Deck of Many Things...Skull Card
Loki
Ok, I'm sure this is an old question, but...
I drew the skull card. F/T 5/5. Fought Death and died. Here's the crux of
the matter. First, anyone with a fates card drawn couldn't help me, right?
Second, I had Drums of Panic. DM's Guide says it will work against all
creatures. Is Death included here? DM said no, but was willing to here my
argument. Any help would be appreciated. W/O this character I have a monk
to play who has been doing very poorly (level 7 and still has a thac0 of
only 17!!!!)
Loki
--
"You imply disparity where none exists...I am the one that is many."
Aaron J. Lukacsko
<a.luk...@popmail.csuohio.edu>
StephenJ
Loki wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm sure this is an old question, but...
> I drew the skull card. F/T 5/5. Fought Death and died. Here's the crux of
> the matter. First, anyone with a fates card drawn couldn't help me, right?
> Second, I had Drums of Panic. DM's Guide says it will work against all
> creatures. Is Death included here? DM said no, but was willing to here my
> argument.
From what you say your character is dead, so there's nothing to argue
about. Basically, if the DM says the drums don't work, they don't work,
regardless of the book. For what it's worth, i'd say the Drums don't
work in this case. Don't see how you can "panic" a Minor Death...
*****************
Was the Order to Slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
ancient Roman crypt beneath the cathedral, or because the Dark Man of
the Haute Vienne Coven spoke the Three Words?
Robert Baldwin
Loki wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm sure this is an old question, but...
> I drew the skull card. F/T 5/5. Fought Death and died. Here's the crux of
> the matter. First, anyone with a fates card drawn couldn't help me, right?
> Second, I had Drums of Panic. DM's Guide says it will work against all
> creatures. Is Death included here? DM said no, but was willing to here my
> argument.
<snip>
Well, I would alow the Fate card to be played if *you* had drawn it
prior to the Death card. I'd alow you to avoid that entire draw but
only before the combat was fought.
As for the Drums, I'd rule it's effect is similar to a fear spell, and I
generally assume major undead (lichs, vampires spectres, death) are
immune to that sort of thing.
Although, if I ever had a pc offer to play ut a game of chess with Death
I'd probably go for it. :-)
--
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"4 out of 5 victims of UCE recommend new .spam.kill.";
check out the free sample in my _return to_ line.
StephenJ
Lance Dooly wrote:
>
> Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
>
About 12 years ago i saw a Paladin take one out. He was about 9th level,
with 60 or so HP at the start of the fight. Had about 6 at the end, but
was still standing...
Lance Dooly
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 21:03:28 -0400, "Loki"
<a.luk...@popmail.csuohio.edu> spake thusly:
> Ok, I'm sure this is an old question, but...
>I drew the skull card. F/T 5/5. Fought Death and died. Here's the crux of
>the matter. First, anyone with a fates card drawn couldn't help me, right?
>Second, I had Drums of Panic. DM's Guide says it will work against all
>creatures. Is Death included here? DM said no, but was willing to here my
>argument. Any help would be appreciated. W/O this character I have a monk
>to play who has been doing very poorly (level 7 and still has a thac0 of
>only 17!!!!)
>
>Loki
1) The Fates card only affects the person who drew it. I don't think
it can help you. You might argue that that character could attack your
Death and when his Death appears, he uses his Fates card to avoid it.
Kinda thin as it assumes a lot more knowledge about the cards than your
characters are likely to have. In any case, since you're here telling
us about it, it's too late for that. I don't like retroactive changes
like this personally.
2) I don't have Minor Death in my MC but I'm guessing he would be
immune to any fear effects. What are you gonna do? Kill him? He's
Death!
3) There is a 20' safe zone around the Drums anyway and IMO the Death
is going to appear right next to you. Probably just over your left
shoulder for best effect.
4) The "If the character is slain, he is slain forever" implies that
your character isn't coming back, even with a ressurrection or wish.
Sorry.
Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
Rance
The Deck of Many Things: Just say no!
Mr Knowitall
>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
I did it once with an 8th level Cavalier, ironically named Blizter. Pool
fool died at the chilling touch of a lich that ran out of spells. %)
Mr Knowitall.
ja...@ihug.co.nz
Mr Knowitall
Joshua Kaufman
On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
>>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
>
>Actually, I think that the fighter has the best chance of making it. A
>priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time since
>Death is immune to magic.
Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
But magic missile would work, because it is magical energy, not any of
the above. I can't think of too many other spells that would work.
Maybe a vampiric touch, but since Death gets first attack, you better
have a wand of vampiric touch or something. The mage can win with a
wand of magic missiles, if his HP are high enough.
>I have seen this Minor Death beaten twice. Both were high level
>characters. The first was a fighter, the second was a thief.
I don't know how the thief pulls it off. I guess he fights with two
weapons (high dexterity allows him to do such a thing). But still,
that must have been some lucky thief. The fighter thing make sense.
Joshua Kaufman
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:59:57 GMT, pel...@mindspring.com (Lance Dooly)
wrote:
>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
I have beaten death as a fighter. Actually, pretty easily as a
fighter. I had a very high strength and killed death in about 2
rounds. My question is, how would a properly prepared mage defeat
death? Death goes first. The only thing I can think a mage might do
is have stoneskin up (to avoid the first few hits and at least make
him survive a little longer) and then shoot death with stuff like wand
of magic missiles. There is no way a mage can affect death with his
spells, because Death will always abort his spells (unless you rule
that being hit with a stoneskin on still allows you to cast). Which
in that case, any creature with stoneskin can defeat death, as long as
they had it going into the combat.
Jason Hatter
Lance Dooly (pel...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
: high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
Yes, in a slightly munchkin campaign. A 7th level paladin with a
frost-brand and girdle of cloud-giant strength proceeded to kill one in
three or four rounds.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Gen Dorsey
>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
Actually, I think that the fighter has the best chance of making it. A
priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time since
Death is immune to magic.
I have seen this Minor Death beaten twice. Both were high level
characters. The first was a fighter, the second was a thief.
General Dorsey
Toby
[piggyback]
> Lance Dooly (pel...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> : high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
Once, by a bit of a fluke, at 4th level.
2 rounds with a great scimitar. Injured it the first round, rolled a crit
the second.
--
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
jedi
Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:59:57 GMT, pel...@mindspring.com (Lance Dooly)
> wrote:
>
> >Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> >high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
>
> I have beaten death as a fighter. Actually, pretty easily as a
> fighter. I had a very high strength and killed death in about 2
> rounds. My question is, how would a properly prepared mage defeat
> death? Death goes first. The only thing I can think a mage might do
> is have stoneskin up (to avoid the first few hits and at least make
> him survive a little longer) and then shoot death with stuff like wand
> of magic missiles. There is no way a mage can affect death with his
> spells, because Death will always abort his spells (unless you rule
> that being hit with a stoneskin on still allows you to cast). Which
> in that case, any creature with stoneskin can defeat death, as long as
> they had it going into the combat.
and what self respecting mage does not have stoneskin pretty much
constantly? there is no time limit, it stays until worn off by attacks. i
personally spend alot of my treasure on diamonds!!!
Lance Dooly
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:26:07 GMT, jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman) spake
thusly:
>Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
>not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
>But magic missile would work, because it is magical energy, not any of
>the above. I can't think of too many other spells that would work.
>Maybe a vampiric touch, but since Death gets first attack, you better
>have a wand of vampiric touch or something. The mage can win with a
>wand of magic missiles, if his HP are high enough.
I was thinking specifically of Stoneskin and Fly prior to drawing the
card. But then I don't know if Minor Death's can fly. Stoneskin to
save him from the first hit, and Fly to take him out of reach to cast
his Magic Missiles or Acid Arrows.
Rance
Jason Hatter
Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
: of magic missiles. There is no way a mage can affect death with his
: spells, because Death will always abort his spells (unless you rule
: that being hit with a stoneskin on still allows you to cast). Which
Which is why they should use wands. 8)
Mike Wilson
> > >Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> > >high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
> >
> > death? Death goes first. The only thing I can think a mage might do
> > is have stoneskin up (to avoid the first few hits and at least make
> > him survive a little longer) and then shoot death with stuff like wand
> > spells, because Death will always abort his spells (unless you rule
> > that being hit with a stoneskin on still allows you to cast). Which
> > they had it going into the combat.
>
> and what self respecting mage does not have stoneskin pretty much
> constantly? there is no time limit, it stays until worn off by attacks. i
> personally spend alot of my treasure on diamonds!!!
Actually if you use the initiative rules the wizard would most likely
get his spells off. A mage rolling a 1 is pretty rare. They way we do
spell disruption (and I think this is normal rule per PHB) is that if
the hit occurs BEFORE the wizards rolled initiative the spell is not
disrupted... Why should it be as the wizard has not even begun to
prepair the spell.
Course it all depends on who your DM is.
I seem to recall death being immune to almost every spell cept magic
missle or something though :)
--
---
Mike Wilson
No Howard, No Eagle! - Spread the word.
Gen Dorsey
>Actually if you use the initiative rules the wizard would most likely
>get his spells off. A mage rolling a 1 is pretty rare.
Actually if you are using the initiative rules, the mage would go after
death every time. Death strikes first in the round, both times. The mage
will not last long.
General Dorsey
-Force is never more operative when it is implied and not brandished.
Loki
Thanks everyone for your input on the matter..guess I'm prettymuch screwed!
As for Death, where/what book is it in? We quickly looked through the MMs
and Fiend Folio, etc, but didn't see it, unless we were looking in the wrong
spot!
Thanks,
Loki
The Amorphous Mass
In article <606ngi$31g$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, "Loki"
<a.luk...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your input on the matter..guess I'm prettymuch screwed!
> As for Death, where/what book is it in?
It's in the DMG, under the item description for the DoMT. All you need
to know, from the point of view of drawing that card, is AC, HP, #/attacks
and similar combat stats, and that's all that's there. :-)
--
The Amorphous Mass
amo...@avalon.net
http://www.avalon.net/~amorph/
Sick of Junk Email? http://www.cauce.org/
Skywalker
5th lvl dwarf fighter theif gott lucky on the rolls (axe + 2) beat him in
3 rds (not munckin)
Mike Wilson
Gen Dorsey wrote:
>
> >Actually if you use the initiative rules the wizard would most likely
> >get his spells off. A mage rolling a 1 is pretty rare.
