Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lordtiberiusfoxx 03-11-07, 06:40 PM	I've asked this before and haven't gotten a response as of yet. One of the players at my table had an animal companion. She was a Talenta halfling, so she had a dinosaur mount. Then she gets ordered to do a MAAD. I ruled, not having an official yes or no on this, that the feather fall talisman was specially made so that the activation could use the "share spells" function of an animal companion or familiar. My justification is that the BWC is not likely to want to lose the capabilities of their elite calvary. Moreover, it would mean that the character would lose half of her capabilities on most BWC adventures if it didn't function this way. So the question is, did I make the right call? If not, would there be a "concuring call" of "no, but the animal companion is provided with a talisman as well." Please note that I would not make the same provisions for a purchased mount. I put animal companions and equipment into very different categories. I'm sure that others have questions about MAADs as well.
Dragonrunner 03-12-07, 12:02 PM	Hmm... I really don't see a single answer to your question. And the possible outcomes seem quite tricky to me for they might involve DM's ruling more than I'd wish for. Still, I'd base my ruling based on the intrinsic complexities of controlling a mount, as much tamed as it may be, and its innate survival instincts. The share spell function is obviously the most straightforward option but unless I'd want to ease things a little on the players — and perhaps rush things a bit — I wouldn't go for that choice. I'm also not so certain a PC working without her mount would be so hampered as to have her capabilities diminished to half her usual lot. Working without the animal companion is actually part of the PC's capabilities to me. That said, I would personally opt for a second talisman to be worn by the PC (or it could be the same one), but needing a separate check on behalf of the mount. Difficult? Certainly! That PC would have to succeed twice (and probably with penalties on both checks) where others would take only one check. I'd rule a +2 penalty on the first and +4 on the second check due to the inherent difficulties to ascertain the limit activation height for the mount's check and then to beat the descending speed and succeed on her own check before smashing herself down on the ground. If that sounds to harsh, +1/+2 penalty modifiers might do the job. In any case I'd present the fundamental difficulties of the MAAD with a mount to the PC and leave the choice to her. That's just part of the adventuring life.
Harliquinn 03-12-07, 01:48 PM	I guess the key is, "What is more fun for the player?" Is it more fun to roleplay a cinematic jump with an animal companion (that ultimately will likely succeed) and allow them the use of their full abilities? Or is it more fun to tell them "Sorry you can't bring something that is a primary part of your character to this adventure?" I think the OP chose well and I would hope that the MAAD's are there to provide a vivid RP experience unique to the Blackwheel company and not to potentially cripple characters based around companions, familiars, or special mounts. It seems MAAD's may be a 'mainstay' within the BWC; therefore, an official ruling on this would be good. Harliquinn
Dragonrunner 03-12-07, 04:03 PM	I believe you mistake my words. I never said jumping with an animal companion would be impossible and that I'd have to say "Sorry, can't do" to my players. Still, I'm for a more realistic style of play (my players know that). So, having to face such a difficult situation, they would have to "think" and perhaps even come up with a very original idea to circumvent the intricacies of such a jump. Also, I don't think lordtiberius made a bad choice. It was just his choice. As I said before, I could have made the same choice depending on the situation of the party and the schedule of the game. I just presented a different approach to the question proposed. I do hope MAADs are in the game to stay. They're fun to play and to DM. However, I believe MAADs are still a novelty PC's will have to toy with until they find/discover/create new and personal ways to perfect their jumps, solo or with a companion. On a final note, I've got to say that a few groups I've been playing with for almost two decades now would hate to be led on an easier path. They love when faced with really difficult tasks they can overcome with a little brainstorming. That's just part of the fun of the game: different approaches from DM and players alike.
