Post/Author/DateTime	Post
timerino 12-19-06, 06:48 PM	I remember in 3.0 there was a table in the beginning of DMG where encounter distances are randomized based on terrain. In 3.5, the encounter distances are calculated from the difference between the opponent's 'natural hide' and the party's spot. SRD: Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant). I have seen many modules specify encounter distances regardless of situation or PCs involved. For example, encounter in the wide open air have a fixed distance (the size of the DM's mat). Or, anther one with a party's uber-Ranger with outrageous spot only sees enemies on a open field less than 50 feet away. I've know only two judges who've calculated encounter distances based on spot rolls all of last year. Does LG have a 'ad hoc' rule for which I am not aware? Otherwise, why is encounter distances usually arbitrary? Or, how can authors dictate encounter distances unless effects such as obscuring mists are involved? timerino
Morgen 12-19-06, 07:29 PM	I've lost characters because of the poor way box text encounters happen. We need a way around the random screwing.
copper_wyrmling 12-19-06, 07:33 PM	I remember in 3.0 there was a table in the beginning of DMG where encounter distances are randomized based on terrain. In 3.5, the encounter distances are calculated from the difference between the opponent's 'natural hide' and the party's spot. SRD: Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant). I have seen many modules specify encounter distances regardless of situation or PCs involved. For example, encounter in the wide open air have a fixed distance (the size of the DM's mat). Or, anther one with a party's uber-Ranger with outrageous spot only sees enemies on a open field less than 50 feet away. I've know only two judges who've calculated encounter distances based on spot rolls all of last year. Does LG have a 'ad hoc' rule for which I am not aware? Otherwise, why is encounter distances usually arbitrary? Or, how can authors dictate encounter distances unless effects such as obscuring mists are involved? timerino Even in 3.5, there are maximum encounter distances based on the terrain you're in - there's a substantial section on it in the DMG. If a module tells me, "The encounter begins at 30ft", I read that as meaning the maximum encounter distance is set at 30ft, due to terrain (for example, 30ft is quite reasonable in a city with lots of walls and corners and winding streets, where the bad guys can quite easily have total cover from the PCs until they get fairly close). If it doesn't give me an encounter distance, I roll on the DMG terrain tables. Within the max encounter distance, the difference between PC Spot modifiers and NPC Hide modifiers (or sometimes vice versa) determines the distance at which the encounter begins. This is always how I run encounters, but often it doesn't come up, because we're in one of two situations: (a) the NPCs are competent at hiding and the PCs are making NO effort to be sneaky, so the NPCs notice the PCs WAY before the PCs notice them, and basically start the encounter when they feel like it. (b) neither the NPCs or the PCs are making any effort to hide, so they notice each other simultaneously at the maximum encounter distance, and we go straight into combat with no surprise round. I've seen a number of modules recently remind judges that this is how you determine encounter distance, though. I think the last time it came up for me, it was an (a) situation where the bad guys were overconfident and wanted the PCs to get right up to them before they attacked, so while they spotted the party before the party spotted them, they lost their advantage of surprise because the party ranger noticed them when he got a bit closer.
UMiskatonic 12-19-06, 07:51 PM	The table for that is in the 3.0 DMG. Barring an 3.5 update, it's still a legitimate rule Of course, it would be easier to use if it were printed in the 3.5 DMG, but that wasn't my decision to make. As a judge, I would be horribly impressed if you brought a copy of that table with and referenced it. Without documentation, you run the risk of sounding like a whiny player, no matter how legitimate your argument actually is.
