunting in packs like Hyenas.
The use of weapons and armour is even mentioned among Stonecrown Ogres
(as in the dreaded Warlock of the Stonecrowns adventure), so no great
sign of advanced intelligence.

Brain Size is not related to intelligence - for example a long time
scientists stated that men have to be more intelligent than woman
because the average male brain is larger than the average female brain.
That has been proven wrong.

In my opinion the 1st level gnoll ranger, at which the sleep spell has
been cast covertly, would IF he succeeds at his saving throw only notice
a strange tingle - and say to himself: "Hmm, Orgluk perhaps too much
beer yesterday" and shrug it off.

But to realize: That tingle was a spell! There must be a wizard around,
sound the alarm! Search the caster!
should not automaitc but perhaps dependant on an Spellcraft check - on
an INT check.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

This is really two related issues.

A: Can you cast a spell without the casting getting noticed?

B: Will a target of a spell with a Will save notice anything? Does it depend
on whether he makes/fails his ave?

We also have the additional issue on what the rules say and the subjective
approach of each DM.

This is what the rules say:

A: PH, page 150 (first printing) under Components: "To provide a verbal
component, you mustbe able to speakin a stong voice." Under Listen skill, it
mentions "Pople talimg" as a DC 0 Listen roll. PWNo subterfuge here. Use
Silent Spell or some other metamgic feat.

B: PH, p 150 again, this time under Saving Throw: Succeeding at a Saving
Throw: "A creature that successfully saves against a spell without obvious
physical effect feels a hostil force or tingle, but cannot deduce the the
exact nature of the attack." For that, I`d use Spellcraft, the DC to
"Identify a spell aready in place and in effect" is 20 + spell level.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

My mechanic for knowing if you`ve been charmed as been an INT check. Of the
check is failed, you are suspicious about what just happened. This favors
the charm which is discreet - "There is a noise out the window, as a
responsible guard, go look out the window [waits] it looks like it was that
bird" as opposed to "Our party of adventurers are your friends, and belong
in the chamber you are guarding."
A passed INT check, and you know you have been charmed.

As for hiding, seeing a spellcaster cast a spell and knowing he`s casting
does not tell you what he`s casting. That requires a successful Spellcraft
check. Characters who are flatfooted, not facing the spellcaster, and then
charmed may not know any spell has been cast at all. They may find
themselves suspicious, or realizing that they acted in a way that can only
be explained as a magical charm, but if the spellcaster was not visible,
they cannot know what happened. If the caster is visible, then Silent Spell
and Still Spell are required, that is why they exist.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by kgauck
As for hiding, seeing a spellcaster cast a spell and knowing he`s casting
does not tell you what he`s casting.


But it will negate the hide effects! That should be clear now.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:29, Michael Romes wrote:

Peter Lubke wrote:

>On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 06:31, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>...
> I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
> his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
> the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
> came, nor even if it was a spell.
>To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
> in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
> I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
> cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.
>
>dumb gnoll humanoid? - while it`s pretty fair to say that it`s highly
>unlikely that there be any great gnoll genius running guard duty -- just
>how `stupid` do you think gnolls are?
>Given their cultural development, use of tools and weapons etc (and
>descripotion of intelligence within human range)-- gnolls are not that
>much less advanced than humans - and their actual brain size is likely
>somewhat similar. I would not penalize a gnoll in any way due to their
>intelligence in this matter. A gnoll would have (IMO) just as much
>chance to know as a human.
>
Gnolls are hyenalike humanoids who think with their stomaches and have
below average INT (8).
Humans have at least 8 as this is the score that costs nothing in the
buypoint system, and on average 10-11 (p. 9 PHB 3E).

But realistically, (and the issue may not actually be one of
intelligence) even an 8 is well within the normal range of human
intelligence - a human with an 8 intelligence would not be considered
retarded merely slightly below average.


As Gnolls are described in the novels they are cunning predators - like
the animal they resemble. Hunting in packs like Hyenas.
The use of weapons and armour is even mentioned among Stonecrown Ogres
(as in the dreaded Warlock of the Stonecrowns adventure), so no great
sign of advanced intelligence.

Actually the use of weapons (especially specialized weapons) is
reasonably advanced, but the real giveaway for brain size is speech.
However the question was whether or not they would recognize a spell for
what it is. Given a level of spell use within (and against) gnoll
culture, and, for that matter quite widespread acceptance of the use of
spells across Cerilia - even unintelligent animals have probably some
familiarity with them - gnolls are likely to be just as socially
sophisticated as humans in passing on information regarding spells and
the like. Even if recognizing spell use is completely unrelated to
intelligence, it`s highly likely that gnolls will know a spell for what
it is.