Harliquinn 03-12-07, 04:37 PM	Sorry you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I was commenting more for the 'masses.' I agree with the OP's solution, and I think assigning a small penalty and requiring some RP ideas is fair. I can imagine some GM's not permitting it, and it is to those that I would prefer that the 'rule' be set down for that it is possible but requires some player/character forethought. Harli
smerwin29 03-12-07, 06:40 PM	This ruling is not official, as I am not Brian, and I could only hope to be so darn creative and brilliant (and a chick magnet). Just as an RPGA judge in (somewhat) good standing, if the module does not take into account something like this, do the best you can to make sure the game is fun without totally mangling the rules. To me, adjusting the MAAD rules to accomodate an animal companion is a little much. However, it is not over the top to have the Blackwheel superiors tell the druid character that an upcoming mission might be problematic for a current animal companion, so she'd better "get a critter that can fly." That way the druid can still gain the benefit of a companion by doing the ritual, but it doesn't require all of the questions about rules. I am not saying that it is a perfect solution, and you might get players complaining because they are somewhat inconvenienced by having to create a new companion on the fly, but anyone who plays a druid has to understand that there are going to be times when the companion is just not going to be able to take part in the festivities. Just the nature of the game. The best players I know would see doing so as a great role-playing opportunity. Shawn
Jesse Heinig 03-12-07, 07:55 PM	I would have to say that what would be more fun for the player in BWC #3 would be: - Not listening to a page and a half of boxed text trying to be Starship Troopers, and then having your adventure performance depend on pretending that you were interested in it - Not immediately dying at the beginning of the adventure because you happened to roll a one I'll say the DM I had did a stellar job of making the adventure enjoyable, but I had serious issues with some of the content as written. I guess the key is, "What is more fun for the player?" Is it more fun to roleplay a cinematic jump with an animal companion (that ultimately will likely succeed) and allow them the use of their full abilities? Or is it more fun to tell them "Sorry you can't bring something that is a primary part of your character to this adventure?" I think the OP chose well and I would hope that the MAAD's are there to provide a vivid RP experience unique to the Blackwheel company and not to potentially cripple characters based around companions, familiars, or special mounts. It seems MAAD's may be a 'mainstay' within the BWC; therefore, an official ruling on this would be good. Harliquinn
smerwin29 03-12-07, 08:33 PM	I would have to say that what would be more fun for the player in BWC #3 would be: - Not immediately dying at the beginning of the adventure because you happened to roll a one. I think the DM, if he killed a PC who rolled a 1, should have read the adventure more carefully. My copy of the adventure contains a chart showing the results of a failed save, gave the PCs a +2 bonus to the save, and included the following instructions to the DM: "While risk must exist, it’s unrealistic to penalize 5% of players for rolling natural 1’s on the Will save. Natural 1 rolls are not instantly fatal. Treat them as you would any other roll of the d20 in this unique situation. Players may always add an action point roll to this save." The only way a PC could have died immediately is if they rolled a 1, had a -2 Wisdom modifier, and decided not to use an action point to modify the roll. Or if the DM neglected to tell them that they could in this special case. Shawn
Jesse Heinig 03-12-07, 09:28 PM	Meaning no offense, Shawn, I feel that riding the beginning of an adventure on the outcome of a single roll is bad design. (Riding a whole adventure on one roll is generally bad design too, but sometimes that happens in the heat of battle or when dealing with a trap or diplomacy check or whatnot.) In this case a single roll can wipe out a character without adding anything to the story, and can force a player to sit out the entire adventure. I think the DM, if he killed a PC who rolled a 1, should have read the adventure more carefully. My copy of the adventure contains a chart showing the results of a failed save, gave the PCs a +2 bonus to the save, and included the following instructions to the DM: "While risk must exist, it’s unrealistic to penalize 5% of players for rolling natural 1’s on the Will save. Natural 1 rolls are not instantly fatal. Treat them as you would any other roll of the d20 in this unique situation. Players may always add an action point roll to this save." The only way a PC could have died immediately is if they rolled a 1, had a -2 Wisdom modifier, and decided not to use an action point to modify the roll. Or if the DM neglected to tell them that they could in this special case. Shawn
smerwin29 03-12-07, 09:43 PM	Meaning no offense, Shawn, I feel that riding the beginning of an adventure on the outcome of a single roll is bad design. (Riding a whole adventure on one roll is generally bad design too, but sometimes that happens in the heat of battle or when dealing with a trap or diplomacy check or whatnot.) In this case a single roll can wipe out a character without adding anything to the story, and can force a player to sit out the entire adventure. I'm still confused, I guess, at how this, as written, can wipe out a character with a single die roll. I am thinking of a worst case scenario here, and still I can't see it: A character with a 6 wisdom rolls a 1. The +2 bonus nullifies the -2 Wisdom penalty, leaving a result of 1. The DM, if he is doing his job, tells the PC that this is a special case where a 1 is not an automatic failure, and that he can use an action point if he wishes. Even if the roll is a 1 for the action point, that is a result of 2, which is not instant death. Perhaps I am missing something. I completely agree with you that it is bad design to place too much result, in combat or out, on one roll of the die. I just don't see how this situation fits that criterion.