>
> Actually if you are using the initiative rules, the mage would go after
> death every time. Death strikes first in the round, both times.
That is precisely what I was saying. If Death strikes on initiative 1,
and the mage does NOT start his spell till initiative 3 (say fireball so
it'll go off on 6) he will not worry one bit about it disrupting his
spell since he does NOT start casting fireball till initiative 3.
Like I said this was something we picked up out of the PHB and use in
our sessions. If you play in a game where any hit during a melee round
disrupts a spell that is your business. It's only a suggestion.
The Amorphous Mass
> Thanks everyone for your input on the matter..guess I'm prettymuch screwed!
> As for Death, where/what book is it in?
It's listed only in the DMG, under the item description for the DoMT.
Quentin Stephens
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:26:07 GMT, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
:>On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
:>
:>>>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
:>>>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
:>>
:>>Actually, I think that the fighter has the best chance of making it. A
:>>priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time since
:>>Death is immune to magic.
:>
:>Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
:>not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
:>But magic missile would work, because it is magical energy, not any of
:>the above. I can't think of too many other spells that would work.
:>Maybe a vampiric touch, but since Death gets first attack, you better
:>have a wand of vampiric touch or something. The mage can win with a
:>wand of magic missiles, if his HP are high enough.
:>
:>>I have seen this Minor Death beaten twice. Both were high level
:>>characters. The first was a fighter, the second was a thief.
:>
:>I don't know how the thief pulls it off. I guess he fights with two
:>weapons (high dexterity allows him to do such a thing). But still,
:>that must have been some lucky thief. The fighter thing make sense.
The mage can use a Verbal-only spell, like Dimension Door or
Teleport, then blast the Death with acid.
Of course, the canny mage, realising the possibility of drawing the
card, will have already cast Fly or otherwise prepared the
environment.
QTS
Home: q...@nildram.co.uk
Work: q...@buckscc.gov.uk. (I do not speak for BCC)
Quentin Stephens
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:26:07 GMT, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
:>On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
:>
:>>>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
:>>>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
:>>
:>>Actually, I think that the fighter has the best chance of making it. A
:>>priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time since
:>>Death is immune to magic.
:>
:>Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
:>not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
:>But magic missile would work, because it is magical energy, not any of
:>the above. I can't think of too many other spells that would work.
:>Maybe a vampiric touch, but since Death gets first attack, you better
:>have a wand of vampiric touch or something. The mage can win with a
:>wand of magic missiles, if his HP are high enough.
:>
:>>I have seen this Minor Death beaten twice. Both were high level
:>>characters. The first was a fighter, the second was a thief.
:>
:>I don't know how the thief pulls it off. I guess he fights with two
:>weapons (high dexterity allows him to do such a thing). But still,
:>that must have been some lucky thief. The fighter thing make sense.
Staffan Johansson
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 03:47:33 GMT, jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman)
wrote:
>I have a question and I am curious how DMs would rule on this..
>
>Suppose you drank a potion of invulnerability and you fought Death.
>Would you be immune to his weapon? Just curious. If so, that would
>be a great way to win a combat against Death.
The potion of Invulnerability doesn't give you invulnerability to
creatures with magical abilities. I'd say that a Minor Death is pretty
darn magical!
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Thoughts good! Slogans bad! Thoughts good! Slogans bad!
Joshua Kaufman
RobH
Jason Hatter wrote:
>
> Yes, in a slightly munchkin campaign. A 7th level paladin with a
> frost-brand and girdle of cloud-giant strength proceeded to kill one in
> three or four rounds.
A paladin drew from the deck? Ooh, his god mustn't have liked that...
Rob
Lawrence R. Mead
Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
: I have a question and I am curious how DMs would rule on this..
:
: Suppose you drank a potion of invulnerability and you fought Death.
: Would you be immune to his weapon? Just curious. If so, that would
: be a great way to win a combat against Death.
The potion I am aware of doesn't give immunity to magic weapons, which
surely the angel has.
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Jason M. Hamari
Lance Dooly wrote:
>
>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
Ye gods, yes... our group had the following:
human dual-class fighter/mage 19/12
human bard 27
kender thief 20
elven fighter/thief 14/15
I'd have to guess that we've killed about 20 of those damn Minor Deaths. But
that was in the days when our DM was "Deck-happy", and we were powergaming.
Now we concentrate on roleplaying instead of hacking things to bits... I have
reversed EVERYTHING that my character ever got from the Deck of Many Things
(since our group determined that it was way unbalanced), and now we're all
just happily going along our adventuring way. **grin**
Of course... my character could still whomp on a minor death, though.
What are the, AC -3, HP 33 or something like that? Who cares if they
automattically hit for 2-16 damage each round? Gimme 2 or 3 rounds, and he's
dead...
Mike Wilson
Jason M. Hamari wrote:
>
> Mike Wilson wrote:
> >
> >Actually if you use the initiative rules the wizard would most likely
> >spell disruption (and I think this is normal rule per PHB) is that if
> >the hit occurs BEFORE the wizards rolled initiative the spell is not
> >disrupted... Why should it be as the wizard has not even begun to
> >prepair the spell.
>
> Things, you will see that it automatically hits, and strikes first in every
> round...
>
> But about 10 other people probably said this already, so I don't know why I
> bother... **grin**
I guess no one is READING what I am saying. The fact that the wizard is
NOT disrupted is BECAUSE the "Death" hits first ALWAYS (i.e. he
automatically gets a 1 on initiative). The odds of the wizard rolling a
1 for initiative are high and as such s/he will not start CASTING the
spell till after he is hit... thus his spell will not get disrupted.
Example:
Death hits on init 1, does damange.
Wizard rolled 4 for init, casts fireball so it does not go off till 7.
Since the wizard is hit on init 1 and not 4 or after his spell is not
disrupted.
Again this MIGHT be an optional rule or somethin in the PHB but I
thought it was normal... apparently not in some games.
--
---
Mike Wilson
No Howard, No Eagle - Spread the Word!
Jason M. Hamari
The Amorphous Mass
Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
>On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>>>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
>>
>>priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time since
>>Death is immune to magic.
>
>Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
>not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
The real kink, IIRC, is that the Death always attacks first and
never misses. Can you say guaranteed spell disruption? Unless, of course,
you use the house rule that the caster is only disrupted if he's hit
_while_ spellcasting.
Better have a wand. Or, cast Stoneskin and Tenser's Transformation
just before drawing the card. :-)
--
The Amorphous Mass "No manual entry for management."
amo...@avalon.net
http://www.avalon.net/~amorph
Kill spam dead: http://www.cauce.org
Hugo Jonker
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu) thought about:
> Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
> : I have a question and I am curious how DMs would rule on this..
> :
> : Suppose you drank a potion of invulnerability and you fought Death.
> : Would you be immune to his weapon? Just curious. If so, that would
> : be a great way to win a combat against Death.
> The potion I am aware of doesn't give immunity to magic weapons, which
> surely the angel has.
> DMGorgon
Playing a Discworld kinda setting ?
Well, depends i guess.
For one thing, you can never kill Death (after all, who would be there
to take Death's soul etc. ?).But maybe you could banish him or summin'.
Something you'll probably quickly regret...
No nice way to release Death and the planet becomes overpopulated quickly...
--
Bel...@stack.nl
.oO Those who know cannot explain, those who don't cannot understand Oo.
Mike Wilson
The Amorphous Mass wrote:
> >Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
> >not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
>
> The real kink, IIRC, is that the Death always attacks first and
> never misses. Can you say guaranteed spell disruption? Unless, of course,
> you use the house rule that the caster is only disrupted if he's hit
> _while_ spellcasting.
Hum, I thought that was something in the DMG/PHB... Guess it must be
since not many people know what I talking about when I mentioned it :)
Thanks.
> Better have a wand. Or, cast Stoneskin and Tenser's Transformation
> just before drawing the card. :-)
Best idea yet, don't draw... but then everyone I've seen is just to
greedy to NOT pull one or two :)
sean patrick palmer
> Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
>
> Rance
> The Deck of Many Things: Just say no!
Yes, I have seen it. In my campagin, the priest/mage drew this card,
and managed to win. It's isn't an easy thing though. (And he was about
7/7 or 6/7 at the time, IIRC)
At one point in my dm'ing career, I got a kick out of the Deck, but now
I just don't like it. It's to easy to screw over pc's with it.
Sean Palmer
Mike Wilson
Jason M. Hamari wrote:
>
> Mike Wilson wrote:
> >
> >I guess no one is READING what I am saying. The fact that the wizard is
> >NOT disrupted is BECAUSE the "Death" hits first ALWAYS (i.e. he
> >automatically gets a 1 on initiative). The odds of the wizard rolling a
> >1 for initiative are high and as such s/he will not start CASTING the
> >spell till after he is hit... thus his spell will not get disrupted.
>
> when he knows he'll be hit... after he is hit, he starts his casting...
> Gotcha...
Whew, thanks... I thought I was just being thick when typing all that.
Someone mentioned that it was a house rule thing... I thought it was a
PHB/DMG item but apparently not :) I can understand the confusion on
that point.
I'll have to check and see how it's written up in the books just for my
own sake :)
Jason Hatter
RobH (gar...@execpc.com) wrote:
: A paladin drew from the deck? Ooh, his god mustn't have liked that...
What makes you say that?
Jason Hatter
Mike Wilson (mwi...@flash.net) wrote:
:
: I guess no one is READING what I am saying. The fact that the wizard is
Probably because you're quoting a house rule. Standard AD&D rules have a
wizard start casting at the beginning of the round. The initiative roll
(plus any modifiers for casting time) is for when he FINISHES his spell.