Brain Size is not related to intelligence - for example a long time
scientists stated that men have to be more intelligent than woman
because the average male brain is larger than the average female brain.

Not by any significant amount after adjusting for the difference in body
weight.

That has been proven wrong.

That`s a topic that`s been done to death on this list already without
producing a definitive answer - the stumbling block being the definition
of intelligence and the D&D usage of the term. So `proven` is very
speculative on your part.


In my opinion the 1st level gnoll ranger, at which the sleep spell has
been cast covertly, would IF he succeeds at his saving throw only notice
a strange tingle - and say to himself: "Hmm, Orgluk perhaps too much
beer yesterday" and shrug it off.

But to realize: That tingle was a spell! There must be a wizard around,
sound the alarm! Search the caster!
should not automaitc but perhaps dependant on an Spellcraft check - on
an INT check.

Well, I beg to differ. My gnolls (my 2e gnolls) may not be building
nuclear weapons next week - but they would react very much as in
scenario two - my humans would on the other hand be more likely to
select the too much beer scenario (although not because of any inherent
intelligence gap) - although any ranger guard is unlikely to do so in
any case.

bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

Going through some old mail. Avoiding replying to all of the hundreds of
messages I`d put away for later perusal is difficult, but I`m trying... =)


On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Humans have at least 8 as this is the score that costs nothing in the
> buypoint system, and on average 10-11 (p. 9 PHB 3E).

No, no! Please don`t generalize from the point buy system to large-scale
population demographics! Make individual PCs by whatever scheme you like,
but the overall world-at-large ought always to look pretty much like 3d6
(or actually much narrower, like 15d2-12 or 9d6/3). The various non-3d6
PC generation systems have always said their intent was to make PCs better
than the average slob, who is basically straight-up 3d6s.

Gnolls have a -2 Int with respect to humans, but that still leaves lots of
gnolls smarter than the average human and lots of humans dumber than the
average gnoll; on 3d6, those fractions are both 1-in-4.

> As Gnolls are described in the novels they are cunning predators - like
> the animal they resemble. Hunting in packs like Hyenas.

But animals are usually Int 1; really smart ones are Int 2. The
difference between that and Int 8 is much bigger than the difference
between the difference between Int 8 and Int 10. Anyway, a gnoll of Int 8
is no dumber than a human of Int 8, of whom there are large numbers.
Furthermore, a gnoll`s keener senses (especially of smell and hearing)
should mean they have a *better* chance of spotting someone casting spells
from hiding than a human of equal intelligence!

> But to realize: That tingle was a spell! There must be a wizard
> around, sound the alarm! Search the caster! should not automaitc but
> perhaps dependant on an Spellcraft check - on an INT check.

I love Int (and other raw ability) checks. I have PCs make them all the
time. This seems like another fine place for one.

--------

OK, so much for D&D content. Some of you may want to hit delete now.

Now for a scientific comment:

> Brain Size is not related to intelligence

Not true! See for example my post of November 27, 2002, entitled
"D&D Int and RW IQ, part 2(was Re: anything on dwarves [2#1068])":

> MRI measurements of brain size, even after controlling for body size,
> correlate about +.65 with the composite score from a dozen or more
> IQ-type tests (smarter is bigger): Wickett, J.C., Vernon, P.A. and Lee,
> D.H. (1994). In vivo brain size, head perimeter and intelligence in a
> sample of healthy adult females. Personality and Individual
> Differences, 16, 831-838. and by the same authors, (1996). General
> intelligence and brain volume in a sample of healthy adult male
> siblings. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 238-239 (abstract).

In general, bigger brains really are smarter. It`s true within all
species we`ve managed to measure -- Science News recently did a cover
story about intelligence and brain size in lab mice.

> for example a long time scientists stated that men have to be more
> intelligent than woman because the average male brain is larger than
> the average female brain. That has been proven wrong.

Here you are correct -- human male brains are bigger than human female
brains (though the amount by which they are bigger is reduced by
controlling for body size, as human males tend generally to be larger than
human females), and there is no difference in average IQ between the
sexes. The disagreement between these two very clear experimental facts
is rather puzzling, and various theories have been advanced to explain it.
One prominent one is the observation that though human female brains are
smaller, they are more densely packed, so the number of neurons is close
to the same. Also, there is the observation that males are on average
much better than females on tasks of visual-spatial processing, and
females are on average better than males on verbal tasks -- these
differences cancel out in determining an overall single number as an IQ
score, but if visual and spatial-motion processing takes up more brain
space than verbal processing, that could explain the difference.

