Tactical View [Archive] - Wizards Community

Tactical View [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Master_Vega
09-26-07, 05:09 PM I'm looking to make a Psion (Telepath) field commander character inspired by Fire Emblem (or my take on how the Tacticians in Fire Emblem work). He essentially scries the battle zone and uses the information to help his units.

I looked at scrying and it's limited to a person or creature... is there a Remote Viewing power or spell that I can use for this idea?

Thanks in advance!
InkBlot
09-26-07, 05:14 PM Clairvoyant sense. Seer 2. Just put the sensor high above the battlefield. There's no range limit, and you can put the sensor in any location you know of. That includes things like "200 feet thataway."

You'll just need to use Expanded Knowledge to get it. Since it's a 2nd level power, you can get it as a 5th level or higher Telepath.

edit: Alternatively, you could use sense link (psion/wilder 1) on a trained eagle and have it circle above the battlefield.
Master_Vega
09-26-07, 05:23 PM Thanks much!

For now I'm simply stating the character up as an NPC, but I might actually play him in one of my other RPG groups. :P
Tempest Stormwind
09-26-07, 05:35 PM Incidentally, have you looked at the society mind (http://www.dreamscarredpress.com/download/DSP-UC-SM.zip)? (EDIT: That link's the current PDF download.) It's pretty much exactly what you're looking for, and it can also use the tricks mentioned above if what it already provides isn't enough information.
AntiDjinn
09-27-07, 02:32 AM One problem with a "tactical view" set of powers, feats, or even a character class is that it can be of limited value in games where players already play as though their characters have the advantages of a top-down 360 view and perfect communication. It is subtle (or in many cases not so subtle) form of metagaming; the players can see the figures and the battlefield from above. They can also speak to other players even when there characters can not converse (or even when their character is not present) and can plan and coordinate actions in ways that their characters could not.

For example, looking at the battlemap, a wizard's player can count out a precise number of spaces and center his Fireball exactly where it needs to be in order to catch the maximum number of bad guys in the burst, yet fall just short of a friendly target (even if the target is around a corner out of LoS from the wizard figure, and the character has no way to know the friend's position). Arguments in favor of allowing this: It can be thought of as simulating the wizard's high Int (Wiz has Int of 24, player is a 12, allowing top down tactical metagaming simulates the Wiz's higher spatial awareness), it is easier, it is more fun when don't blast other party members. Arguments against it: It is metagaming, even fighters with no mental stats above 4 have the tactical advantage of a bird's eye view, and it actually nerfs effects that area supposed to grant tactical advantages.

Solution: When you introduce powers, feats, or classes that grant and area overview tactical advantage, the DM should put a lid on metagaming that allows characters to behave as though they had this advantage when they don't. My group took this into account when Mind Link first appeared. It used to be that the whole group would chat all the time. If one character was negotiating with NPCs the group got to hear what was said and could still talk to the player. The group could discuss plans and tactics and coordinate character actions without the monsters hearing what players (not characters) were saying. Once Mind Link hit the table that had to change; since the power granted a specific communication advantage, playing as though we had it when we didn't was verboten. Thereafter, if the telepath forgot to Mind Link the party and someone gave instructions to another character in the presence of NPC's, it was assumed he spoke and might have been heard (or maybe someone could have read his lips). Took some getting used to, but after we instituted this change we realized the extent to which we subconsciously allowed our characters advantages to which they were not entitled.
cnahumck
09-27-07, 08:45 AM Excellent points. Now I am going to bring this up in my games.
InkBlot
09-27-07, 09:53 AM One problem with a "tactical view" set of powers, feats, or even a character class is that it can be of limited value in games where players already play as though their characters have the advantages of a top-down 360 view and perfect communication. It is subtle (or in many cases not so subtle) form of metagaming; the players can see the figures and the battlefield from above. They can also speak to other players even when there characters can not converse (or even when their character is not present) and can plan and coordinate actions in ways that their characters could not.
You're making a big assumption about Master_Vega's game. I've never encountered the kind of metagaming you describe, and I wouldn't assume that it's involved in Master_Vega's game; especially since he seems to be the DM.
AntiDjinn
09-27-07, 11:33 AM You're making a big assumption about Master_Vega's game. I've never encountered the kind of metagaming you describe, and I wouldn't assume that it's involved in Master_Vega's game; especially since he seems to be the DM.
Really? You have never encountered a game in which the mage player points to a space and says "I center the Fireball on this hex"? Even though the character can not actually see the hexes, has no way to count them out in the game world, and has no way to see the battle from above and so could not tell exactly who will be inside or outside the area (especially if he is far away and does not know the precise height of his targets and can not correct for his parallax view).