Dragonrunner 03-13-07, 01:13 AM	Sorry you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I was commenting more for the 'masses.' I agree with the OP's solution, and I think assigning a small penalty and requiring some RP ideas is fair. I can imagine some GM's not permitting it, and it is to those that I would prefer that the 'rule' be set down for that it is possible but requires some player/character forethought. Harli Well, it's my turn then. Please accept my apologies, Harli. I guess I did misunderstand you. :embarrass No harm done I hope. :) I agree with you some DM's might rule out completely the possibility of a MAAD with a companion. I beg to differ somewhat from Shawn in this: I don't believe a MAAD with an animal companion is mangling the rules. At least not if the PC's can show me a creative way to do it. But I have to grant Shawn has a point. Not all animal companions — and familiars — are suited for a MAAD, regardless of the way the featherfall amulets may work. If I may follow into a more realistic way of thinking, an animal companion or familiar would not necessarily "share" its master's confidence in the success of a MAAD (at best) or even have the slightest awareness of what a MAAD is (at worst). A companion/familiar might very well die of a heart attack long before reaching the ground. That said, another possible solution comes to mind. BWC operatives could use the recently revealed Spell Clock on a companion/familiar. First you'd have to cast Sleep on the animal, so as to keep it "calm" — jumping from thousands of metres (or feet for that matter) is not exactly a day in a spa — my guess is that 2 or 3 minutes asleep would do fine. Then, already attached to the creature, a Spell Clock with a feathterfall spell would be set to go off with enough time to get the companion/familiar close to the ground. Once landed the creature could wake up on its own or the Clock could dispel the sleep effetcs. The tricky part here is determining the altitude of the airship so as to set the Spell Clock correctly for the drop. Any artificers with brilliant ideas on that? Also, although the cost of such a device might be prohibitive to a low level character, it would not be much to the wealthy BWC. Besides, Clock Spells are generally reusable. Just more food for thought Lou
lordtiberiusfoxx 03-13-07, 01:48 AM	This ruling is not official, as I am not Brian, and I could only hope to be so darn creative and brilliant (and a chick magnet). Just as an RPGA judge in (somewhat) good standing, if the module does not take into account something like this, do the best you can to make sure the game is fun without totally mangling the rules. To me, adjusting the MAAD rules to accomodate an animal companion is a little much. However, it is not over the top to have the Blackwheel superiors tell the druid character that an upcoming mission might be problematic for a current animal companion, so she'd better "get a critter that can fly." That way the druid can still gain the benefit of a companion by doing the ritual, but it doesn't require all of the questions about rules. I am not saying that it is a perfect solution, and you might get players complaining because they are somewhat inconvenienced by having to create a new companion on the fly, but anyone who plays a druid has to understand that there are going to be times when the companion is just not going to be able to take part in the festivities. Just the nature of the game. The best players I know would see doing so as a great role-playing opportunity. Shawn Okay, I guess she has to get Boots of Levitation for her dinosaur. :D