While this seeming paradox is being examined, other research can proceed,
however: note that the two published studies referenced above treat only
males or only females in each experimental design. But at least, we do
know basically for sure that brain size is a clear correlate of IQ within
each of the sexes (and other species!), even if not between them.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 07:33 PM 5/7/2003 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>Make individual PCs by whatever scheme you like, but the overall
>world-at-large ought always to look pretty much like 3d6 (or actually much
>narrower, like 15d2-12 or 9d6/3). The various non-3d6 PC generation
>systems have always said their intent was to make PCs better than the
>average slob, who is basically straight-up 3d6s.

I started using an "average array" to describe non-adventuring characters,
or those who represent "the norm" rather than the elites like adventurers,
their cohorts or their opposition. The average array is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13 for an overall bonus of 0 and costs 15 points on Table 2-1 in the
DMG--what that text describes as the amount of points that PCs might have
in "a low-powered campaign" whatever that means.

From the POV of the BR regent or other character in a leadership role, I
use the default array (or 25 points) for anyone who gets levels in an
adventuring class, while those who get NPC classes also get the average
array (or 15 points.) As a sort of rough estimation, anyone who would fall
on the cohort side of the Leadership feat`s list of henchmen gets the
default array while followers are average. If one uses a reputation system
a la that of the WoT then it`s even easier to decide who gets what since
the character levels are more easily noted.

The actual ability scores of a particular character that is going to
interact with the PCs on more than a cursory level is, of course, something
that I`d not feel obliged to stick to any particular array or point
value. I`ll write up a character with levels in the peasant NPC class and
give him an 18 strength should that make sense for the purpose of an
adventure or character description. In most circumstances I would use
those numbers as a sort of general guideline. A peasant with an 18
strength, for instance, might have spent 10 points on that ability score
(to get a 16 strength), the rest on other stats and then reached 8th level.

One thing to keep in mind is that the bell curve for 3d6 is probably
somewhat flatter than would be appropriate for a broad demographic
analysis. A 1 in 216 chance to be at the extreme of human variation is
somewhat hamfisted all things considered, so the extremes of ability scores
for an "average" population should probably normalize more closely to the
7-14 range than would be portrayed by every character getting to roll a 3d6
in every ability score.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Gary wrote:

> The average array is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for an overall bonus of 0
> and costs 15 points on Table 2-1 in the DMG

This seems pretty fair to me. My point with regard to the buying system
was just that it is *not* true that *no* human has any score below 8!
Statistically, there ought to be as many 3s born as 18s; agreed, people
with nothing above 7 will probably not live to adulthood in a peasant
lifestyle, but there will still be lots of people with at least one 6.

> I`ll write up a character with levels in the peasant NPC class and
> give him an 18 strength should that make sense for the purpose of an
> adventure or character description. In most circumstances I would use
> those numbers as a sort of general guideline.

Sure, of course! But scholars with 3 strength ought to show up, too.
That said, I always prefer to have some baseline to start from, rather
than be forced to invent everything anew every time. Demographics is
mostly just a timesaver (though in 1e and 2e, it can significantly affect
the possible distribution of classes...), but it can be a darn useful one.

> A peasant with an 18 strength, for instance, might have spent 10
> points on that ability score (to get a 16 strength), the rest on other
> stats and then reached 8th level.

Another thing to discuss perhaps is that I am increasingly coming to
believe that most adults ought to have at least four levels in one or more
NPC classes, simply because they ought to have decent skills. The only
thing holding me back is hp...

> One thing to keep in mind is that the bell curve for 3d6 is probably
> somewhat flatter than would be appropriate for a broad demographic
> analysis.

Oh, most certainly! That`s why I suggested things with more dice, like
15d2-12 or 9d6 / 3, both of which are curves very similar to 3d6 except
that they have smaller standard deviations (i.e., they are more tightly
clustered around the middle, in a mathematically precise fashion).


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:33 PM


> Another thing to discuss perhaps is that I am increasingly coming to
> believe that most adults ought to have at least four levels in one or more
> NPC classes, simply because they ought to have decent skills. The only
> thing holding me back is hp...