If you are using miniatures and are not using fiber-optic cameras (like the type used in CSI to inspect the dioramas left by the miniatures killer) to simulate the view your character would have in the game world, then you are planning your actions from the perspective of a player with a top down view.

If you are not making players each leave the room as other characters are announcing their intended actions (such as "I hold for X" or "Blast when he reaches this space") then they are hearing what the other players are doing even though the character is not actually announcing this aloud in the game and the specifics of each intended action might not be obvious by simple observation. If so, they are enjoying some benefits of Mind Link or a Worldthought Network even if they are not entitle to these effects. Even if players are good enough to refrain from letting information that their characters would not have, overtly affect their actions, they are still benefitting from the option to select actions that best coordinate with (or at least don't interfere with) the actions of other characters who might be out of line of sight.

In many cases, it is a tough judgement call whether or not it is in the best interest of the game to allow these instances of metagaming. For example: Larry the mage has a Lightning Bolt spell and 12 monsters are standing in a line so that he could nail all 12 of them. But Bob the Bard is also in the line and is invisible. Larry technically has no way of knowing Bob's position; he has been invisible for many rounds, has not done anything to give away his position, and they don't share a Mind Link or similar. If Larry decides not to shoot until Bob is out of harm's way what should you do? Say: "No, you have a shot. You have never hesitated to bolt multiple foes who are lined up (and who might not be in this formation next round) and you have no way of knowing Bob will be hit"? If you do that, then you are making decisions for your player and may be forcing a PC kill. If you do not, then you are allowing the players to use the benefit of a special sense or connection even if they didn't pay for it. Why shouldn't the monsters automatically know the bard's position for purposes of hitting him, if the mage can know if for purposes of excluding him? (Personally, the way I handle such situations is: Mage players can make his choice, even if he chooses to metagame. If he metagames then some XP is docked from the encounter. If he shoots then absolutely no whining from the bard player would be tolerated because he stepped into harms way and put another player in a position of having to make a decision to metagame or not.).

Having the tactical advantages of a Society Mind eliminates such problems for a party blessed with one. Granting them to a party without a Society Mind dilutes the benefits of playing one.
CrimsonDeath
09-27-07, 11:39 AM You're making a big assumption about Master_Vega's game. I've never encountered the kind of metagaming you describe, and I wouldn't assume that it's involved in Master_Vega's game; especially since he seems to be the DM.

I've actually been in games where people ingentionally avoid that sort of metagaming, even going so far as to catch invisible, concealed, or hiding allies in AoE spells.
Tempest Stormwind
09-27-07, 12:06 PM AntiDjinn, I agree with your point, but I'd like to contend this part of it:

Really? You have never encountered a game in which the mage player points to a space and says "I center the Fireball on this hex"? Even though the character can not actually see the hexes, has no way to count them out in the game world, and has no way to see the battle from above and so could not tell exactly who will be inside or outside the area (especially if he is far away and does not know the precise height of his targets and can not correct for his parallax view).

In the case of magic, if you're willing to contend that you can throw fireballs, and that people hold still for a brief moment while you act during the same round (both allowances for the sake of gameplay), then it isn't a stretch to assume that a wizard (or psion) can dictate where his spell is aimed by force of will. Spells that are targeted by definition do this -- the fact that they hit their targeted hex means they are somewhat more aimable than their require-an-attack-roll cousins, no?

I just assume that, instead of real-world effects like grenades, the act of targeting a spell gives you feedback over its area -- or, in psionic flavor, that you choose the entire area to go up in flames and the center of the effect just happens to be where the manifestation of the power comes from. This removes the metagaming from targeting (as you can sense where an effect will fill).