Jesse Heinig 03-13-07, 02:43 AM	Timing your drop depends on whether the usual laws of physics apply to Eberron. Barring outside magical intervention or an unforeseen change to physics (like the planet having a different mass), your falling rate is the famous a = 9.8 m/s^2, neglecting air resistance and assuming that you're falling sufficiently close to the planet's surface (say, inside the atmosphere). If you know your elevation it's fairly simple to determine the time of the fall, or the distance at any time, so that you know the time to trigger the feather fall for the last however many meters. This assumes, of course, that anyone in Eberron has made Galileo and/or Newton's observations regarding gravity . . . Well, it's my turn then. Please accept my apologies, Harli. I guess I did misunderstand you. :embarrass No harm done I hope. :) I agree with you some DM's might rule out completely the possibility of a MAAD with a companion. I beg to differ somewhat from Shawn in this: I don't believe a MAAD with an animal companion is mangling the rules. At least not if the PC's can show me a creative way to do it. But I have to grant Shawn has a point. Not all animal companions — and familiars — are suited for a MAAD, regardless of the way the featherfall amulets may work. If I may follow into a more realistic way of thinking, an animal companion or familiar would not necessarily "share" its master's confidence in the success of a MAAD (at best) or even have the slightest awareness of what a MAAD is (at worst). A companion/familiar might very well die of a heart attack long before reaching the ground. That said, another possible solution comes to mind. BWC operatives could use the recently revealed Spell Clock on a companion/familiar. First you'd have to cast Sleep on the animal, so as to keep it "calm" — jumping from thousands of metres (or feet for that matter) is not exactly a day in a spa — my guess is that 2 or 3 minutes asleep would do fine. Then, already attached to the creature, a Spell Clock with a feathterfall spell would be set to go off with enough time to get the companion/familiar close to the ground. Once landed the creature could wake up on its own or the Clock could dispel the sleep effetcs. The tricky part here is determining the altitude of the airship so as to set the Spell Clock correctly for the drop. Any artificers with brilliant ideas on that? Also, although the cost of such a device might be prohibitive to a low level character, it would not be much to the wealthy BWC. Besides, Clock Spells are generally reusable. Just more food for thought Lou
Dragonrunner 03-13-07, 08:10 AM	Timing your drop depends on whether the usual laws of physics apply to Eberron. Barring outside magical intervention or an unforeseen change to physics (like the planet having a different mass), your falling rate is the famous a = 9.8 m/s^2, neglecting air resistance and assuming that you're falling sufficiently close to the planet's surface (say, inside the atmosphere). If you know your elevation it's fairly simple to determine the time of the fall, or the distance at any time, so that you know the time to trigger the feather fall for the last however many meters. This assumes, of course, that anyone in Eberron has made Galileo and/or Newton's observations regarding gravity . . . Agreed, agreed and agreed. And I bet they have (or have had) their share of Copernicuses, Keplers, Galileos and Newtons. If we see Eberron as a world already out of the dark ages and full into its Renaissance, it's just a matter of time before someone figures out a reliable way to measure elevation/altitude. Aside from the astronomical ways, magical means can be devised to do just that.
kiddoc 03-13-07, 11:41 AM	Oooh. Controversy! Sorry folks--had some baby-health issues to attend to post XP. Now that I'm back, let me give an official answer (and thanks for the PM LTF). Here's my thought in general, and the official ruling until I change my mind: For animal companions--if you are a member of the BWC, your companion has been trained with you to jump. A DC 15 Ride or Handle Animal check (as appropriate) is sufficient to calm, prepare, and control the animal during the jump. It uses its master's Will save (since they are sharing the featherfall talisman). Any companion bigger than medium requires its own Talisman, and a DC 20 Handle Animal or Ride check is required to set off both at the same time. Animals not assigned through a class ability do not jump. Period. Now, there may well be story objects coming up in the future that change this, and make it easier for both purchased animals and mounts/companions to survive MAAD's. ;) I'll make sure I put this in the next MAAD rules description. Thanks for all the feedback!