Lawrence R. Mead
Mike Wilson (mwi...@flash.net) wrote:
: Jason M. Hamari wrote:
: >
: > Mike Wilson wrote:
: > >Actually if you use the initiative rules the wizard would most likely
: I guess no one is READING what I am saying. The fact that the wizard is
: automatically gets a 1 on initiative). The odds of the wizard rolling a
: 1 for initiative are high and as such s/he will not start CASTING the
: spell till after he is hit... thus his spell will not get disrupted.
I think you misunderstand the initiative system. The start of spell
casting *defines* the beginning of the round in the standard rules. If a
hit is scored at any time before the end of the mages "die roll + 1" the
spell is spoiled.
: Example:
:
: Death hits on init 1, does damange.
: Wizard rolled 4 for init, casts fireball so it does not go off till 7.
The wizard in this example started his fireball at the *start* of the
round; but it only went off at the "7 count". Remember, these numbers do
not stand for any specific lengths of time in v2: they only indicate the
*order* of events. Here, the interpretation is magic begins casting at
start of round and is hit *before* the count of 7 (when his spell was due
to go off). The wizard was not just standing around idly for the first
four "counts" (however long you envision this being).
Jason M. Hamari
sean patrick palmer wrote:
>
>At one point in my dm'ing career, I got a kick out of the Deck, but now
>I just don't like it. It's to easy to screw over pc's with it.
Really? The DM usually gave us a Deck of Many Things as a gift... we had
every bad card figured out. If it was the void, we would manage a way to
rescue them... Minor Death ==> Kill it. That was in our powergaming phase of
roleplaying. We don't do that stuff anymore.
Jason M. Hamari
Mike Wilson wrote:
>
>I guess no one is READING what I am saying. The fact that the wizard is
>NOT disrupted is BECAUSE the "Death" hits first ALWAYS (i.e. he
>automatically gets a 1 on initiative). The odds of the wizard rolling a
>1 for initiative are high and as such s/he will not start CASTING the
>spell till after he is hit... thus his spell will not get disrupted.
Ah, I see your point. **grin**
Wkmccarthy
>Mike Wilson <mwi...@flash.net> wrote:
>is
>NOT disrupted is BECAUSE the "Death" hits first ALWAYS (i.e. he
>automatically gets a 1 on initiative). The odds of the wizard rolling a
>1 for initiative are high and as such s/he will not start CASTING the
>spell till after he is hit... thus his spell will not get disrupted.
First off, I don't play with the optional rule about when a wizard casts a
spell in a round determines if he is disrupted or not in spellcasting.
This is because if this rule is played any intelligent opponent would wait
until the wizard started his gestures in order to attempt to hit him. If
Death always strikes first, and if Death has intelligence (a ? mark here as
I guess it's up to the DM to decide), then wouldn't Death wait for the
wizard to start casting and then hit him? Would Death, or other opponents
be stupid enough to win initiative, take a swipe and then file their nails
while a wizard is able to cast a spell undistracted. I don't think so...
This is my major problem with this optional rule. Initiative should take
into account who gets first strike, and I assume that the wizard has been
preparing his/her spell since the beginning of the round. If he gets it
off before anyone attacks him then great, but if any hits take place before
that spell is off then it is ruined regardless of what time after the hit
took place the wizard started casting.
>Death hits on init 1, does damange.
>Wizard rolled 4 for init, casts fireball so it does not go off till 7.
>
>Since the wizard is hit on init 1 and not 4 or after his spell is not
>disrupted.
If Death is so quick to hit and do damage, how can it be explained what he
has been doing while the wizard is casting his fireball. Is Death just
sharpening his sycthe during this time? It doesn't make sense... For my
mileage, it makes more sense that if a wizard is hit anytime before casting
a spell in a round, then that spell is ruined.
YMMV
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Joshua Kaufman
On 23 Sep 1997 12:59:13 GMT, lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R.
Mead) wrote:
>Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
>: I have a question and I am curious how DMs would rule on this..
>:
>: Suppose you drank a potion of invulnerability and you fought Death.
>: Would you be immune to his weapon? Just curious. If so, that would
>: be a great way to win a combat against Death.
>
>The potion I am aware of doesn't give immunity to magic weapons, which
>surely the angel has.
You are absolutely right. It doesn't protect against magical weapons.
That is basically what I was asking. Is the scythe that Death uses
magical? I was just curious how others would rule on this.
Jason M. Hamari
Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
>
>I think you misunderstand the initiative system. The start of spell
>casting *defines* the beginning of the round in the standard rules. If a
>hit is scored at any time before the end of the mages "die roll + 1" the
>spell is spoiled.
The way I read it, since the Casting Time of the spell directly affects the
Initiative roll, it would seem that the caster does not begin casting the
spell until whatever the natural roll was on the initiative die. It makes no
sense that all spellcasters begin at the START of the round. If that was the
case, then a spell with Casting Time 1 would go at 1, Casting Time 2 would go
at 2, etc. The random (1d10) roll determines when casting begins, and the
Casting Time determines when the casting is complete.
>The wizard in this example started his fireball at the *start* of the
>round; but it only went off at the "7 count".
If he begins casting at the start of the round, and the Casting Time is 3,
he'd be done at 3 in the round time. What does he do, pick his nose until 7
comes around, and then unleash the spell? No. He rolled a 4, so anyone
going before 4 hits him before he starts casting. Then at 4, he starts
casting his spell, which will be completed at 7. If someone hits him
anywhere on 4, 5, or 6, it disrupts the spell. If they hit him on 7, the
spell goes off at the same time.
Wkmccarthy
>: jmha...@mtu.edu (Jason M. Hamari) wrote:
>The way I read it, since the Casting Time of the spell directly affects the
>Initiative roll, it would seem that the caster does not begin casting the
>spell until whatever the natural roll was on the initiative die.
Like you said, it depends on the way you read it. You're interpreting the
initiative role to have a direct correlation to specific periods of time.
Others may interpret it as simply ordering events, with the die role a
randomizer after all other factors have been taken into account.
It makes no
>sense that all spellcasters begin at the START of the round. If that was the
>case, then a spell with Casting Time 1 would go at 1, Casting Time 2 would go
>at 2, etc. The random (1d10) roll determines when casting begins, and the
>Casting Time determines when the casting is complete.
Again, you're thinking of casting time as having specific time intervals,
where casting time one would equal one second or something like that. In
first edition, I believe spell casting was measured in segments, with each
segment equaling six seconds, and 10 segments to a round IIRC. In second
ed. this is not the case. The round is not broken up into smaller periods
of time. A wizard begins casting at the beginning when he/she states the
spell that is to go off. I believe this is the official second ed. ruling,
though I may be wrong... :-)
and for my money, the revised initiative rules in second ed. was one of
the best improvements made over first ed.'s which were pretty confusing to
say the least...
>If he begins casting at the start of the round, and the Casting Time is 3,
>he'd be done at 3 in the round time. What does he do, pick his nose until 7
>comes around, and then unleash the spell?
Again, the above can be said of any combatant. After the fighter swings
his sword and misses, he doesn't get another shot, even if he went first
according to initiative. The mage is no different, the spell may be
ordered at a certain period during the round, but that time does not
correspond to a specific time period in the round.
>He rolled a 4, so anyone
>going before 4 hits him before he starts casting. Then at 4, he starts
>casting his spell, which will be completed at 7. If someone hits him
>anywhere on 4, 5, or 6, it disrupts the spell. If they hit him on 7, the
>spell goes off at the same time.
If you play by these rules then, shouldn't combatants be able to call
shots based on what their opponents' actions are. To take your example
above... I would ask my DM, what's the opposing mage doing during time 1:
nothing.... ok, time 2: nothing.... ok, time 3: nothing...ok, time 4: DM
says mage starts casting, and my party mage recognizes the somatic and
material parts of the casting to be a fireball, I would then have anyone in
my party who could attack according to initiative rolls (including those
whose initiative already came up in the first three "times," because I've
had them waiting), all attack the mage, even if they "won" initiative at an
earlier time, I would want them to wait until time 4 to attack the mage, to
see what he is up to. If the mage did nothing, then at the last time # of
the round I would have my guys attack someone just so they can get their
attacks in. This is why I think it is difficult for this system to work
(because my opponents in combat would probably do the same time, and
everyone would wait to attack until the last # of time). Your system
creates real "segments" of time in a round, when the action should be so
fast and furious that all combatants should have all decided on their plan
for that round in advance and be preparing for that action from the
beginning of said round. The die role is a randomizer for a number that is
at first derived by other "logical" factors such as size, dexterity, weapon
speed, casting time, etc... I don't know, that's the way I interpret it.
Perhaps DM Gorgon could espouse this "logic" more lucidly...since I think
his concept of the round roughly corresponds to what I said.
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Keven Simmons
Here's another thing to take into account if you subscribe to the notion
that a wizard can still cast a spell after being hit "early" in the
round... How intelligent is his opponent (I don't know how intelligent
Death from the DoMT is) and has he ever seen a wizard cast a spell before.
House rule in our campaign allows someone to "hold their initiative" until
later in the round if they so desire. Thus someone who is in melee with a
wizard, and who wins initiative may choose to delay their attack until they
believe their opponent is casting a spell, thus increasing the chance that
the spell is disrupted.
Dagger
-snips-
> >The wizard in this example started his fireball at the *start* of the
> >round; but it only went off at the "7 count".
>
> If he begins casting at the start of the round, and the Casting Time is
3,
> he'd be done at 3 in the round time. What does he do, pick his nose
until 7
> comes around, and then unleash the spell? No. He rolled a 4, so anyone
> going before 4 hits him before he starts casting. Then at 4, he starts
> casting his spell, which will be completed at 7. If someone hits him
> anywhere on 4, 5, or 6, it disrupts the spell. If they hit him on 7, the
> spell goes off at the same time.
Had this arguement in a few games I was in, with mages and archers and such
that weren't in Melee Combat at the time. In general, since no one was
getting in their face, they could start at 1 and go from there. If
something happened to change this (a bad guy type getting in melee range)
then it's initiative time. But the above works well, and gives mages more
of a chance (the 4/5/6 note above) than some people like.