Which in my opinion is just another reason to abandon hit points for a wound
+ vitality system. Combined with a class based bonus to AC, a 3rd level
fighter is still much more powerful than a 3rd level commoner, but a 12th
level commoner is not particularly powerful. One of the ways a powerful PC
stays alive is by avoiding critical (wound dealing) hits by getting AC to
climb and learning how to withdraw from combat when you suffer from one when
possible.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 13:45, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:33 PM
>
>
> > Another thing to discuss perhaps is that I am increasingly coming to
> > believe that most adults ought to have at least four levels in one or more
> > NPC classes, simply because they ought to have decent skills. The only
> > thing holding me back is hp...
>
> Which in my opinion is just another reason to abandon hit points for a wound
> + vitality system. Combined with a class based bonus to AC, a 3rd level
> fighter is still much more powerful than a 3rd level commoner, but a 12th
> level commoner is not particularly powerful. One of the ways a powerful PC
> stays alive is by avoiding critical (wound dealing) hits by getting AC to
> climb and learning how to withdraw from combat when you suffer from one when
> possible.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com

You do not need AC to climb. You only need to understand that in a
fatigue+vitality system, the fatigue factor represent experience, skill
and luck in defense, that is, it is a combat skill itself albeit a
defensive one. Just as in fact, hit points originally worked - as an
ability to avoid damage (cf absorb it).

There is no reason for all classes to have an increase in hit points by
level, or in fact ANY combat advancement whatsoever. e.g. a 200001th
level commoner could still have 1-6 hit points and the same probability
to strike as a 0-classed human and no weapon proficiency at all.

Of course for ANY adventuring class, an increase per level in combat
ability makes sense.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

The flaw with wound/vitality settings in a fantasy setting is still that
there is such a wide distribution of damage ratings. While it will work well
for standard human opponents, it fails miserably when facing monsters, even
such low-powered monsters such as ogres, because any critical hit is likely
to be deadly!

When an opponent does 2d8 +9 wound points on a critical hit, lethalities
will be far too common. The average damage roll - 14 - will kill most
characters in one blow.

Of course, if you never intend your campaign to progress past level 5, this
is OK. At this level, an ogre with a greatsword is supposed to be lethal.
But by level 9, it is not supposed to be that lethal anymore.

StarWars d20 has a much more limited range of damage ratings, since people
use technological weapons that do not benefit from Strength bonuses.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:27 PM


> You do not need AC to climb.

If BAB climbs, and the accumulation of feats and possibly magic items allows
characters to hit more often the likelihood of either scoring a critical or
even just scoring a threat, the chance of being taken out completly climbs
too. The measure of vitality is really just a measure of how long I can
stand in combat trying to score a mortal blow. Which, IMO, is how real
combat works. Combat specialists should increase their defensive prowess
along with their offensive prowess.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

In SW a heavy blaster pistol or a rifle does 3d8 pts of damage, which is frequently enough to do lethal damage to a PC regardless of the number of vitality points he has. With autofire and multifire weapons attackers can easily score multiple hits.

Survivability is saved only by the class bonus to AC which never goes awaway even if the character is flat-footed. Still, one lucky cirt and you`re dying.

Jedi armed with lightsabers are very deadly since they have increased threath range and the damage they do increase with jedi class level. So a mid-level jedi could easily do say 5d8+(4-6) wound points on a single crit. That is enought to kill most characters outright (and with their generous number of force points and bonus dice they easily score cits on all threats).

So SW is pretty deadly too :-)

B

>
> Fra: Stephen Starfox <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
> Dato: 2003/05/08 Thu AM 08:33:33 CEST
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Spellcasting from hiding [2#1389]
>
> The flaw with wound/vitality settings in a fantasy setting is still that
> there is such a wide distribution of damage ratings. While it will work well
> for standard human opponents, it fails miserably when facing monsters, even
> such low-powered monsters such as ogres, because any critical hit is likely
> to be deadly!
>
> When an opponent does 2d8 +9 wound points on a critical hit, lethalities
> will be far too common. The average damage roll - 14 - will kill most
> characters in one blow.
>
> Of course, if you never intend your campaign to progress past level 5, this
> is OK. At this level, an ogre with a greatsword is supposed to be lethal.
> But by level 9, it is not supposed to be that lethal anymore.
>
> StarWars d20 has a much more limited range of damage ratings, since people
> use technological weapons that do not benefit from Strength bonuses.
>
> /Carl
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

A human commoner of 4th level will have 8 hp on average. Enought to avoid a few scrapes and cuts, but not enought to deal with any seriosu hit from a fighter.