solbergb 12-19-06, 07:56 PM	As one of those judges Tracy refers to... There is a maximum distance dictated by terrain if the party is on the ground. Simple example, very common "you crest the hill and 100' away on the road..." This is fine, as long as the judge adapts it when there is a flying scout, or a forward scout using the hill as cover and thus getting a hide check or prying eyes or any of a number of other things that let the PC's know about the enemy before cresting the hill. It also doesn't account for the noise the two parties are making and the chance one will notice the other. So listen checks are in order before applying even that kind of box text to a normal party (and if the party is especially noisy, most NPC's can hear them too...eg, the bard who keeps the song going for hours, or the fullplate/tower shield guy, or in the case of my warchanter who is often both) The encounter distances in the DMG are always maximum, but even the minimum on most of those ranges is as large as or larger than most battlemaps. Which means they're not really very useful for LG authoring. The author should think about the actual terrain features, not assume some "random terrain" which is represented by those tables (which indeed are found in the random encounter section). Those will dictate maximum spotting distance and whether there is any cover/conceal for hide checks. Listen checks though...those should always apply unless the bad guys are not moving or talking (much less spellcasting - more than one encounter was broken by a sharp-eared PC hearing the enemy buffing after THEY heard the party approaching)
solbergb 12-19-06, 07:59 PM	I think the last time it came up for me, it was an (a) situation where the bad guys were overconfident and wanted the PCs to get right up to them before they attacked, so while they spotted the party before the party spotted them, they lost their advantage of surprise because the party ranger noticed them when he got a bit closer. Yeah, they wanted us in precision damage range. Too bad I rolled that 35 spot check. That was a funny battle. I could see them the whole time but often my party members couldn't see them even when they were right next to the bad guys. "I shoot arrows into the guy I see hiding in that bush". other party members "I swing where the blood is coming out" or "I attack where I saw that arrow going in".
solbergb 12-19-06, 08:01 PM	I've lost characters because of the poor way box text encounters happen. We need a way around the random screwing. Educate your judges. It worked in my region within 6 months or so of mocking judges who don't run encounters fairly. Mocking is probably too strong a term, but it was a peer pressure thing applied both by other judeges and by players. Boxtext ambushes are now extremely rare. I don't think I've seen one in the Bay area in years...unless the party deserved it by not having any way of noticing the enemy (their CR includes them being stealthy)
_m_ 12-19-06, 08:21 PM	a few more things it forgets: disabling traps and locks takes time. you cant track at full speed. you cant move silently at full speed without penalty. you cant hide behind nothing (so no: i hide in the middle of the room) spellbooks dont hold infinite spells you cant simply choose the right scroll out of hundreds without assistance you cant search a whole room on a search role, you have to specify what to search you cant run all day without feats / abilities, and even then its risky backbacks cant actually hold everything bags of holding / haversacks cannot house unsheathed pointy things.
copper_wyrmling 12-19-06, 08:23 PM	Yeah, they wanted us in precision damage range. Too bad I rolled that 35 spot check. That was a funny battle. I could see them the whole time but often my party members couldn't see them even when they were right next to the bad guys. "I shoot arrows into the guy I see hiding in that bush". other party members "I swing where the blood is coming out" or "I attack where I saw that arrow going in". LOL, yeah, I spent most of that fight giggling at my computer screen at the mental images it conjured... Mind you, I kicked myself after I'd given you the terrain description and then I realized that if everyone in the bushes has concealment, then sure, the rogues can hide, but they can't sneak attack people who are also in the bushes. They really need to get out onto the road as their first action. Ah well, I was running that mod with minimal prep while trying to organize an intercontinental move and finish a research paper ;) I'll do better next time. And btw, Brad, before I started reading posts on these boards and the Yahoo groups (mostly by you, but a few other people as well), I didn't really understand how you were supposed to resolve encounter distance. It's not just the judges in your own area you've been educating - and it's not always laziness or an adversarial attitude that causes judges to run box-text ambushes, sometimes it's just that they've never seen anyone run it the right way.
Morgen 12-19-06, 08:23 PM	Don't forget that you get to do your unarmed/base/whatever damage to a target you successfully grapple.
copper_wyrmling 12-19-06, 08:33 PM	a few more things it forgets: disabling traps and locks takes time. you cant track at full speed. you cant move silently at full speed without penalty. you cant hide behind nothing (so no: i hide in the middle of the room) spellbooks dont hold infinite spells you cant simply choose the right scroll out of hundreds without assistance you cant search a whole room on a search role, you have to specify what to search you cant run all day without feats / abilities, and even then its risky backbacks cant actually hold everything bags of holding / haversacks cannot house unsheathed pointy things. I enforce the time constraints on disabling traps and locks. I enforce the penalties on tracking or sneaking at full speed. I don't allow people to hide without cover / concealment unless they have the requisite special abilities. I don't allow people to run all day - the PHB has rules for overland movement that essentially assume a single move all day, and rules for "hustling" which is double moving. I trust players to remember that bags of holding can't hold "unsheathed pointy things", and to be reasonable about how much they stuff into a backpack (all my characters bought haversacks or bags of holding as soon as they acquired more gear than could reasonably be carried). I assume that any wizard player will know the rules on spellbooks and abide by them, which includes observing the restrictions on how many pages a spellbook has. I assume that players will track how much weight their PC is carrying, and apply penalties for encumbrance as necessary, without me looking over their shoulders. Searching the whole room and picking the right scroll are a bit more iffy. If the room has one secret door, and the PCs declare they're searching the whole room, I'm not going to make them roll separately for each 5ft square, purely for time reasons. I'll ask them to roll once (or take 10, if they want), and that will be their Search for the whole room, although of course it will take the same amount of time as searching the squares one at a time. Drawing a scroll is generally a move action - there's nothing in the rules to cover your PC getting scrolls confused. I've seen people describe how their PCs carefully arrange their scrolls in scroll cases and memorize the arrangement, so they can draw them easily and reliably, but this is really just formalizing the "drawing a scroll is a move action" stated in the rules.