kiddoc 03-13-07, 11:49 AM	Meaning no offense, Shawn, I feel that riding the beginning of an adventure on the outcome of a single roll is bad design. (Riding a whole adventure on one roll is generally bad design too, but sometimes that happens in the heat of battle or when dealing with a trap or diplomacy check or whatnot.) In this case a single roll can wipe out a character without adding anything to the story, and can force a player to sit out the entire adventure. They were never designed to be so--while it is possible, numerous precautions were taken to make sure you got plenty of tension (which is the element they are "designed" to create), but very little chance of fatality. With the level bump, it would take a sheer act of insanity for a 4th level character to fail at a MAAD. Even minimal failure results in token damage, at best. Otherwise, we numerous precautions to eliminate that "crappy 5% insta-fail" chance. I'm not sure what to expect when you're jumping from an airship? No chance of harm? I could eliminate the mechanic--but that's not my style. I do things a little differently than traditional RPGA M.O.. MAAD's just smack of Eberron to me, high magic, high risk, heroic PC's. Oh yes. So, from me, you will see crazy stuff: Minotaur officers, jumping from airships, too much box text, too much difficult terrain :D But alas, tis a blessing and a curse both. Now, for those that can't handle the risk of jumping from an airship at 15,000 feet--there's always a life of boredom and papercuts in the Crimson Codex--or perhaps picking nits off begars or praying to the gods to heal hangnails in the Covenant of Light. :tongue:
kiddoc 03-13-07, 11:52 AM	I would have to say that what would be more fun for the player in BWC #3 would be: - Not listening to a page and a half of boxed text trying to be Starship Troopers, and then having your adventure performance depend on pretending that you were interested in it - Not immediately dying at the beginning of the adventure because you happened to roll a one I'll say the DM I had did a stellar job of making the adventure enjoyable, but I had serious issues with some of the content as written. Jesse, if you'd like--feel free to PM me about your BWC #3 experience. I can give you some more insight as to what was written in the module, without posting any potential spoilers to the board. Thanks for the feedback.
Dragonrunner 03-13-07, 12:24 PM	They were never designed to be so--while it is possible, numerous precautions were taken to make sure you got plenty of tension (which is the element they are "designed" to create), but very little chance of fatality. Just don't let the players know that "but" part. :devil: I could eliminate the mechanic--but that's not my style. I do things a little differently than traditional RPGA M.O.. MAAD's just smack of Eberron to me, high magic, high risk, heroic PC's. Oh yes. So, from me, you will see crazy stuff: Minotaur officers, jumping from airships, too much box text, too much difficult terrain :D But alas, tis a blessing and a curse both. Usually my style, either. Not to everyone's taste, though. Now, for those that can't handle the risk of jumping from an airship at 15,000 feet--there's always a life of boredom and papercuts in the Crimson Codex--or perhaps picking nits off begars or praying to the gods to heal hangnails in the Covenant of Light. :tongue: That's why I love the BWC. Pragmatism-based and action-oriented. The receipe for success in any big corporation!
lordtiberiusfoxx 03-13-07, 01:44 PM	Oooh. Controversy! Sorry folks--had some baby-health issues to attend to post XP. Is the baby alright?
kiddoc 03-13-07, 02:55 PM	Is the baby alright? She has her mother's immune system--let me put it that way. Silly teachers, it's like they're asking for it, wiping 5-year-old noses all day long. We had to get her a nebulizer thing for some respiratory distress (with fun, dinosaur shaped breathing mask :P )--she's better now. :D Blackwheel Company material she is not... Well, not yet. Give me another 15 years. :angelhide
Woodstock 03-13-07, 03:06 PM	I hope the 1st MAAD experience was enough to my group, even myself, learn a bit of teamwork and organization. Two people jumping together made up a HUGE mess and almost resulted in two casualities! My fault!!! As a player, I loved the experience and the idea... just don't know if my halfling liked it! He's nothing like the halfling from Voyage of Mourning Dawn!!!