Dagger
Jason M. Hamari
Wkmccarthy wrote:
>Again, the above can be said of any combatant. After the fighter swings
>his sword and misses, he doesn't get another shot, even if he went first
>according to initiative.
In 2nd edition, each round is 1 minute, right? Couldn't someone who is
really good with a sword make 20 attacks in that time? And yet a 10th level
specialized fighter gets only 2. This is because he isn't just taking his
two attacks whenever he chooses. The initiative time is spent in waiting for
an opening in the defense of the enemy, striking at the most opportune time.
And to account for more attacks per round as you raise in level, the
character is just better at recognizing signs that add up to a good place to
attack...
>If you play by these rules then, shouldn't combatants be able to call
>shots based on what their opponents' actions are. To take your example
>above... I would ask my DM, what's the opposing mage doing during time 1:
>nothing.... ok, time 2: nothing.... ok, time 3: nothing...ok, time 4: DM
>says mage starts casting, and my party mage recognizes the somatic and
>material parts of the casting to be a fireball, I would then have anyone in
>my party who could attack according to initiative rolls (including those
>whose initiative already came up in the first three "times," because I've
>had them waiting), all attack the mage, even if they "won" initiative at an
>earlier time, I would want them to wait until time 4 to attack the mage, to
>see what he is up to. If the mage did nothing, then at the last time # of
>the round I would have my guys attack someone just so they can get their
>attacks in.
But consider this... once the mage starts casting, it takes some time for
your mage to realize what he is casting, decides that it would be a good idea
to disrupt it, and then tell the other party members to attack. I would
assume that this would add another +2 at least to the initiative, and I would
even throw in the weapon speed of their weapons again. After all, if they
delay, they pretty much forfeit an opening, and they have to get their
weapons in a good attack position again.
But you see, this situation wouldn't happen. You still declare actions at
the beginning of the round. There is no asking "What is the mage doing at
this instant?". So it is a gamble, a game of strategy in some cases.
RobH
Jason Hatter wrote:
>
> RobH (gar...@execpc.com) wrote:
> : A paladin drew from the deck? Ooh, his god mustn't have liked that...
>
> What makes you say that?
Well, risking everything for the chance at some wealth/item/servant/
whatever else is an awfully chaotic act, isn't it? (If it wasn't a
standard lawful paladin, then it would be ok.)
Btw--I do NOT want to start another alignment thread.
Rob
Joshua Kaufman
On Mon, 22 Sep 97 19:27:16, "Quentin Stephens" <q...@nildram.co.uk>
wrote:
>The mage can use a Verbal-only spell, like Dimension Door or
>Teleport, then blast the Death with acid.
Even if he uses a verbal only spell, his spell still gets aborted,
because death always goes first in the round.
>Of course, the canny mage, realising the possibility of drawing the
>card, will have already cast Fly or otherwise prepared the
>environment.
Who is to say that Death cannot fly either? Stoneskin is a good spell
to cast before encountering Death.
Loki
Ahhh, just curious, but if it were the void, how did you rescue them???
Jason M. Hamari wrote in article <6097l4$t...@login.ee>...
Lawrence R. Mead
Keven Simmons (simm...@norwich.net) wrote:
: Here's another thing to take into account if you subscribe to the notion
Excellent point. Most intelligent opponents would wait until they heard
mumbling or saw funny hand motions or a scroll being unrolled.
DMgorgon
Mike Wilson
Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
> : >I think you misunderstand the initiative system. The start of spell
> : >casting *defines* the beginning of the round in the standard rules. If a
> : >hit is scored at any time before the end of the mages "die roll + 1" the
> : >spell is spoiled.
> :
> : The way I read it, since the Casting Time of the spell directly affects the
> : Initiative roll, it would seem that the caster does not begin casting the
> : spell until whatever the natural roll was on the initiative die. It makes no
> : sense that all spellcasters begin at the START of the round. If that was the
> [snip]
>
> Look in the texts for statements like: " The spell cast by a wizard
> only begins when the die roll count indicates " or, " A fighters
> attack only comes when the die roll count indicates" or some such; I
> do not think you will find these - I don't think this deviation from
> v1 was intended (too complicated).
Using the same argument I don't see it saying that they start at segment
1 either. To me it just makes no sense that everything starts on round
1... if that was the case what would be the point of rolling initiative
as the other poster mentioned. For wizards it's pointless in your
campaing.
I allow my players roll to determine WHEN they start casting the spell.
I read over the rule books last night and saw the same thing noted there
as well.
Not trying to tell anyone how to DM their players, it's just what we
found logical and reasonable.
--
---
Mike Wilson
No Howard, No Eagle! - Spread the word.
Lawrence R. Mead
Jason M. Hamari (jmha...@mtu.edu) wrote:
: Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
: >
: >I think you misunderstand the initiative system. The start of spell
: >casting *defines* the beginning of the round in the standard rules. If a
: >hit is scored at any time before the end of the mages "die roll + 1" the
: >spell is spoiled.
:
: The way I read it, since the Casting Time of the spell directly affects the
: Initiative roll, it would seem that the caster does not begin casting the
: spell until whatever the natural roll was on the initiative die. It makes no
: sense that all spellcasters begin at the START of the round. If that was the
[snip]
In v1, that is the case: all spell casting begins at the start of the
round (indeed that defines the round beginning) and are unmodified by
the initiative roll; the casting time is the segment in which casting
ends. Now it is hard to believe the authors of v2 meant that casting
does not even *begin* until that die roll as that is a huge amount
of bookwork for the DM to keep track of especially if there are several
(many?) spell casters (not just mages, but monsters too) involved, to
say nothing of matching spell effects with other activities (eg. a
fighter with a slow sword is suddenly hasted by a wizard in the middle
of his count - after die roll, but before die roll + speed factor - just
how is he affected that round? Swing in half the remaining time? No
mention of such complications in the books; they weren't intended). Also,
then it must for consistency mean that a fighters *attack* only begins at
the die roll, and his attack only comes in die roll + speed factor.
Look in the texts for statements like: " The spell cast by a wizard
only begins when the die roll count indicates " or, " A fighters
attack only comes when the die roll count indicates" or some such; I
do not think you will find these - I don't think this deviation from
v1 was intended (too complicated).
DMGorgon
jedi
Quentin Stephens wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:26:07 GMT, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
>
> :>On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
> :>
> :>>>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> :>>>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
> :>>
> :>>Actually, I think that the fighter has the best chance of making it. A
> :>>priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time since
> :>>Death is immune to magic.
> :>
heh, picture this.. i had a group of extra paranoid adventurers who found a
dexk.. thinking it was some kind of trap, the forced open the container and
dumped the contents on the flooor...
Jason Hatter
RobH (gar...@execpc.com) wrote:
: Well, risking everything for the chance at some wealth/item/servant/
: whatever else is an awfully chaotic act, isn't it? (If it wasn't a
: standard lawful paladin, then it would be ok.)
And adventuring isn't? 8)
It can be looked at it that way. It can also be looked at as an absolute
act of faith, ie "I trust my god won't let me draw anything that would be
wrong".
However, I did state that it was in a somewhat munchkiny/Monty Haul
campaign. Such things didn't matter to us then. 8)
Quentin Stephens
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 05:29:03 GMT, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
:>On Mon, 22 Sep 97 19:27:16, "Quentin Stephens" <q...@nildram.co.uk>
:>wrote:
:>
:>>The mage can use a Verbal-only spell, like Dimension Door or
:>>Teleport, then blast the Death with acid.
:>
:>Even if he uses a verbal only spell, his spell still gets aborted,
:>because death always goes first in the round.
Not in these cases - unless the Death whacks him on the head. BTW
it's got snipped but we're assuming the mage has stoneskin in effect.
:>>Of course, the canny mage, realising the possibility of drawing the
:>>card, will have already cast Fly or otherwise prepared the
:>>environment.
:>
:>Who is to say that Death cannot fly either? Stoneskin is a good spell
:>to cast before encountering Death.
I don't have the rules to hand, but AFAIR it can't.
QTS
Home: q...@nildram.co.uk
Work: q...@buckscc.gov.uk. (I do not speak for BCC)
Triaxm'l
> Who is to say that Death cannot fly either? Stoneskin is a good spell
> to cast before encountering Death.
If I remember right, a minor death has an AC, so many hitpoints, and hits
for so much damage first in every round. It has no other abilities as far
as I know. I know it's nitpicky, but if you give it more abilities just to
deal with a creative PC, you are not being fair. Your just proving that you
can kill his PC.
JohnnyB
Wkmccarthy wrote:
>
> >He rolled a 4, so anyone
> >going before 4 hits him before he starts casting. Then at 4, he starts
> >casting his spell, which will be completed at 7. If someone hits him
> >anywhere on 4, 5, or 6, it disrupts the spell. If they hit him on 7, the
> >spell goes off at the same time.
>
> shots based on what their opponents' actions are. To take your example
> above... I would ask my DM, what's the opposing mage doing during time 1:
> nothing.... ok, time 2: nothing.... ok, time 3: nothing...ok, time 4: DM
> says mage starts casting, and my party mage recognizes the somatic and
> material parts of the casting to be a fireball, I would then have anyone in
> my party who could attack according to initiative rolls (including those
> whose initiative already came up in the first three "times," because I've
> had them waiting), all attack the mage, even if they "won" initiative at an
> earlier time, I would want them to wait until time 4 to attack the mage, to
> see what he is up to. If the mage did nothing, then at the last time # of
> the round I would have my guys attack someone just so they can get their
> (because my opponents in combat would probably do the same time, and
> everyone would wait to attack until the last # of time).
Your arguement only applies if you do not use weapon speed factors and
if the DM lets you hold initiative. The initiative roll represents the
fact that there is no cut off point between one round and the next
_according to the perspective of the characters_. Joe Mage rolls d10 and
gets a 4. Casting time of a fireball is 3. On a 4 Joe Mage begins
casting, on a 7 it goes off. Joe Fighter is swinging a longsword (speed
factor =5) at Joe Mage. He rolls a 1 for initiative. He begins his
attack on 1 and finishes (rolls to hit) on a 6. This is during the
casting of the spell and thus it ruins the spell.