Britt 12-19-06, 08:38 PM	As one of my players was a spot-monkey, I would always tell the judge at the beginning of the adventure that I was always taking 10 on spot and listen for a total of 35. Then when combat started really close, I would ask if we could have spot and listen checks to set the distance further away. They were usually fine with this. A quick note, just because something was in 3.0 and isn't in 3.5 doesn't mean it is still a valid rule. The 3.0 books might be a useful source for a judge to use in settling an ambiguity, but it would have the same authority as asking Joe Bob, the DM at the table next to you, what he thought.
copper_wyrmling 12-19-06, 08:47 PM	As one of my players was a spot-monkey, I would always tell the judge at the beginning of the adventure that I was always taking 10 on spot and listen for a total of 35. Then when combat started really close, I would ask if we could have spot and listen checks to set the distance further away. They were usually fine with this. A quick note, just because something was in 3.0 and isn't in 3.5 doesn't mean it is still a valid rule. The 3.0 books might be a useful source for a judge to use in settling an ambiguity, but it would have the same authority as asking Joe Bob, the DM at the table next to you, what he thought. But there ARE encounter distances in the 3.5 DMG. I never played 3.0... not sure why people are saying this wasn't updated.
solbergb 12-19-06, 10:10 PM	Yeah...and they're different. One of which is....you ALWAYS see an enemy at ANY distance if he lacks cover or concealment. 3.0 had very different assumptions that went into the creation of the 3.0 tables. Now atmospheric conditions can give them concealment and force that -1 per 10' spot check thing, but really, the hippogriff can't dive out of the sky on an open plain in charge range unless there is at least a haze in the sky or a cliff or something that provides cover/concealment within 100'. Much more often this can be justified at 300' (surprise round gets them in 200', main round can be used to charge full distance...) I tend to add such things if the encounter seems to expect it rather than have the hippogriff appear at extreme bow range and have to run a gauntlet - by doing so I do of course provide PC's a way to defeat the haze/cover with their own scouting tricks or weather control or whatever. Mostly though, proper encounter distance is a judge prep thing. Read the mod, add the stuff the author left out that allows the encounter to have a chance of being played the way the author described it, and use the statblocks to determine whether it DOES in fact play out the same way, or whether the party has an easier time due to better than anticipated capabilities, or a worse time because they're blundering idiots (at least where stealth/scouting is concerned). I had one module where a totally illegal-appearing hide check (based on their statblocks) in the adventure was made legal by the simple expedient of having the box canyon be larger at higher APL's than at lower APL's, and using distance modifiers plus "take 10" hide rolls. At all APL's the Orcs try to get suprise round when PC's break cover and get into line of sight, but that distance is just larger at higher APLs.
Puggle Halfwine 12-19-06, 10:31 PM	The number one rule I've NEVER seen used in a Living Greyhawk game: When you roll a 1 on a saving throw vs an area effect, it destroys your gear. I didn't even know this rule existed until I read about it a few months back; I've rolled my share of 1's vs fireballs in my time, and I know I've GM'd a few games where it's happened as well. From now on I'll be enforcing it, and reminding GMs when it happens to me, but I didn't even know about it until recently. Nasty one, that.
_m_ 12-19-06, 10:35 PM	the anoying thing is the 'riders on the road' style encounter, that still only lets you start with them close. if i saw the riders coming up behind us, up plug 6 buffs on then hide.