Using a vitality system he would have 10 or so wound points and a better AC.

Not much difference really.

>
> Fra: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
> Dato: 2003/05/08 Thu AM 05:45:34 CEST
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Spellcasting from hiding [2#1389]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:33 PM
>
>
> > Another thing to discuss perhaps is that I am increasingly coming to
> > believe that most adults ought to have at least four levels in one or more
> > NPC classes, simply because they ought to have decent skills. The only
> > thing holding me back is hp...
>
> Which in my opinion is just another reason to abandon hit points for a wound
> + vitality system. Combined with a class based bonus to AC, a 3rd level
> fighter is still much more powerful than a 3rd level commoner, but a 12th
> level commoner is not particularly powerful. One of the ways a powerful PC
> stays alive is by avoiding critical (wound dealing) hits by getting AC to
> climb and learning how to withdraw from combat when you suffer from one when
> possible.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 21:54, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:27 PM
>
>
> > You do not need AC to climb.
>
> If BAB climbs, and the accumulation of feats and possibly magic items allows
> characters to hit more often the likelihood of either scoring a critical or
> even just scoring a threat, the chance of being taken out completly climbs
> too. The measure of vitality is really just a measure of how long I can
> stand in combat trying to score a mortal blow. Which, IMO, is how real
> combat works. Combat specialists should increase their defensive prowess
> along with their offensive prowess.

Anyone (any class) that relies on combat, yes, glad you agree. Clerks
(for example) of course don`t need offensive or defensive combat prowess
(although those of the DMV are still offensive).

But yeah, neither HP nor AC or strike rank would improve for a
non-combatant class. However, eve in a combatant class, they need not
follow similar patterns of improvement from class to class.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>Going through some old mail. Avoiding replying to all of the hundreds of
>messages I`d put away for later perusal is difficult, but I`m trying... =)
>On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>Humans have at least 8 as this is the score that costs nothing in the
>>buypoint system, and on average 10-11 (p. 9 PHB 3E).
>>
>No, no! Please don`t generalize from the point buy system to large-scale
>population demographics! Make individual PCs by whatever scheme you like,
>but the overall world-at-large ought always to look pretty much like 3d6
>(or actually much narrower, like 15d2-12 or 9d6/3). The various non-3d6
>PC generation systems have always said their intent was to make PCs better
>than the average slob, who is basically straight-up 3d6s.
>
I did not calculate anything or make it up, I just wrote what is in the
rules. 8 INT costs no buypoints and the PHB states that the average is
10-11.

>>As Gnolls are described in the novels they are cunning predators - like
>>the animal they resemble. Hunting in packs like Hyenas.
>>
>But animals are usually Int 1; really smart ones are Int 2. The
>difference between that and Int 8 is much bigger than the difference
>between the difference between Int 8 and Int 10. Anyway, a gnoll of Int 8
>is no dumber than a human of Int 8, of whom there are large numbers.
>Furthermore, a gnoll`s keener senses (especially of smell and hearing)
>should mean they have a *better* chance of spotting someone casting spells
>from hiding than a human of equal intelligence!
>
Except the human spends his extra skill points at spot or listen.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
>
> > I am increasingly coming to believe that most adults ought to have
> > at least four levels in one or more NPC classes, simply because they
> > ought to have decent skills. The only thing holding me back is hp...
>
> Which in my opinion is just another reason to abandon hit points for a
> wound + vitality system. Combined with a class based bonus to AC,

Yeah, I think that`s probably the way to go. However, if we`re going to
defense bonuses (which I like) I don`t think class level can be the *only*
thing affecting it -- a 12th-level fighter with his sword in his hand
ought to be much harder to hit than when he`s unarmed, because what keeps
people from hitting him is that he can block their weapon with his, and
that he is threatening to hit them first. Therefore I think the bonus
needs to be split: take the small part of it which is dodgelike and add it
as a feature to certain classes (esp. rogue, ranger and fighter), but muck
with BAB such that weapon skill helps both to-hit and AC; feats like
Expertise and Power Attack would then function by allowing the transfer of
points from one pool to the other. I would also prefer a system in which
weapons were less interchangeable, and you had to develop skills in
different types: I think Rolemaster combat is too complex in general, but
its implementation of weapon skills (e.g., groups like "one-hand
slashing", "one-hand crushing" and "thrown" plus individual weapon skills
which add, and similarity transfers like if you don`t have 1HS, you can
substitute half your 1HC for it) I think would be good to adopt.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> I did not calculate anything or make it up, I just wrote what is in
> the rules. 8 INT costs no buypoints and the PHB states that the
> average is 10-11.