Jesse Heinig 03-13-07, 03:08 PM	Your standards of a DM "doing his job" do not always mesh up with the reality of DMs in the RPGA. Some DMs are incompetent. Others are out to kill the party because they feel that the game is designed to be adversarial. In either case the DM may not assign modifiers or let the players know that they can spend action dice. The real crux of the problem is: Why roll dice for something that isn't part of the dramatic resolution of the adventure? I personally would have gone one of two ways: - Expand the entire drop into a mini-scene complete with its own mini-objectives while you're falling - Remove the die roll and simply make it part of the flavor That's my thoughts as I can sum it up without putting in any more spoilers. Jesse. I'm still confused, I guess, at how this, as written, can wipe out a character with a single die roll. I am thinking of a worst case scenario here, and still I can't see it: A character with a 6 wisdom rolls a 1. The +2 bonus nullifies the -2 Wisdom penalty, leaving a result of 1. The DM, if he is doing his job, tells the PC that this is a special case where a 1 is not an automatic failure, and that he can use an action point if he wishes. Even if the roll is a 1 for the action point, that is a result of 2, which is not instant death. Perhaps I am missing something. I completely agree with you that it is bad design to place too much result, in combat or out, on one roll of the die. I just don't see how this situation fits that criterion.
lordtiberiusfoxx 03-13-07, 03:28 PM	Your standards of a DM "doing his job" do not always mesh up with the reality of DMs in the RPGA. Some DMs are incompetent. Others are out to kill the party because they feel that the game is designed to be adversarial. In either case the DM may not assign modifiers or let the players know that they can spend action dice. The real crux of the problem is: Why roll dice for something that isn't part of the dramatic resolution of the adventure? I personally would have gone one of two ways: - Expand the entire drop into a mini-scene complete with its own mini-objectives while you're falling - Remove the die roll and simply make it part of the flavor That's my thoughts as I can sum it up without putting in any more spoilers. Jesse. I honestly don't think any amount of good mod writing would eliminate DMs who go out of their way to be adversarial. If you are a player under such a twerp watch him or her closely. Make sure things get reported correctly into your adventure journal. If you are at a convention, POLITELY AND MATURELY report the experience to the senior DM. Then, avoid playing under that DM. The level 1 herald test isn't so difficult that you can't get someone else to run games. The die roll added tension at my table during the jump. While the PCs were in no real danger, as I told them about the action dice, they were panicking. This especially applied to the Ashranti, who was scared he was going to go sploosh.:D
Jesse Heinig 03-13-07, 03:32 PM	I have never had luck dealing with bad DMs. My first RPGA bad DM experience involved a DM who arbitrarily decided that my (LG) character committed suicide after she (the DM) had arranged the scenario so that the party had no way to proceed in the mod and that everyone had been arrested. She was the senior DM for that event, as I recall. My next one was a DM at a Mark of Heroes game who deliberately ignored the module text to create a battle with unending waves of adversaries, and he explicitly told the PCs that they could not do the task that the module said was what the PCs should do to end the encounter. The entire four-hour slot was taken up with this battle, in which he proceeded to send new reinforcements every round into the battle (against module directives) until all of the PCs were disabled. Nothing was ever done to him, either. I honestly don't think any amount of good mod writing would eliminate DMs who go out of their way to be adversarial. If you are a player under such a twerp watch him or her closely. Make sure things get reported correctly into your adventure journal. If you are at a convention, POLITELY AND MATURELY report the experience to the senior DM. Then, avoid playing under that DM. The level 1 herald test isn't so difficult that you can't get someone else to run games. The die roll added tension at my table during the jump. While the PCs were in no real danger, as I told them about the action dice, they were panicking. This especially applied to the Ashranti, who was scared he was going to go sploosh.:D
Jesse Heinig 03-15-07, 01:01 PM	I sent that requested missive. Jesse, if you'd like--feel free to PM me about your BWC #3 experience. I can give you some more insight as to what was written in the module, without posting any potential spoilers to the board. Thanks for the feedback.