Puggle Halfwine 12-19-06, 10:36 PM	Also, in modules I write I always (usually?) allow for distance. In one such module, set on an open plain, the PCs saw some NPCs many miles away and had several hours to prepare; the module gave suggestions (such as building defenses, preparing hour long buffs, setting traps, etc) but I found most players just said, "Cool, we wait until they arrive." Still, one or two tables I ran made very good use of the time and subsequently found that encounter a fair bit easier.
copper_wyrmling 12-19-06, 10:44 PM	The number one rule I've NEVER seen used in a Living Greyhawk game: When you roll a 1 on a saving throw vs an area effect, it destroys your gear. I didn't even know this rule existed until I read about it a few months back; I've rolled my share of 1's vs fireballs in my time, and I know I've GM'd a few games where it's happened as well. From now on I'll be enforcing it, and reminding GMs when it happens to me, but I didn't even know about it until recently. Nasty one, that. You've never seen that used, Puggle? I haven't run enough games for you. I've seen it as both a player and a judge (although finding the table in the PHB is always annoying). At SRDU 2005 I rolled four 1's on saves vs fireballs during the battle interactive, so I became *very* familiar with that table ;) : fortunately I had Resist Energy (Fire) running at the time, and the remaining damage was soaked by hardness.
pedr 12-19-06, 10:58 PM	Um, what about the details given on pages 87-93 of the DMG? Admittedly it's very hard to find but for each terrain type there is a section 'Stealth and Detection' which reads "The maximum distance in <terrain type> terrain at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is <random die equation>." Obviously module authors can write in this distance, as it is based on factors such as concealment, hills, heat haze and so on, but if it's not specified this gives you some guidance about how far away those riders along the road will be when you can spot them.
LGMoses 12-19-06, 11:57 PM	two questions: 1. Where is the table in the DM's guide for determining the distance between encounters? 2. Where is info dealilng with damaging/destroying magic items?
copper_wyrmling 12-20-06, 12:08 AM	As pedr said just above, the details of stealth and detection in various types of terrain is given on p.87-93 of the DMG. The table for items affected by magical attacks is on p.177 of the PHB.
Arvagor 12-20-06, 12:12 AM	1. Where is the table in the DM's guide for determining the distance between encounters?There is no single table. Each terrain section from DMG page 87-93 has a paragraph beginning "Stealth and Detection in XXX" ("XXX" being the terrain type), and the maximum Spot distances are described therein. 2. Where is info dealilng with damaging/destroying magic items?PHB, page 177, bottom of first column.
LGMoses 12-20-06, 12:13 AM	Thanks wyrmling I saw the stuff on the terrain types, I was just hoping it was organized on a neat little table somewhere. You know, all nice and in one little space. This works I guess.... I am the laziest DM ever.... Thanks for the info, I'm too tired to look. I just finished running a game where two of our regulars were no shows and we had to ride around town looking for people to play all day. Barely managed to find someone to play in time. So tired.....
solbergb 12-20-06, 12:25 AM	The number one rule I've NEVER seen used in a Living Greyhawk game: When you roll a 1 on a saving throw vs an area effect, it destroys your gear. . Well...only if the spell can affect objects. Most can't, they say "all creatures in XXX". Fireball, lightning bolt, flaming sphere and burning hands are rare exceptions to the general rule. Some don't say for sure one way or the other (eg, flame strike) so you get some table variation from that which is legitimate. That's one reason you don't see it much. The other reason is that those "1"s have a tendency to get rerolled with whatever favors or fatespinner-type thing might be around unless the person has no vulnerable equipment. (my monk for most of his life had no equipment that would come up on the table before his various nonmagical kama's and his sling. Now his most vuln object is his cloak of elemental protection, which has a tendency to protect itself well enough especially when improved evasion enters the picture. My sorc has just been lucky, although I can count the number of area spells she's been in that could damage equipment on less than two hands in her entire career, so I'm not exactly due for it, especially since some of those she had elemental protection running from various sources)
solbergb 12-20-06, 12:32 AM	Still, one or two tables I ran made very good use of the time and subsequently found that encounter a fair bit easier. Me and my wife have one set of characters that always turn the "Assault fortification' encounters into "we'll come back after dark" encounters which either result in terrorized (and brightly lit) NPC's who die if they poke their heads out of full cover to peer into the darkness or NPC's who come out of the fortification to attack our campsite, which generally has nice fields of fire and places for us to hide. Only once did that backfire on us (declining the monk's honorable challenge and instead they drank a bunch of potions and came after us....fighting a bunch of hasted, flying, tumbling, grappling, stunning-fist-flurrying monks in rough terrain is just miserable for an archer and druid and the folks we had with us) Our other chars tend to be more "assault the walls" types, although methods vary a lot. Those two are essentially seige equipment, turning fortifications into a trap and being able to "fortify" campsites very easily. I've tried to do that sort of thing with my sorceress but it doesn't work as well, for all her ranged capabilty and trapmaking skills. It seems to require some stealth and alertness skills in addition to ranged mojo and in a critical mass in the party where the approach is obviously better than just charging so you don't just get overruled by other party members.