It amazes me that we all have these varying opinions on how to run this
common and crucial aspect of the game. We are all reading the same
references, but we come out with these odd differences.
Your system
> creates real "segments" of time in a round, when the action should be so
> fast and furious that all combatants should have all decided on their plan
> for that round in advance and be preparing for that action from the
> beginning of said round. The die role is a randomizer for a number that is
> at first derived by other "logical" factors such as size, dexterity, weapon
> speed, casting time, etc... I don't know, that's the way I interpret it.
Actions are determined before initiative is rolled, so no one could wait
around to see who is casting a spell and if no one does, swing at
someone on #10. You choose your attack and the target, roll the d10, add
the modifier (casting time or speed factor) and that is when you begin
and end your action.
In some campaigns, spellcasting can be ruined by being hit before your
begin casting the spell. I don't have any objection to this, as it can
be seen as mental preparation that must be restarted if the caster's
concentration is disrupted by failing a save or taking damage.
Now that I've tossed my hat into this debate, what someone should do is
go dig out the appropriate rule book and quote some passages or refer to
some page numbers to really settle this thing. But of course, how folks
will want to run things in their respective game is still their
business.
JohnnyB
Wkmccarthy
>really good with a sword make 20 attacks in that time? And yet a 10th level
>specialized fighter gets only 2. This is because he isn't just taking his
>two attacks whenever he chooses. The initiative time is spent in waiting for
>an opening in the defense of the enemy, striking at the most opportune time.
>And to account for more attacks per round as you raise in level, the
>character is just better at recognizing signs that add up to a good place to
>attack...
Ok, so you're saying the same thing for a mage casting a spell, he/she
waits for the opportune time to cast a spell, is like a fighter waiting for
his best shot against an opponent... interesting, but I don't think casting
time takes into consideration fumbling for spell components, before he
starts casting the spell the mage is trying to grab spell components but is
hit by an arrow or a magic missile or even a sword blow, would that not be
enough to disrupt his concentration to make it impossible to cast a spell
in that one minute round? Maybe and maybe not... it all depends on the DM
I guess...
>But consider this... once the mage starts casting, it takes some time for
>your mage to realize what he is casting, decides that it would be a good idea
>to disrupt it, and then tell the other party members to attack.
This I don't totally buy, the opponent mage is fumbling for that spell
component, as soon as he has it in view, any mage worth his salt should be
able to identify the spell being cast if it's a common one like fireball or
lightning bolt. Of course, an ingenious mage could attempt to disguise his
fireball spell component as a dancing lights spell component. Your mage
ponders dancing lights and tells everyone not to worry... big mistake, but
if he sees the common fireball spell component, he just has to say "yes" or
something short and sweet, as the archers' arrows are sent whistling in the
opposing mage's direction. I don't think it would take much time, unless
the opposing mage is actively trying to disguise his spell delivery and
component, not unlike a baseball pitcher actually....
> I would
>assume that this would add another +2 at least to the initiative, and I would
>even throw in the weapon speed of their weapons again.
How about a cocked arrow or ready crossbow, no need for delay there in
weapon speed. That mage is going to get pegged and he has no help from his
dexterity bonus to armor class. Even with a +2 to initiative, the fireball
would not go off until the missile weapons started firing. This should be
meant to give an advantage to low casting time spells, thus making magic
missile, as always, one of the best melee spells.
>After all, if they
>delay, they pretty much forfeit an opening, and they have to get their
>weapons in a good attack position again.
Yes, for pole arms and the like I agree.
>But you see, this situation wouldn't happen. You still declare actions at
>the beginning of the round. There is no asking "What is the mage doing at
>this instant?". So it is a gamble, a game of strategy in some cases.
I think a mage on his/her time, instead of thowing darts, could watch the
opposing mage, or after he's shot off his magic missile wand could watch an
opposing mage if he isn't dodging an attack him/herself. And missile
weapon users I don't think should have much of a penalty for withholding
their attack until later in the round as they ponder the situation. It is
a game of detailed strategy that can be managed very deeply if wanted,
that's up to the DM and players to decide.
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Wkmccarthy
>"Triaxm'l" <arthur...@utah-inter.net> wrote:
> but if you give it more abilities just to
>deal with a creative PC, you are not being fair. Your just proving that you
>can kill his PC.
Great point!!! This should be mandatory reading for all DMs. A creative
PC should not be penalized by a DM who feels that the character is
challenging his authority by outsmarting him. Death should be grounded
since his move rate doesn't indicate that he can fly. It would be nice if
some DM's did not feel the need to prove they can kill PC's in order to
have the feeling of control over the game and players.
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Robert Baldwin
Joshua Kaufman wrote:
<snip>
> You are absolutely right. It doesn't protect against magical weapons.
> That is basically what I was asking. Is the scythe that Death uses
> magical? I was just curious how others would rule on this.
Well, IDHMBIFOM, but IIRC the other limitation on the potion of
invulnerability is opponents with 4+ HD. Death has 33 HP, or 7.3 HD
(assuming 4.5 HP per HD).
And I'd rule that the magical nature of the Deck and of Death constitue
"magical" as used in the potion description.
--
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"4 out of 5 victims of UCE recommend new .spam.kill.";
check out the free sample in my _return to_ line.
Damien Johnston
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Mike Wilson wrote:
> Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
>
> > : >I think you misunderstand the initiative system. The start of spell
> > : >casting *defines* the beginning of the round in the standard rules. If a
> > : >hit is scored at any time before the end of the mages "die roll + 1" the
> > : >spell is spoiled.
> > :
> > : The way I read it, since the Casting Time of the spell directly affects the
> > : Initiative roll, it would seem that the caster does not begin casting the
> > : spell until whatever the natural roll was on the initiative die. It makes no
> > : sense that all spellcasters begin at the START of the round. If that was the
> > [snip]
> >
> > Look in the texts for statements like: " The spell cast by a wizard
> > only begins when the die roll count indicates " or, " A fighters
> > attack only comes when the die roll count indicates" or some such; I
> > do not think you will find these - I don't think this deviation from
> > v1 was intended (too complicated).
>
> Using the same argument I don't see it saying that they start at segment
> 1 either. To me it just makes no sense that everything starts on round
> 1... if that was the case what would be the point of rolling initiative
> as the other poster mentioned. For wizards it's pointless in your
> campaing.
>
> I allow my players roll to determine WHEN they start casting the spell.
> I read over the rule books last night and saw the same thing noted there
> as well.
>
> Not trying to tell anyone how to DM their players, it's just what we
> found logical and reasonable.
>
> --
>
> ---
> Mike Wilson
> No Howard, No Eagle! - Spread the word.
>
>
The rule we use in our campaign is that a mage starts casting at the roll
on the dice. If he is hit before this, he is merely unable to cast that
round. If he is hit between his initiative and spell completion, the spell
is disrupted and lost from his list of memorised spells.
______________________________________________________________________
Complex problems always have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers
Damien Johnston
djoh...@surf1.its.bond.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/6991
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
______________________________________________________________________
Keith Davies
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:35:57 -0400, jedi <a_jedi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
As I recall from an old Dragon article about the Deck, the cards have
effects only when *drawn*. The article made a point of one character
scaring another by dumping a deck on his desk. It seems that it is
safe to dump a deck on the table and look at the cards, then pile them
up again and start drawing cards.
A friend of mine once told me about a campaign world he was in. There
was only one Deck, and it was in a distinctive box. Three times
(different parties and characters) they found it - and asked each time
after the first "do we know better?". All three times the same player
(different characters) drew Donjon. The third time, he was described
as suddenly appearing in a dungeon cell somewhere, next to a
half-naked barbarian and a robed mage. "You guys look familiar..." :)
Keith
-- [posted]
Joshua Kaufman
On 24 Sep 1997 23:01:55 GMT, wkmcc...@aol.com (Wkmccarthy) wrote:
>Great point!!! This should be mandatory reading for all DMs. A creative
>PC should not be penalized by a DM who feels that the character is
>challenging his authority by outsmarting him. Death should be grounded
>since his move rate doesn't indicate that he can fly. It would be nice if
>some DM's did not feel the need to prove they can kill PC's in order to
>have the feeling of control over the game and players.
Okay, even accepting your principle that Death cannot fly, flying
away does not mean the character defeats Death. The character still
must kill it. All flying away does is prevent the inevitable
confrontation. Eventually that character will need to come down and
fight death. So I don't see the point of flying away, except maybe
convincing the rest of your party members to take out Death (and for
them to take out the minor Deaths they will be getting too.)
Jason M. Hamari
Wkmccarthy wrote:
>This I don't totally buy, the opponent mage is fumbling for that spell
>component, as soon as he has it in view, any mage worth his salt should be
>able to identify the spell being cast if it's a common one like fireball or
>lightning bolt. Of course, an ingenious mage could attempt to disguise his
>fireball spell component as a dancing lights spell component. Your mage
>ponders dancing lights and tells everyone not to worry... big mistake, but
>if he sees the common fireball spell component, he just has to say "yes" or
>something short and sweet, as the archers' arrows are sent whistling in the
>opposing mage's direction. I don't think it would take much time, unless
>the opposing mage is actively trying to disguise his spell delivery and
>component, not unlike a baseball pitcher actually....
Also take into consideration that the enemy mage won't really be standing
there examining the exact actions of the mage in the party... unless there is
some situation that makes him completely safe. Who is to say that the melee
that's going on around/in front of him won't be too distracting to pay close
attention to what the other mage is doing? Also, the mage can't be casting a
spell himself if he's paying close attention to the other.
The only time I give a mage a chance to tell what spell the other mage is
casting is under the following conditions:
1. The mage in question KNOWS the spell being cast.
2. He has ample time to closely examine the spellcasting.
3. He can see the material component(s) -- if any.
But you see, by the time the spell is being cast, it may be too late for him
to do anything.
RobH
Jason Hatter wrote:
>
> However, I did state that it was in a somewhat munchkiny/Monty Haul
> campaign. Such things didn't matter to us then. 8)
Why didn't you say so in the first place? (or did you?--oh well)
Munchkinism makes everything ok!