I do not, however, allow this to let them see creatures they shouldn't be able to, so in your example he'd pretty much have to take the Lightning Bolt shot.
AntiDjinn
09-27-07, 12:41 PM True, Fireballs and other area spells appear to be direct fire rather than parabolic-trajectory artillery fire; otherwise the spell/power parameters would include a required overhead clearance for targeting. Game effects do seem to allow fuzzy targeting: "Those guys over there, so long as they are within range, whether they are 5 feet tall and 100 feet away or 10 feet tall and 200 feet away. Or even if they are of varying heights and are not even actually grouped, but just appear to be from my point of view." Maybe you do just watch the origin point of your Energy Ball streak away until it has passed a certain number of opponents (the point when you figure it is equally distant from all off them) then order it to detonate. My group has just always allowed casters to pick a center space from above because we figure the caster is using his genius Int to calculate the spatial relation ships in his head.

This hasn't been an issue for us now, but soon my psicrystal will be able to fly, and later will get Sight Link. The advantage of having an aerial view will be diluted by the fact that none of use have ever been penalized in targeting for having lacked it (other than being able to identify foes that had concealment from the character PoV, but lack it from above). The mechanics of the game are already handled as though the characters can see and count the spaces and know the precise position of every being or object in his LoS.
AntiDjinn
09-27-07, 01:08 PM I've actually been in games where people ingentionally avoid that sort of metagaming, even going so far as to catch invisible, concealed, or hiding allies in AoE spells.
Normally, this is what I prefer, but I don't enforce it. I am willing to allow verisimilitude and plausibility suffer in favor of group harmony and enjoyment of the game. If a caster chooses not to take a shot only because the player doesn't want to deal with his best friend sulking in the next room as he rolls up a replacement for his favorite character, then so be it. That specific metagame decision is tolerated. On the other hand, if the caster takes the shot then he is not penalized for accidental friendly-fire. And I won't tolerate disruptive behavior or attempts at payback from the player who character was injured or killed due to the fog of battle (also metagaming, since the new character has no basis for this hostility): "No, Stan, you actually killed your character. He stepped into the path of a Lightning Bolt. Larry just happened to fire that bolt. Your decision to move into peril when your team mates have no way to know where you are."
CrimsonDeath
09-27-07, 03:14 PM Normally, this is what I prefer, but I don't enforce it. I am willing to allow verisimilitude and plausibility suffer in favor of group harmony and enjoyment of the game. If a caster chooses not to take a shot only because the player doesn't want to deal with his best friend sulking in the next room as he rolls up a replacement for his favorite character, then so be it. That specific metagame decision is tolerated. On the other hand, if the caster takes the shot then he is not penalized for accidental friendly-fire. And I won't tolerate disruptive behavior or attempts at payback from the player who character was injured or killed due to the fog of battle (also metagaming, since the new character has no basis for this hostility): "No, Stan, you actually killed your character. He stepped into the path of a Lightning Bolt. Larry just happened to fire that bolt. Your decision to move into peril when your team mates have no way to know where you are."

That particular problem never really arose because the folks in the line of fire typically had high Reflex saves, sacks of HP, energy resistance, or even all three. Anyone without at least one of those defenses had the good sense to stay out of the line of fire or be incredibly obvious in communicating his location to the other characters. (This is up to and including the time when our Cleric cast Earthquake with my Lasher, the Champion of Corellon, and the Shifter Barbarian in the area. We all made our saves.)
InkBlot
09-27-07, 04:32 PM Really?

Yes. When my friends and I are sitting around a table pretending to be elves we are entirely capable of ignore information that those elves don't have. That includes ignoring what they can't see or hear.

However, battles are usually full of shouted tactics and warnings. My last wizard character always prepared message*. If one party member has an important encounter alone then he lets everyone else know whats up. We always make characters who are capable of cooperating in a team and part of that is realizing that keeping their friends informed keeps everybody alive. It's not a rule, but all the players know that it's a good idea.