clannagh 12-20-06, 01:42 AM	Yeah...and they're different. One of which is....you ALWAYS see an enemy at ANY distance if he lacks cover or concealment. 3.0 had very different assumptions that went into the creation of the 3.0 tables. Now atmospheric conditions can give them concealment and force that -1 per 10' spot check thing, but really, the hippogriff can't dive out of the sky on an open plain in charge range unless there is at least a haze in the sky or a cliff or something that provides cover/concealment within 100'. Much more often this can be justified at 300' (surprise round gets them in 200', main round can be used to charge full distance...) We locally call the way mods tend to ignore the "no cover no spot penalty for distance" the LG "In Your Face" undocumented monster ability. Though its reasonable that most encounters cannot allow the mages/archers etc 15 full rounds of fireball/pointy death before the monsters can close (and conversely if the enemy got to fireball from a 1000' the players would sure be *****ing) the way you get continually sprung by charging cavaliers/griffons/half dragons/flying spotted elephants miraculously appearing at charging range on a clear day with no cover eventually gets annoying.
clannagh 12-20-06, 01:43 AM	Well...only if the spell can affect objects. Most can't, they say "all creatures in XXX". Fireball, lightning bolt, flaming sphere and burning hands are rare exceptions to the general rule. Some don't say for sure one way or the other (eg, flame strike) so you get some table variation from that which is legitimate. That's one reason you don't see it much. The other reason is that those "1"s have a tendency to get rerolled with whatever favors or fatespinner-type thing might be around unless the person has no vulnerable equipment. (my monk for most of his life had no equipment that would come up on the table before his various nonmagical kama's and his sling. Now his most vuln object is his cloak of elemental protection, which has a tendency to protect itself well enough especially when improved evasion enters the picture. My sorc has just been lucky, although I can count the number of area spells she's been in that could damage equipment on less than two hands in her entire career, so I'm not exactly due for it, especially since some of those she had elemental protection running from various sources) also magic items get there own saves and i am pretty sure anything inside a bag of holding is fine so long as the bag survives
LGMoses 12-20-06, 02:10 AM	QUOTE Now atmospheric conditions can give them concealment and force that -1 per 10' spot check thing, but really, the hippogriff can't dive out of the sky on an open plain in charge range unless there is at least a haze in the sky or a cliff or something that provides cover/concealment within 100'. Much more often this can be justified at 300' (surprise round gets them in 200', main round can be used to charge full distance...) QUOTE But who looks up?
Puggle Halfwine 12-20-06, 10:20 AM	You've never seen that used, Puggle? I haven't run enough games for you. I've seen it as both a player and a judge (although finding the table in the PHB is always annoying). At SRDU 2005 I rolled four 1's on saves vs fireballs during the battle interactive, so I became *very* familiar with that table ;) : fortunately I had Resist Energy (Fire) running at the time, and the remaining damage was soaked by hardness. No, I've never seen it used ever. As I said, I only became aware of that rule very recently (and I thought I knew most everything). I was quite shocked when I found out (and a little guilty; only a few games ago I'd rolled a one on a fireball, which would have meant something expensive would have almost assuredly gone pop). Well...only if the spell can affect objects. Most can't, they say "all creatures in XXX". Fireball, lightning bolt, flaming sphere and burning hands are rare exceptions to the general rule. Some don't say for sure one way or the other (eg, flame strike) so you get some table variation from that which is legitimate. The other reason is that those "1"s have a tendency to get rerolled with whatever favors or fatespinner-type thing might be around All my characters have no rerolls at all, except for one (forcibly retired) character who HAD one, but it was to reroll any necromatic effect; anyone who knew Aenen knows that Aenen would hardly wish to reroll anything like THAT... got confiscated by the triad with that favour still intact, I believe.