Rob
Toby
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
[the flying deathkiller]
> Okay, even accepting your principle that Death cannot fly, flying away
> does not mean the character defeats Death. The character still must
> kill it. All flying away does is prevent the inevitable confrontation.
...and in the meantime, if you happen to be a spellcaster, you can make
sure you're good and ready for it. Or start pegging death with missile
weapons/spells.
--
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
The Amorphous Mass
Mike Wilson (mwi...@flash.net) wrote:
>Gen Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> >Actually if you use the initiative rules the wizard would most likely
>> >get his spells off. A mage rolling a 1 is pretty rare.
>>
>> Actually if you are using the initiative rules, the mage would go after
>> death every time. Death strikes first in the round, both times.
>
>That is precisely what I was saying. If Death strikes on initiative 1,
>and the mage does NOT start his spell till initiative 3 (say fireball so
>it'll go off on 6) he will not worry one bit about it disrupting his
>spell since he does NOT start casting fireball till initiative 3.
Under 2nd Edition rules, casting lasts from the beginning of the
round until the initiative roll, or until the initiative roll plus the
casting time if that rule is used.
>Like I said this was something we picked up out of the PHB and use in
>our sessions. If you play in a game where any hit during a melee round
>disrupts a spell that is your business. It's only a suggestion.
Where'd you get it in the PHB. IDHIIFOM, so I'm genuinely curious.
I'll take a look through tonight, but I don't remember seeing this
offered anywhere.
It does give mages a significant advantage in melee.
--
The Amorphous Mass "No manual entry for management."
amo...@avalon.net
http://www.avalon.net/~amorph
Kill spam dead: http://www.cauce.org
Wkmccarthy
>there examining the exact actions of the mage in the party... unless there is
>some situation that makes him completely safe.
Or he decides to ignore what is going on around him to his own peril in
order to concentrate on the opposing mage. Perhaps this mage has already
spent his spells and really has nothing further to contribute in melee
expept for the odd dart or two. He would probably be more useful as a
scout on the what the opponent's mage may be casting. It always seems that
the opposing mages have their full contingent of spells to cast when PC's
show up :-)
I guess opposing mages have nothing to do all day until the PC's show up...
> Who is to say that the melee
>that's going on around/in front of him won't be too distracting to pay close
>attention to what the other mage is doing?
I agree that this is a consideration. Even a mage who is doing nothing
but scouting opposing mages is going to be distracted by being hit by a
weapon or an area of effect spell.
> Also, the mage can't be casting a
>spell himself if he's paying close attention to the other.
Absolutely, I agree with this...
>The only time I give a mage a chance to tell what spell the other mage is
>casting is under the following conditions:
> 1. The mage in question KNOWS the spell being cast.
> 2. He has ample time to closely examine the spellcasting.
> 3. He can see the material component(s) -- if any.
>But you see, by the time the spell is being cast, it may be too late for him
>to do anything.
The above sounds like a good guideline to me, and in the case of most low
casting time spells, it probably will be too late to do anything...
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Wkmccarthy
> jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman) wrote:
>Okay, even accepting your principle that Death cannot fly, flying
>away does not mean the character defeats Death.
I never said it did, right? The mage will still have to peg Death with
darts, spells, etc. from a distance above.
> The character still
>must kill it. All flying away does is prevent the inevitable
>confrontation. Eventually that character will need to come down and
>fight death. So I don't see the point of flying away,
The point is not necessarily to fly away and avoid confrontation, it is
take up an advantageous tactical position, so a mage can take out that wand
of magic missiles and plug away, while Death can do nothing but take
damage. It simply buys time for the mage to damage Death as much as he/she
can while not getting pummeled him/herself. Levitate would do pretty much
the same thing, as would hopping on a flying carpet or broom of flying,
etc. The spell is used to create distance for the mage in which to fight
more sucessfully. I never even thought about the mage flying away...
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Gregory Bernath
Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
[about flying to avoid a minor death]
>...and in the meantime, if you happen to be a spellcaster, you can make
>sure you're good and ready for it. Or start pegging death with missile
>weapons/spells.
Even better, fly up to 200' first, and then draw.
Death appears. Death falls. Death goes "splat". Or I suppose "crunch"
would be more accurate, since he's a bony fellow.
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Mike Wilson
The Amorphous Mass wrote:
> >That is precisely what I was saying. If Death strikes on initiative 1,
> >and the mage does NOT start his spell till initiative 3 (say fireball so
> >it'll go off on 6) he will not worry one bit about it disrupting his
> >spell since he does NOT start casting fireball till initiative 3.
>
> Under 2nd Edition rules, casting lasts from the beginning of the
> round until the initiative roll, or until the initiative roll plus the
> casting time if that rule is used.
As you suggest I don't recall seeing this and would like to read this
section if you might be able to provide it.
> >Like I said this was something we picked up out of the PHB and use in
> >our sessions. If you play in a game where any hit during a melee round
> >disrupts a spell that is your business. It's only a suggestion.
>
> Where'd you get it in the PHB. IDHIIFOM, so I'm genuinely curious.
> I'll take a look through tonight, but I don't remember seeing this
> offered anywhere.
If I remember correctly (and I am not near my books) the section is in
the DMG under Combat/Initiative. I've got the core rules so I might be
able to cut/paste the relivant sections later. This sounds like it might
be something to direct at the SAGE advice collumn in Dragon :)
> It does give mages a significant advantage in melee.
I don't see that it does so. To me (and the players) it makes sense.
Most our play is with low level wizards and as such getting hit anytime
during the round would pretty much screw up every spell they had. Since
they have very few spells this gives them the chance to avoid that
problem if the roles are just right (it's all luck after all...).
--
---
Mike Wilson
No Howard, No Eagle - Spread the Word!
Rob Glunt
Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> Death is immune to some magic. Cold, Fire, and Electrical Energy do
> not harm it. That pretty much puts a kink on things for the mage.
> But magic missile would work, because it is magical energy, not any of
> the above. I can't think of too many other spells that would work.
> Maybe a vampiric touch, but since Death gets first attack, you better
> have a wand of vampiric touch or something. The mage can win with a
> wand of magic missiles, if his HP are high enough.
Vampiric touch might work, but if I were DM, I'd probably point out that
it's pretty silly for "Death" to have "life" to drain. If I were
feeling really cruel, I might rule that it works in a similar manner to
Energy Draining a Vampire, under the rules presented in the Van Richen's
Guide to Vamipires. So Death would then gain twice the hit points he
were supposed to lose, and the wizard would lose them. Perhaps magic
missle would be a better idea..
Rob Glunt
---
She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.
Byron
Lance Dooly
On 25 Sep 1997 13:52:55 GMT, amo...@arthur.avalon.net (The Amorphous
Mass) spake thusly:
>Mike Wilson (mwi...@flash.net) wrote:
>>Like I said this was something we picked up out of the PHB and use in
>>our sessions. If you play in a game where any hit during a melee round
>>disrupts a spell that is your business. It's only a suggestion.
> Where'd you get it in the PHB. IDHIIFOM, so I'm genuinely curious.
>I'll take a look through tonight, but I don't remember seeing this
>offered anywhere.
> It does give mages a significant advantage in melee.
Due to the mass chaos going on, I found a few possibly helpful
references from the PHB2:
On page 95, third column, is a sample battle using individual
initiatives.
In short, a troll rolls a 1 for initiative and attacks at initiative 7
(+6 modifier for large creature with natural weapons), hits the mage,
and the mage's spell fizzles. The mage had rolled a 9 for initiative
and was casting burning hands, a casting time of 1.
According to page 94, first column:
In the case of a tie, all effects (damage, spells, etc) are applied at
the same time. No fizzling.
Rance
Interestingly, the same passages for initiative are reprinted in the
DMG2, I hadn't realized they were doing that.
Jason Hatter
Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
:
: Okay, even accepting your principle that Death cannot fly, flying
: away does not mean the character defeats Death. The character still
: must kill it. All flying away does is prevent the inevitable
: confrontation. Eventually that character will need to come down and
Heh. I can see it now. Some mage has a fly spell in operation, due to a
battle. After they win, they find a deck of many things, and start
drawing cards. He gets a Minor Death, and flies away, and Death starts
following him. 20 years later, after the entire incident has been
forgotten about, he's at the market buying food for himself and his
apprentice, and BAM. From behind. 8)
Lance Dooly
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:20:04 -0500, Mike Wilson <mwi...@flash.net>
spake thusly:
>The Amorphous Mass wrote:
>> Under 2nd Edition rules, casting lasts from the beginning of the
>> round until the initiative roll, or until the initiative roll plus the
>> casting time if that rule is used.
>
>As you suggest I don't recall seeing this and would like to read this
>section if you might be able to provide it.
There is an example combat in both the PHB and DMG where the mage gets
hit on initiative 7 and it fizzles her spell which would start on 9 and
be complete on 10 (burning hands, casting time 1).
page 95 in the PHB. page 56 in the DMG. Both in the initiative
sections.
>> It does give mages a significant advantage in melee.
>
>I don't see that it does so. To me (and the players) it makes sense.
>Most our play is with low level wizards and as such getting hit anytime
>during the round would pretty much screw up every spell they had. Since
>they have very few spells this gives them the chance to avoid that
>problem if the roles are just right (it's all luck after all...).
Apparently you do see. Using the casting-time-only interruption makes
it far less likely the mage will get interrupted. And that is a
significant advantage. A magic missile could only be interrupted during
1 segment (I still call them segments, it's just easier).
I'm not certain which method I agree with in principle. Perhaps some of
each:
If the mage is hit during the round, he cannot cast the spell, but he
only loses the spell if he is hit during his actual casting (between his
initiative roll and initiative+casting time). An early hit just
prevents him from getting himself mind set to cast the spell.