As for AoEs - if a mage knows there's invisible allies running around, then he knows it's a bad idea to drop fireballs haphazardly. Sometimes he will anyway, especially if he's the kind of loose-cannon Sorcerer whom one of my friends loves to play.

In your example with Larry and Bob, I'd just remind Larry that Bob is invisible and leave the final decision up to him. If Larry decided not to use fireball then it's no big deal. It's just a game, and he's not ruining it. My group doesn't refrain from metagaming because of some anti-metagame enforcer, but because we all think it's more fun to act in-character.

There are exceptions to the above. If we're playing a pulpy story-first style game, then we'll use metagame knowledge to do things like arrive just in the nick of time. It still has to be plausible, but the PCs are supposed to be the Big Damn Heroes. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes)

*I don't know why I didn't just get a wand
AntiDjinn
09-27-07, 06:56 PM My last wizard character always prepared message*. If one party member has an important encounter alone then he lets everyone else know whats up.
In other words, you are using a character resource, similar in prinicple to using Mind Link, to provide for communication instead of just allowing players to talk for free over any distance. That is the right way to do it, but if communication is free, supposed shouted instructions are never heard by opponents, and communication is about game mechanics (Player 1: "I move here" (moves figure) Player 2 (character is in another room): "Dude, if you move through that space you will suffer an AoO from the ogre." Player 1: "Oh yeah. So I go here instead.") then the party is already messaging for free and you might as well not waste the spell. If Player 2 wants to be able to give tactical advice from another room then he should take levels of Society Mind and actually pay for the advantage he is using.