But are you claiming that this means there are no humans at all anywhere
in the world who have any ability score less than 8? Furthermore, that
there are no members of any species at all anywhere which have any score
less than 8 plus their racial modifier? That has to be wrong.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Thu, 8 May 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>I did not calculate anything or make it up, I just wrote what is in
>>the rules. 8 INT costs no buypoints and the PHB states that the
>>average is 10-11.
>>
>
>But are you claiming that this means there are no humans at all anywhere
>in the world who have any ability score less than 8?
>
No, only that there are no player characters with scores less than 8.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 11:59 AM


> Yeah, I think that`s probably the way to go. However, if we`re going to
> defense bonuses (which I like) I don`t think class level can be the *only*
> thing affecting it

True. I have reduced the AC effect of armor (light is +1, medium is +2, and
heavy is +3, plus there is damage reduction, -/-, 1/-, and 2/- respectivly)
and kept the whole other foruma (dex, feats, magic, &c) but added class.
Fighting classes get a +3 class bonus to start with, clerical types get a
+2, rogue types a +1, and mages get no starting bonus. This starting bonus
only applies when you take your first adventuring class. From then on, you
get a +1 class bonus when you get a new attack added because BAB exceeded a
multiple of five.

> A 12th-level fighter with his sword in his hand ought to be much
> harder to hit than when he`s unarmed, because what keeps
> people from hitting him is that he can block their weapon with
> his, and that he is threatening to hit them first.

The way I handle this is to allow the trade off between attacker attack
bonus and attacker AC penalty. If I don`t fear your counter-attack because
you are unarmed, and any attack probabaly provokes an AoO, I`ll throw all my
effort into attack and let my armor defend me in the event you throw a
nearby mug at me. Plus, the unarmed fellow can`t parry.

> muck with BAB such that weapon skill helps both to-hit and AC
> feats like Expertise and Power Attack would then function by
> allowing the transfer of points from one pool to the other.

I think the key here is to recognize that the trade off economy is between
three axes, my attack, my defense, and my damage. Without any feats I can
generally exchange a penalty for a bonus at a ratio of 2:1 up to a maximum
bonus of +2 along a single axis. With the feats provided I can generally
make a trade off at a 1:1 ratio along a single axis (Power Attack along the
attack and damage axis, Expertise along the attack and defense axis). The
next feat (BAB +12, and feats that allow shifting along any two axis) should
allow you to make shifts simultaneously along all three axis. The max shift
should probabaly remain 5, but an improved version might bump that up to 8
(BAB +18?). But, see below.

> I would also prefer a system in which weapons were less
> interchangeable, and you had to develop skills in different types

One way to do this is to create more weapon specific feats. Some, like
weapon focus, just require a weapon indicator. Others would be designed for
specific weapons. The feats I propose above should probabaly be limited to
a weapon with which you have a weapon focus.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 03:45, Michael Romes wrote:
> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 8 May 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> >
> >>I did not calculate anything or make it up, I just wrote what is in
> >>the rules. 8 INT costs no buypoints and the PHB states that the
> >>average is 10-11.
> >>
> >
> >But are you claiming that this means there are no humans at all anywhere
> >in the world who have any ability score less than 8?
> >
> No, only that there are no player characters with scores less than 8.
> bye
> Michael Romes

The original argument (original D&D) for ability scores was that PLAYER
characters were exceptional (whether the scores were high or low). The
range for PLAYER characters was 3 to 18 - NPCs were always assumed to
fall into the middle range, unexceptional either way (unless otherwise
noted).

It`s interesting that you are arguing almost the complete opposite point
of view! I understand why you think that is reasonable. Personally, I
don`t like point-buy systems at all (with a deep passion!!). But, I put
it to you that it`s attitude - of players, DM and game designers that
make for the imbalance.

IMC, I have three character sheets with me, the other two are with the
players themselves. Of the three I have, two characters have at least
two scores less than 8 (and the other has an 8):
(i) S9 I7 W11 D11 Co5 Ch11
(ii) S17 I13 W6 D10 Co10 Ch6
(iii) S13 I12 W11 D13 Co8 Ch14

Player (ii) is a relative newbie at role-playing, but is doing an
excellent job of portraying his relatively(!) low charisma. A normally
effusive and outgoing person (he runs a bar), he has played his warrior
character as surly, solitary, and disagreeable - yet still fully
functional.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.