Rance
Wayne J. Rasmussen
Lance Dooly (pel...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:20:04 -0500, Mike Wilson <mwi...@flash.net>
: spake thusly:
Your last paragraph is how I run it. I don't see the point of making the
spell fizzle if he isn't casting it at the time. I see the "early hit" as
disrupting his concentration or perhaps knocking material components around.
wayne
Lawrence R. Mead
Gregory Bernath (gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu) wrote:
Ahem; it is a death a*n*g*e*l : you know, those funny things with *wings* ;-)
JohnnyB
Lance Dooly wrote:
>
> I'm not certain which method I agree with in principle. Perhaps some of
> each:
> If the mage is hit during the round, he cannot cast the spell, but he
> only loses the spell if he is hit during his actual casting (between his
> initiative roll and initiative+casting time). An early hit just
> prevents him from getting himself mind set to cast the spell.
>
Which is exactly how I run this in my campaign. An equitable solution to
all?
JohnnyB
Mike Wilson
> I'm not certain which method I agree with in principle. Perhaps some of
> each:
> If the mage is hit during the round, he cannot cast the spell, but he
> only loses the spell if he is hit during his actual casting (between his
> initiative roll and initiative+casting time). An early hit just
> prevents him from getting himself mind set to cast the spell.
After reading all the discussions brought on by this I'm gonna play-test
using the method that someone else described were if the mage is hit
before the segment his spell "starts" he just simply cannot cast the
spell but does not lose it. If however he is he during the segments he
has "started" casting then he loses it.
This might work out, we'll just have to see!
Thanks for the insight guys.
Jason Hatter
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: Ahem; it is a death a*n*g*e*l : you know, those funny things with *wings* ;-)
Since when? My DMG1 just states a Minor Death, gives stats which do NOT
include Flight movement. I think you pulled this one out of thin air,
DMG. Or rather, your campaign's mythology.
Michael Scott Brown
(Hello, oldtimers, no I'm not dead - just subject to the effects
of the spell Power Word: Thesis ...)
I've noticed a lot of talk in this reincarnation of the spell initiative
debate about how people are getting hit "before" they start their spells.
According to standard 2ndEdition initiative, this is never the case.
All actions - spellcating, attack routines, etc., begin at the
*start* of the round, and finish - and this is important - in the
*order* of the intiative rolls - not at some *time* specified by the
intiative number. 2ndEd initiative provides *no* means to determine
exactly when in the 1-minute round actions actually are resolved- only
their ordering. This abstraction is supposedly a simplifying rule,
but often leads to confusion.
This means that no wizard is "picking his nose" until his initiative roll,
and *then* casting the spell for CT 'initaitive units' - he is casting
the whole time. Likewise, a warrior whose roll is a "1" but is using a
longsword isn't "making attacks" between initiatives 1-6, and finally
scoring; he's just attacking the *whole round* - but the attack that
counts game-mechanically occurs before anything with initiatives 7 or higher.
The design of the round is predicated on the idea that the various actions
characters take all have *about* the same characteristic time; (casting a
spell, making a series of melee attacks, etc); but random factors
(the specifics of which 2ndEd tries really hard to avoid thinking about)
intervene to ensure that various actors 'suceed' at different times.
Note that I'm not advocating that this is a *good* system, but knowing
what the true model actually says eliminates many of the complaints users
have about its consistency. It's quick, it's abstract, and it works
reasonbly well for a game which is <grin> *supposed* to be light on the
combat mechanics.
I much prefer the initiative system used in Combat and Tactics, with some
minor modifications, and recommend that everyone in the world go get
that rulebook.
-Michael, momentarily delurking.
Tim Breen
Jason Hatter wrote:
> Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
> : Ahem; it is a death a*n*g*e*l : you know, those funny things with *wings* ;-)
> Since when? My DMG1 just states a Minor Death, gives stats which do NOT
> include Flight movement. I think you pulled this one out of thin air,
> DMG. Or rather, your campaign's mythology.
Now you made me go and look it up. <sigh> I'll use the 2nd Edition rules
since you've already mentioned what's in 1st edition. In the "old"
printing of the 2ed DMG, it says, "A minor Death appears (AC -4; 33 hit
points; strikes with a scythe for 2d8 points, never missing, always
striking first in a round). ... Treat the Death as undead with respect
to spells. Cold, fire, and electrical energy do not harm it." It doesn't
say anything about flight. (p.167)
The "new" printing of the 2ed DMG (black cover) it's slightly different:
"A minor Death appears (AC -4, MV 16, HD 4+1, hp 33, THAC0 13, #AT 2,
Dmg 2d8, immune to sleep, charm, hold, mind-affecting spells, cold,
fire, and electricity, SZ M, ML n/a, XP 0). It always strikes first
every round and never misses." [Tim's note: so why waste our time with a
THAC0 listing?]
Again, no movement rate for flying nor wings are mentioned. For that
matter, neither is a skeletal nature. <shrug>
--
Personal: http://personalweb.lightside.com/Pfiles/breen1.html
Gaming: http://www.rpga.org/Home.html
To subscribe to the RPGA-Talk mailing list, send a blank message to
requ...@lists.consultantalliance.com with a subject of "subscribe
RPGA-Talk" (no quotes) or "subscribe digest RPGA-Talk" for the digest
version.
Dave
In article <342a945b...@news.netcom.ca>,
kjda...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:35:57 -0400, jedi <a_jedi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Quentin Stephens wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:26:07 GMT, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> >>
> >> :>On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
> >> :>
> >> :>>>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
> >> :>>>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
> >> :>>
As a matter of fact, just the other day a 10th level cleric in our group
drew the death card, and defeated death with 1 hp left. He used all of
his spell repitoire (healing) and six potions of extra healing (which he
spent much time and money creating). He also drew the King card (18 cha
and a small keep)
Dave
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Niko Wellingk
wkmcc...@aol.com (Wkmccarthy) writes:
> > jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman) wrote:
> >Okay, even accepting your principle that Death cannot fly, flying
> >away does not mean the character defeats Death.
>
> I never said it did, right? The mage will still have to peg Death with
> darts, spells, etc. from a distance above.
I'd have to disagree here. Death obviously has to be able to enter
wherever is needed. It wouldn't need to fly, it'd just follow the
flying mage.
--
Niko Wellingk n...@dna.fi
Lawrence R. Mead
Tim Breen (bre...@lightside.com) wrote:
: Jason Hatter wrote:
:
: > Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: > : Ahem; it is a death a*n*g*e*l : you know, those funny things with *wings* ;-)
:
: > Since when? My DMG1 just states a Minor Death, gives stats which do NOT
: > include Flight movement. I think you pulled this one out of thin air,
: > DMG. Or rather, your campaign's mythology.
[quotes proving there are no wings deleted]
You're kidding, right? Try all of Judeo-Christian mythology. In any case,
house rule: angels fly 8-)
DMgorgon
Lawrence R. Mead
Michael Scott Brown (mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
:
: (Hello, oldtimers, no I'm not dead - just subject to the effects
: of the spell Power Word: Thesis ...)
:
: I've noticed a lot of talk in this reincarnation of the spell initiative
: debate about how people are getting hit "before" they start their spells.
: According to standard 2ndEdition initiative, this is never the case.
: All actions - spellcating, attack routines, etc., begin at the
: *start* of the round, and finish - and this is important - in the
: *order* of the intiative rolls - not at some *time* specified by the
: intiative number. 2ndEd initiative provides *no* means to determine
: exactly when in the 1-minute round actions actually are resolved- only
: their ordering. This abstraction is supposedly a simplifying rule,
: but often leads to confusion.
Thank you Michael, I thought everyone had gone bananas but me - I know
the correct 2nd ed rules and I run exclusively 1st ed.
: This means that no wizard is "picking his nose" until his initiative roll,
: and *then* casting the spell for CT 'initaitive units' - he is casting
: the whole time. Likewise, a warrior whose roll is a "1" but is using a
: longsword isn't "making attacks" between initiatives 1-6, and finally
: scoring; he's just attacking the *whole round* - but the attack that
: counts game-mechanically occurs before anything with initiatives 7 or higher.
:
: The design of the round is predicated on the idea that the various actions
: characters take all have *about* the same characteristic time; (casting a
: spell, making a series of melee attacks, etc); but random factors
: (the specifics of which 2ndEd tries really hard to avoid thinking about)
: intervene to ensure that various actors 'suceed' at different times.
:
: Note that I'm not advocating that this is a *good* system, but knowing
: what the true model actually says eliminates many of the complaints users
: have about its consistency. It's quick, it's abstract, and it works
: reasonbly well for a game which is <grin> *supposed* to be light on the
: combat mechanics.
:
: I much prefer the initiative system used in Combat and Tactics, with some
: minor modifications, and recommend that everyone in the world go get
: that rulebook.
:
:
: -Michael, momentarily delurking.
Hay, stick around; we need you here 8-)
Quentin Stephens
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:11:24 GMT, Lance Dooly wrote:
:>On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:20:04 -0500, Mike Wilson <mwi...@flash.net>
:>spake thusly:
:>
:>>The Amorphous Mass wrote:
:>>> Under 2nd Edition rules, casting lasts from the beginning of the
:>>> round until the initiative roll, or until the initiative roll plus the
:>>> casting time if that rule is used.
:>>
:>>As you suggest I don't recall seeing this and would like to read this
:>>section if you might be able to provide it.
:>
:>There is an example combat in both the PHB and DMG where the mage gets
:>hit on initiative 7 and it fizzles her spell which would start on 9 and
:>be complete on 10 (burning hands, casting time 1).
It helps if you equate the spell's 'casting time' with a weapon's
'speed factor'. IMO 'casting time' is very much a misnomer except for
those spells which take 1 round or longer to cast.
QTS
Home: q...@nildram.co.uk
Work: q...@buckscc.gov.uk. (I do not speak for BCC)
Wkmccarthy
>Niko Wellingk <n...@amoeba.dna.fi> wrote:
>I'd have to disagree here. Death obviously has to be able to enter
>wherever is needed. It wouldn't need to fly, it'd just follow the
>flying mage.
Fair enough, I can see that reasoning. Even if Death does not have wings,
he probably should be able to continue to hit the character even if he is
flying. That terror aspect perhaps should not be missed with. How about
if a character plane traveled, should Death follow him/her there too? I
guess... and that's pretty scary.