I'd just remind Larry that Bob is invisible and leave the final decision up to him.
Why should the DM remind Larry if he never knew Bob went invisible in the first place? You are assuming that every thing the players can see (player setting an "inivisible" token on his figure) is information available to all party characters, or that he shouted "I am turning invisible" as he did so. If he did know Bob had gone invisible, the shouldn't the admonishment: "Remember, Bob is invisible" be given every time he casts an area spells, not just when he is pointing that spell at Bob? Even pointing out the invisible figure makes it seem like it is Larry's decision whether or not Bob lives or dies when, in fact, it was Bob who made the decision.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master_Vega 09-26-07, 05:09 PM	I'm looking to make a Psion (Telepath) field commander character inspired by Fire Emblem (or my take on how the Tacticians in Fire Emblem work). He essentially scries the battle zone and uses the information to help his units. I looked at scrying and it's limited to a person or creature... is there a Remote Viewing power or spell that I can use for this idea? Thanks in advance!
InkBlot 09-26-07, 05:14 PM	Clairvoyant sense. Seer 2. Just put the sensor high above the battlefield. There's no range limit, and you can put the sensor in any location you know of. That includes things like "200 feet thataway." You'll just need to use Expanded Knowledge to get it. Since it's a 2nd level power, you can get it as a 5th level or higher Telepath. edit: Alternatively, you could use sense link (psion/wilder 1) on a trained eagle and have it circle above the battlefield.
Master_Vega 09-26-07, 05:23 PM	Thanks much! For now I'm simply stating the character up as an NPC, but I might actually play him in one of my other RPG groups. :P
Tempest Stormwind 09-26-07, 05:35 PM	Incidentally, have you looked at the society mind (http://www.dreamscarredpress.com/download/DSP-UC-SM.zip)? (EDIT: That link's the current PDF download.) It's pretty much exactly what you're looking for, and it can also use the tricks mentioned above if what it already provides isn't enough information.
AntiDjinn 09-27-07, 02:32 AM	One problem with a "tactical view" set of powers, feats, or even a character class is that it can be of limited value in games where players already play as though their characters have the advantages of a top-down 360 view and perfect communication. It is subtle (or in many cases not so subtle) form of metagaming; the players can see the figures and the battlefield from above. They can also speak to other players even when there characters can not converse (or even when their character is not present) and can plan and coordinate actions in ways that their characters could not. For example, looking at the battlemap, a wizard's player can count out a precise number of spaces and center his Fireball exactly where it needs to be in order to catch the maximum number of bad guys in the burst, yet fall just short of a friendly target (even if the target is around a corner out of LoS from the wizard figure, and the character has no way to know the friend's position). Arguments in favor of allowing this: It can be thought of as simulating the wizard's high Int (Wiz has Int of 24, player is a 12, allowing top down tactical metagaming simulates the Wiz's higher spatial awareness), it is easier, it is more fun when don't blast other party members. Arguments against it: It is metagaming, even fighters with no mental stats above 4 have the tactical advantage of a bird's eye view, and it actually nerfs effects that area supposed to grant tactical advantages. Solution: When you introduce powers, feats, or classes that grant and area overview tactical advantage, the DM should put a lid on metagaming that allows characters to behave as though they had this advantage when they don't. My group took this into account when Mind Link first appeared. It used to be that the whole group would chat all the time. If one character was negotiating with NPCs the group got to hear what was said and could still talk to the player. The group could discuss plans and tactics and coordinate character actions without the monsters hearing what players (not characters) were saying. Once Mind Link hit the table that had to change; since the power granted a specific communication advantage, playing as though we had it when we didn't was verboten. Thereafter, if the telepath forgot to Mind Link the party and someone gave instructions to another character in the presence of NPC's, it was assumed he spoke and might have been heard (or maybe someone could have read his lips). Took some getting used to, but after we instituted this change we realized the extent to which we subconsciously allowed our characters advantages to which they were not entitled.
cnahumck 09-27-07, 08:45 AM	Excellent points. Now I am going to bring this up in my games.
InkBlot 09-27-07, 09:53 AM	One problem with a "tactical view" set of powers, feats, or even a character class is that it can be of limited value in games where players already play as though their characters have the advantages of a top-down 360 view and perfect communication. It is subtle (or in many cases not so subtle) form of metagaming; the players can see the figures and the battlefield from above. They can also speak to other players even when there characters can not converse (or even when their character is not present) and can plan and coordinate actions in ways that their characters could not. You're making a big assumption about Master_Vega's game. I've never encountered the kind of metagaming you describe, and I wouldn't assume that it's involved in Master_Vega's game; especially since he seems to be the DM.