Maesto 12-20-06, 10:38 AM	I usually ignore the "items take damage on a nat 1" for a number of reasons. Firstly, the dumb hardness rules. Anything with hardness is going to ignore basically any fire damage, unless it's 60+. Don't you start by halving the damage from fire, quartering from electricity and cold, then applying hardness? Given that the most likely objects to get fried are the weapons, shield and armour (from memory), most of the time it just isn't worth worrying about. I apply the rule when it might matter. Usually it just does not. Which is a shame, because the FAQ hardness ruling is stupid =) Cheers, Jolyon
Lord Yod 12-20-06, 12:11 PM	Just because a rule makes you go through some paperwork doesn't mean you're free to ignore it. Just roll the damage and see if its enough to actually effect any of the items said character is wearing. Like you said, its gotta be some serious damage before most things will be effected. (Of course, if my wizard rolled a 1, he'd end up naked except for his Haversack...)
KShaver 12-20-06, 12:27 PM	Don't you start by halving the damage from fire, quartering from electricity and cold, then applying hardness? Given that the most likely objects to get fried are the weapons, shield and armour (from memory), most of the time it just isn't worth worrying about. Yeah, but headbands and cloaks are high up on the possible target list, and they tend to not have much hardness.
_m_ 12-20-06, 05:20 PM	Yeah, but headbands and cloaks are high up on the possible target list, and they tend to not have much hardness. true. id be right cranky if i 1'd, and ended up down 6 int and 4 charisma.
solbergb 12-20-06, 05:52 PM	But who looks up? There is no facing in D&D. And my archer and sorcereress certainly look up. The former hunts animals, including flying ones, and the latter thinks in 3 dimensions, she's been able to fly for a couple years now.
solbergb 12-20-06, 05:55 PM	Also only ONE item is affected by rolling a "1". This is in contrast to first edition where failing a lightning bolt save meant losing all of your potions and scrolls, most jewelry, most things made of cloth and about half of your metal items, maybe 1/4 of magical metal items. We had a lot more equipment turnover in 1st edition. Fireballs were almost as bad, and better at cooking potions. Disintigrate was the worst, but usually you're more worried about the pile of dust that used to be your partner than the multiple piles of dust that used to be most of his equipment.
clannagh 12-20-06, 07:05 PM	There is no facing in D&D. Not entirely true. Tower Shields used for Total Cover definitely have a facing.
solbergb 12-20-06, 07:13 PM	The tower shield does. so do walls and other forms of cover and concealment. The character, however, does not. There is no difference between up, forward, back or sideways in a spot check or for any other kind of interaction between character and his environment. The environment may add additional restrictions (the wall on your left means you can't hit things behind the wall, movement vertical up or down affects flight speeds) but those are all exceptions to the general rule that direction matters not.
TallGuy 12-21-06, 08:19 AM	The number one rule I've NEVER seen used in a Living Greyhawk game: When you roll a 1 on a saving throw vs an area effect, it destroys your gear. I didn't even know this rule existed until I read about it a few months back; I've rolled my share of 1's vs fireballs in my time, and I know I've GM'd a few games where it's happened as well. From now on I'll be enforcing it, and reminding GMs when it happens to me, but I didn't even know about it until recently. Nasty one, that. I enforce that rule, and will tell the GM when it comes up for me (or someone else). We've always used that rule in our neck of the wood, and you can get really funny situations because of it :) For instance, someone has borrowed someone elses hat of disguise. He gets a fireball cast on him, rolls a 1. Uses his Folly Reroll ability, and rolls another 1. I've seen that happen so many times, it gets funny :) Bas Vermeulen
Simpi 12-21-06, 08:28 AM	I've lost characters because of the poor way box text encounters happen. We need a way around the random screwing. People still seem to justify much with the box text auto ambushes that happened all the time in Y2 modules and such. They don't seem to have any confidence on current editing process (or even appreciation towards the authors) and that encounters actually follow the rules. The reason I never use the horribly broken "feign surprise" card is because these days I am confident enough that if ambush happens, there is way of bypassing it some way as allowed by rules. Not necessarily with my PCs abilities but with some abilities that they could have (after all, somebody could use arcane eye and then teleport to attack and there is really nothing that my ranger could do to stop it). If they manage to ambush me, fine. In recent online game players were whipping out multiple feign surprise cards and I was seriously asking, why they bother with it? The answer was "I only use them when module screws me over". Now, that is very interesting regarding our relatively high APL where the said monster could actually do the afore mentioned arcane eye-teleport trick, yet when the monster appeared the automatic assumption of said players was that author was breaking the rules and out to get them personally. Quite amazing gift of foresight I would say. Of course, when feign surprise cards came out and there was much arguing over rules (As DM was a bit unfamiliar with them) up to a point that on my first action my PC simply full withdrawed behind the corner to have a smoke and leave the others to their fate as I could not care less. After this DM terminated the game and I cannot really blame him. He was obviusly inexperienced but players were outright rude and hostile towards him. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Gelth 12-21-06, 03:22 PM	Note quite a rule that LG forgets, but an LG rule that most players forget (or don't know about at all): On the first line of every AR, the one right above 'played' where you put your character name, you are also expected to put your classes and levels. This is, I believe, to stop people who would otherwise change their character builds periodically, in effect cheat. --Penn, Ket Triad
solbergb 12-21-06, 03:49 PM	If you have prying eyes/teleport in...you use up the surprise round teleporting in. Something to keep in mind. It is a rare monster that can teleport or phase in from another dimension as a free action. Some however can attack with their swift actions, and some can be transported by one guy, and those not involved in the teleport/plane shift/whatever can act in surprise round.
jstorrie 12-21-06, 07:51 PM	And some mod-writers make their teleporting attack squads all take Monk dips and Sun School :3
Madfox11 12-22-06, 05:25 AM	And some DMs forget that a boxed text is not sacred. It is an aid to help the DM describe the situation, but each and every DM should modify it based on the circumstances. This has always been the case regardless of whether it was a year 2 or a year 7 adventure. The Triads and authors (and the R&D team does as well considering the huge amount of information provided in each encounter in the newer adventures) just have learned that many DMs assume boxed text is sacred, so now they repreat the surprise rules in each encounter. True. id be right cranky if i 1'd, and ended up down 6 int and 4 charisma. Luckily you can only loose one item at a time. I never forget this rule, and I have seen it destroy a fair share of headgear and cloaks. In fact, I have seen so many cloaks being destroyed by it that some players refuse to buy expensive magical cloaks. Something with 3 hit points and no hardness really gets destroyed with most fireballs even at half-damage and with a second save. the anoying thing is the 'riders on the road' style encounter, that still only lets you start with them close. if i saw the riders coming up behind us, up plug 6 buffs on then hide. Great, remind me when I run a game for you that you do this. I will let you encounter several normal encounters with riders, farmers and who knows what uses the road to get you out of spells before sprining you the real encounter. Of course, if the road is in the middle of nowhere or the PCs know they are being hunted than such a reaction might make sense, but otherwise it is meta-gaming. It remind me a bit of one of the latest Order of the Stick comics, where the bard is surprised about getting some use out of an encounter, and the NPC commenting that there is no need to be surprised. If nothing useful/interesting got out of it, he would not have had that encounter ;) In any event, when I run an adventure I always ask my players before they start on the trip to give generic marching orders, reactions to fellow travelers and the like. I do this even when I know nothing special will happen during the trip. Saves me a lot of hassle when something does happen.
Arvagor 12-22-06, 06:14 PM	Note quite a rule that LG forgets, but an LG rule that most players forget (or don't know about at all): On the first line of every AR, the one right above 'played' where you put your character name, you are also expected to put your classes and levels. This is, I believe, to stop people who would otherwise change their character builds periodically, in effect cheat.I've had people get upset when I've DM'ed that I've asked for their PC's name and class(es) and filled it in before I hand them their AR -- the DM Sense Motive check tells me that the ones who (truly) look quizically don't know that the rule exists, while the ones who complain can be the ones shifting classes, or even giving the AR to one of their other PCs (perhaps based on access, or whatever...) The issue is raised every time the LGCS comes up for review (why then?) that the line either needs to be bigger, or an additional line specifically needs to be added to the AR for the PCs classes to be listed.
LGMoses 12-22-06, 09:31 PM	I did not know about htat rule. I may or may not go back and chnage things for my group. Those darn AR's can be a pain to fill out sometime BUT they are far more reliable than the character tracker. I do NOT want LG on the tracker, good ole AR sheets for me yes sir.