On another note, it seems that almost everyone has encountered the Deck in
their games. I would figure that it is a unique item. How is everyone
just happening to come upon them in their campaign? I guess DM's just love
them too much and can't resist handing them out. How many people
encountered them using the Deck adventure in Dungeon 19? Was that
worthwhile? Or better to use in one's own home-brew adventure?
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Staffan Johansson
On 27 Sep 1997 19:36:59 GMT, lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R.
Mead) wrote:
>Tim Breen (bre...@lightside.com) wrote:
>: Jason Hatter wrote:
>:
>: > Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>: > : Ahem; it is a death a*n*g*e*l : you know, those funny things with *wings* ;-)
>:
>: > Since when? My DMG1 just states a Minor Death, gives stats which do NOT
>: > include Flight movement. I think you pulled this one out of thin air,
>: > DMG. Or rather, your campaign's mythology.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[quotes proving there are no wings deleted]
>
>You're kidding, right? Try all of Judeo-Christian mythology. In any case,
>house rule: angels fly 8-)
I think the point Jason (if I read the nested quotations right) was
trying to make was that the card does not summon a Death *angel*, but
a Minor Death, as in a (not-so) Grim Reaper. You know, tall, thin,
handy with agricultural instruments. Anyway, it's your campaign. If
you want a death angel, go ahead.
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Thoughts good! Slogans bad! Thoughts good! Slogans bad!
Joshua Kaufman
Okay, let's assume that death can't fly for a moment, as everyone is
suggesting. That is fine. Even if the mage casts Fly, I can see
Death doing two things.
1. Grabbing on to the mage. What is to stop death from grabbing on
to the mage and riding with him as he flies up? Then the mage still
has that problem.
2. Just retreating and disappearing. Who says the Minor Death has
to sit there and take the shots from the mage? I think it could
easily be argued the mage is retreating from combat, at least in the
eyes of Death. So why stand there and be a sitting duck? Why not
face the mage under another set of circumstances when he is ready to
fight?
Same thing if the mage teleports out, plane shifts, etc. So what if
Death isn't fighting now? That means the mage lives longer than what
is expected. The mage just needs to find a way to defeat Death
between now and the next time Death decides to randomly show up.
Perhaps another draw from the deck is the answer.
(Of course I can see it now. Mage draws Skull, avoids death. Mage
draws another Skull, avoids death. Process goes on and on, until the
mage finds himself chased by 6 minor deaths or so for the rest of his
life. Then one day 20th level mage defeats great red dragon. He is
down to 1 HP, but has more treasure than what he knows to do with. The
6 minor deaths shows up. Mage says "Okay boys, take me away."
Jason Hatter
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: You're kidding, right? Try all of Judeo-Christian mythology. In any case,
: house rule: angels fly 8-)
Still, it's not listed as an Angel of Death. It's a Minor Death. 8)
No wings provided. 8)
Michael Scott Brown
From: lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
>Thank you Michael, I thought everyone had gone bananas but me -
Nope. As usual, you have the right of things. Now go forth
and crush the unbelievers and their foolish dissents.
>Hay, stick around; we need you here 8-)
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence - we'll see whether
someome says something provocative enough to trigger one
of my Power Words ...
-Michael
Kevin44196
In article <342e38f5...@news.dx.net>, jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman)
writes:
I would imagine Death has the ability to follow and continue attacking its
target whatever the target may do. This includes flying, teleporting and
plane shifting. The Death needs to be viewed as a grim reaper type of
creature. Death comes to you wherever you are or wherever you go.
Kevin
Robert Baldwin
Wkmccarthy wrote:
<snip>
>
> On another note, it seems that almost everyone has encountered the Deck in
> their games. I would figure that it is a unique item. How is everyone
> just happening to come upon them in their campaign? I guess DM's just love
> them too much and can't resist handing them out. How many people
> encountered them using the Deck adventure in Dungeon 19? Was that
> worthwhile? Or better to use in one's own home-brew adventure?
>
Well, I've used them anumber of times, but I've never considered them to
be unique or "Artifacts". I always figured they were the product of
farie-dragons or some twisted deity. Frankly, I'm surprised at the
number of people who assume they are something more than another
powerful magic item. I mean, I'd never assume they were less than rare,
but that's about it.
A while back I posed the question of how a Luckstone would interact with
a DOMT. IO was amazed at how many people assumed that the deck was "too
powerful" to be affected by the Luckstone.
--
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"4 out of 5 victims of UCE recommend new .spam.kill.";
check out the free sample in my _return to_ line.
jedi
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
ha!
power word 'pun'!
--
_________________________________________________________________
| "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one |
| fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all |
| the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss |
| yours." |
| -Stephen F Roberts |
|_________________________________________________________________|
Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join at http://www.cauce.org
reply to: a_jediknight at mailexcite.com as my posting address is
just a bottomless pit for spam.
Staffan Johansson
On 23 Sep 1997 16:23:36 -0400, jmha...@mtu.edu (Jason M. Hamari)
wrote:
>If he begins casting at the start of the round, and the Casting Time is 3,
>he'd be done at 3 in the round time. What does he do, pick his nose until 7
>comes around, and then unleash the spell? No. He rolled a 4, so anyone
>going before 4 hits him before he starts casting. Then at 4, he starts
>casting his spell, which will be completed at 7. If someone hits him
>anywhere on 4, 5, or 6, it disrupts the spell. If they hit him on 7, the
>spell goes off at the same time.
>
By your system, what does the wizard do until the d10 roll comes up?
The random roll is there to provide the *entire* time of casting - i.
e. the wizard who is casting a fireball, and rolls a 4 on the init die
starts casting at the start of the round, and finishes his spell on 7.
Damien Johnston
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> On 24 Sep 1997 23:01:55 GMT, wkmcc...@aol.com (Wkmccarthy) wrote:
>
> >Great point!!! This should be mandatory reading for all DMs. A creative
> >PC should not be penalized by a DM who feels that the character is
> >challenging his authority by outsmarting him. Death should be grounded
> >since his move rate doesn't indicate that he can fly. It would be nice if
> >some DM's did not feel the need to prove they can kill PC's in order to
> >have the feeling of control over the game and players.
>
> Okay, even accepting your principle that Death cannot fly, flying
> away does not mean the character defeats Death. The character still
> must kill it. All flying away does is prevent the inevitable
> confrontation. Eventually that character will need to come down and
> fight death. So I don't see the point of flying away, except maybe
> convincing the rest of your party members to take out Death (and for
> them to take out the minor Deaths they will be getting too.)
>
nobody said anything about flying 'away'. All the character would have to
do is fly out of reach and make use of missile weapons or spells to take
the death down. However, unless the characters have extensive information
about decks beforehand, it is unlikely that they would have a fly
spell/potion in use unless they lucked out - ie spell still active from
previous use.
______________________________________________________________________
Complex problems always have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers
Damien Johnston
djoh...@surf1.its.bond.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/6991
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
______________________________________________________________________
daegil
Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> On 22 Sep 1997 02:08:35 GMT, gend...@aol.com (Gen Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>Question: Has anyone ever beaten a Minor Death? It'd take a fairly
>
> >>high level fighter or a properly prepared mage, I think.
> >
> >Actually, I think that the fighter has the best chance of making it.
> A
> >priest and then a rogue are next. The mage would have a hard time
> since
> >Death is immune to magic.
>
> >I have seen this Minor Death beaten twice. Both were high level
> >characters. The first was a fighter, the second was a thief.
>
> I don't know how the thief pulls it off. I guess he fights with two
> weapons (high dexterity allows him to do such a thing). But still,
> that must have been some lucky thief. The fighter thing make sense.
I have seen it done by a thief. The character was "Boffnick Hafler",
a 5th level halfling thief.
Our party had managed to get to town, individually after being
separated by an evil priest. He kicked our butts! But most of us
survived.
One character died in a room where "Boffnick" had triggered a Fire
Trapped
door. Beyond the door he found the Deck.
I was playing a mage. I had become paralyzed in the room with the
Fire Trapped door. Luckily our cleric had taken me out of the room
before the door was tried.
After the door was opened, the evil priest soon found us. Then came
the ass-whooping. Anyway, one by one, the party was teleported away
(I'm not sure how, but the evil priest was responsible) to different,
totally unfamiliar locations. The next death occurred because a party
member was teleported into a tree.
I was still paralyzed when I was discovered by goblins? (I think)
They didn't kill me, but they did put me in a hole in the ground,
covered by a grate, while they searched my belongings.
I actually managed to kill them myself, after discovering that
they had BURNED MY SPELLBOOK!!! My character became
severely depressed, but made it back to town. Eventually the rest
of us all met up again. Then one night "Boffnick" let us know that
he had a special deck of cards we should inspect.
Now normally I wouldn't risk such a thing for my character.
I didn't know what a "Deck of Many Things" was back then.
But I did know that whatever it was, it was a really risky thing
to try. But at that point, I felt my character would do anything
without really caring about it.
(Trust me, a mage getting his spellbook burned is very personal)
(Don't try it!) :)
What followed, during that night, was that the DM made some
of the worst rolls in history. And of course the party that had survived
the evil priest, soon found themselves joining their comrades who
didn't.
Most of us were lucky....we were only killed by minor deaths. The
cleric.....well his soul is on one plane, while his body is in another.
(The Void and Donjon) A helpful PC guided his hand to draw another
card.
Anyway sorry to take so long for my point, but that story was
too tempting not to mention.
Boffnick didn't draw any bad cards. I drew the Skull Card.
He attacked it to save me. So one appeared for him. Amazingly,
he was able to defeat his. In the meantime I quickly died.
That story occured about 2 years ago, real time. Since then,
our DM has vowed to never ever give a "Deck of Many Things"
to PC's again.
Boffnick is famous for several reasons. He is famous among PC's
for being on an original (green) character sheet. He is infamous
amongst NPC's because his "Friends" always seem to die. He got
rid of "The Deck" very quickly after that night. He is still only
6th level. But then again, he's alive... :)
Hope you found this entertaining or at least informative,
-Seth Goslin