AntiDjinn 09-27-07, 11:33 AM	You're making a big assumption about Master_Vega's game. I've never encountered the kind of metagaming you describe, and I wouldn't assume that it's involved in Master_Vega's game; especially since he seems to be the DM. Really? You have never encountered a game in which the mage player points to a space and says "I center the Fireball on this hex"? Even though the character can not actually see the hexes, has no way to count them out in the game world, and has no way to see the battle from above and so could not tell exactly who will be inside or outside the area (especially if he is far away and does not know the precise height of his targets and can not correct for his parallax view). If you are using miniatures and are not using fiber-optic cameras (like the type used in CSI to inspect the dioramas left by the miniatures killer) to simulate the view your character would have in the game world, then you are planning your actions from the perspective of a player with a top down view. If you are not making players each leave the room as other characters are announcing their intended actions (such as "I hold for X" or "Blast when he reaches this space") then they are hearing what the other players are doing even though the character is not actually announcing this aloud in the game and the specifics of each intended action might not be obvious by simple observation. If so, they are enjoying some benefits of Mind Link or a Worldthought Network even if they are not entitle to these effects. Even if players are good enough to refrain from letting information that their characters would not have, overtly affect their actions, they are still benefitting from the option to select actions that best coordinate with (or at least don't interfere with) the actions of other characters who might be out of line of sight. In many cases, it is a tough judgement call whether or not it is in the best interest of the game to allow these instances of metagaming. For example: Larry the mage has a Lightning Bolt spell and 12 monsters are standing in a line so that he could nail all 12 of them. But Bob the Bard is also in the line and is invisible. Larry technically has no way of knowing Bob's position; he has been invisible for many rounds, has not done anything to give away his position, and they don't share a Mind Link or similar. If Larry decides not to shoot until Bob is out of harm's way what should you do? Say: "No, you have a shot. You have never hesitated to bolt multiple foes who are lined up (and who might not be in this formation next round) and you have no way of knowing Bob will be hit"? If you do that, then you are making decisions for your player and may be forcing a PC kill. If you do not, then you are allowing the players to use the benefit of a special sense or connection even if they didn't pay for it. Why shouldn't the monsters automatically know the bard's position for purposes of hitting him, if the mage can know if for purposes of excluding him? (Personally, the way I handle such situations is: Mage players can make his choice, even if he chooses to metagame. If he metagames then some XP is docked from the encounter. If he shoots then absolutely no whining from the bard player would be tolerated because he stepped into harms way and put another player in a position of having to make a decision to metagame or not.). Having the tactical advantages of a Society Mind eliminates such problems for a party blessed with one. Granting them to a party without a Society Mind dilutes the benefits of playing one.
CrimsonDeath 09-27-07, 11:39 AM	You're making a big assumption about Master_Vega's game. I've never encountered the kind of metagaming you describe, and I wouldn't assume that it's involved in Master_Vega's game; especially since he seems to be the DM. I've actually been in games where people ingentionally avoid that sort of metagaming, even going so far as to catch invisible, concealed, or hiding allies in AoE spells.
Tempest Stormwind 09-27-07, 12:06 PM	AntiDjinn, I agree with your point, but I'd like to contend this part of it: Really? You have never encountered a game in which the mage player points to a space and says "I center the Fireball on this hex"? Even though the character can not actually see the hexes, has no way to count them out in the game world, and has no way to see the battle from above and so could not tell exactly who will be inside or outside the area (especially if he is far away and does not know the precise height of his targets and can not correct for his parallax view). In the case of magic, if you're willing to contend that you can throw fireballs, and that people hold still for a brief moment while you act during the same round (both allowances for the sake of gameplay), then it isn't a stretch to assume that a wizard (or psion) can dictate where his spell is aimed by force of will. Spells that are targeted by definition do this -- the fact that they hit their targeted hex means they are somewhat more aimable than their require-an-attack-roll cousins, no? I just assume that, instead of real-world effects like grenades, the act of targeting a spell gives you feedback over its area -- or, in psionic flavor, that you choose the entire area to go up in flames and the center of the effect just happens to be where the manifestation of the power comes from. This removes the metagaming from targeting (as you can sense where an effect will fill). I do not, however, allow this to let them see creatures they shouldn't be able to, so in your example he'd pretty much have to take the Lightning Bolt shot.
AntiDjinn 09-27-07, 12:41 PM	True, Fireballs and other area spells appear to be direct fire rather than parabolic-trajectory artillery fire; otherwise the spell/power parameters would include a required overhead clearance for targeting. Game effects do seem to allow fuzzy targeting: "Those guys over there, so long as they are within range, whether they are 5 feet tall and 100 feet away or 10 feet tall and 200 feet away. Or even if they are of varying heights and are not even actually grouped, but just appear to be from my point of view." Maybe you do just watch the origin point of your Energy Ball streak away until it has passed a certain number of opponents (the point when you figure it is equally distant from all off them) then order it to detonate. My group has just always allowed casters to pick a center space from above because we figure the caster is using his genius Int to calculate the spatial relation ships in his head. This hasn't been an issue for us now, but soon my psicrystal will be able to fly, and later will get Sight Link. The advantage of having an aerial view will be diluted by the fact that none of use have ever been penalized in targeting for having lacked it (other than being able to identify foes that had concealment from the character PoV, but lack it from above). The mechanics of the game are already handled as though the characters can see and count the spaces and know the precise position of every being or object in his LoS.
AntiDjinn 09-27-07, 01:08 PM	I've actually been in games where people ingentionally avoid that sort of metagaming, even going so far as to catch invisible, concealed, or hiding allies in AoE spells. Normally, this is what I prefer, but I don't enforce it. I am willing to allow verisimilitude and plausibility suffer in favor of group harmony and enjoyment of the game. If a caster chooses not to take a shot only because the player doesn't want to deal with his best friend sulking in the next room as he rolls up a replacement for his favorite character, then so be it. That specific metagame decision is tolerated. On the other hand, if the caster takes the shot then he is not penalized for accidental friendly-fire. And I won't tolerate disruptive behavior or attempts at payback from the player who character was injured or killed due to the fog of battle (also metagaming, since the new character has no basis for this hostility): "No, Stan, you actually killed your character. He stepped into the path of a Lightning Bolt. Larry just happened to fire that bolt. Your decision to move into peril when your team mates have no way to know where you are."
CrimsonDeath 09-27-07, 03:14 PM	Normally, this is what I prefer, but I don't enforce it. I am willing to allow verisimilitude and plausibility suffer in favor of group harmony and enjoyment of the game. If a caster chooses not to take a shot only because the player doesn't want to deal with his best friend sulking in the next room as he rolls up a replacement for his favorite character, then so be it. That specific metagame decision is tolerated. On the other hand, if the caster takes the shot then he is not penalized for accidental friendly-fire. And I won't tolerate disruptive behavior or attempts at payback from the player who character was injured or killed due to the fog of battle (also metagaming, since the new character has no basis for this hostility): "No, Stan, you actually killed your character. He stepped into the path of a Lightning Bolt. Larry just happened to fire that bolt. Your decision to move into peril when your team mates have no way to know where you are." That particular problem never really arose because the folks in the line of fire typically had high Reflex saves, sacks of HP, energy resistance, or even all three. Anyone without at least one of those defenses had the good sense to stay out of the line of fire or be incredibly obvious in communicating his location to the other characters. (This is up to and including the time when our Cleric cast Earthquake with my Lasher, the Champion of Corellon, and the Shifter Barbarian in the area. We all made our saves.)
InkBlot 09-27-07, 04:32 PM	Really? Yes. When my friends and I are sitting around a table pretending to be elves we are entirely capable of ignore information that those elves don't have. That includes ignoring what they can't see or hear. However, battles are usually full of shouted tactics and warnings. My last wizard character always prepared message. If one party member has an important encounter alone then he lets everyone else know whats up. We always make characters who are capable of cooperating in a team and part of that is realizing that keeping their friends informed keeps everybody alive. It's not a rule, but all the players know that it's a good idea. As for AoEs - if a mage knows there's invisible allies running around, then he knows it's a bad idea to drop fireballs haphazardly. Sometimes he will anyway, especially if he's the kind of loose-cannon Sorcerer whom one of my friends loves to play. In your example with Larry and Bob, I'd just remind Larry that Bob is invisible and leave the final decision up to him. If Larry decided not to use fireball then it's no big deal. It's just a game, and he's not ruining it. My group doesn't refrain from metagaming because of some anti-metagame enforcer, but because we all think it's more fun to act in-character. There are exceptions to the above. If we're playing a pulpy story-first style game, then we'll use metagame knowledge to do things like arrive just in the nick of time. It still has to be plausible, but the PCs are supposed to be the Big Damn Heroes. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes) I don't know why I didn't just get a wand
AntiDjinn 09-27-07, 06:56 PM	My last wizard character always prepared message*. If one party member has an important encounter alone then he lets everyone else know whats up. In other words, you are using a character resource, similar in prinicple to using Mind Link, to provide for communication instead of just allowing players to talk for free over any distance. That is the right way to do it, but if communication is free, supposed shouted instructions are never heard by opponents, and communication is about game mechanics (Player 1: "I move here" (moves figure) Player 2 (character is in another room): "Dude, if you move through that space you will suffer an AoO from the ogre." Player 1: "Oh yeah. So I go here instead.") then the party is already messaging for free and you might as well not waste the spell. If Player 2 wants to be able to give tactical advice from another room then he should take levels of Society Mind and actually pay for the advantage he is using. I'd just remind Larry that Bob is invisible and leave the final decision up to him. Why should the DM remind Larry if he never knew Bob went invisible in the first place? You are assuming that every thing the players can see (player setting an "inivisible" token on his figure) is information available to all party characters, or that he shouted "I am turning invisible" as he did so. If he did know Bob had gone invisible, the shouldn't the admonishment: "Remember, Bob is invisible" be given every time he casts an area spells, not just when he is pointing that spell at Bob? Even pointing out the invisible figure makes it seem like it is Larry's decision whether or not Bob lives or dies when, in fact, it was Bob who made the decision.