Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5887205" data-attributes="member: 27160">I agree that such a spell will be situational and dependant on the target's personality, if it is included in the system (which I'll come back to later), but how often do GMs have this sort of thing plotted out in advance for every monster and NPC? My experience would suggest the answer is "seldom". In which case it becomes essentially arbitrary, and the "concrete setting" you mention in reply to Hussar is actually just an illusion.I mostly agree, here - but I'll get into details in my reply to Andor, below.Not taken as a snipe - no worries.I'm really not after descriptions of what the effects are in terms of flavour; I'm after a systemic model that can be applied to convery player actions to game effect. This should be as elegant and simple as possible, but, if it's not possible, I would honestly prefer that the effects be left out of the game (which is what 4e did, in several cases).There are actually effects that are reminiscent in later books, but nothing so flexible, I agree.This is true, also, but Rituals perform a rather different role in the system to powers in any case. They tend to be used in Skill Challenges, where the systemic measure of the "effect" they have is whether or not they provide a "success" in the skill challenge. That is far from a perfect system for non-combat encounters and events, but it is at least more than any previous edition offered in the published material.The active effect of "Crown of Madness" is a Charm, so "recognising" the illusion has no effect at all; it is merely a side-effect of the spell that might, for example, allow another caster to identify what the target is being affected by. This seems obvious, to me, but even if it did not the overall rule that "the fluff text is not rules text" would make it clear that there is no systemic effect from the illusory "crown".I actually agree that it's deliberate avoidance (I wouldn't say "laziness", at this point, because there are many issues) by the designers. I would say that leaving it to the GM to invent a system/model is laziness, in this day and age, but "skirting the issue" I see as forgivable because constructing a good system would be a big challenge.In an ideal world, what I would want to see is a system that covered the areas of mental influence and deception simply, elegantly and well. It has been managed for combat - even though it has taken years of work to perfect the D&D model in this area. Would it be a big job? Sure - that's why I'm prepared to pay someone to do it through buying their product(s)!A simple push, pull or slide in combat can cover a whole range of uses and implications. It can be used to push an enemy over a cliff, to hurl them into an inimical spell effect, to line them up for a nasty attack, to bunch them up for a trapping effect, to move them away from a vulnerable ally, to move them such that they hinder another enemy's intended actions, to put them into a disadvantageous combat situation or a whole host of other indirect outcomes, many of which are situational and dependant on the intentions of the target or others in the encounter. But these implications can all be catered for because a solid system is in place to describe the environment and participants in a combat encounter. Put a similar system in place (and make it elegant and simple!) to describe and govern the social and explorational encounters, and I can see effects such as "Charm Person" and "Phantasmal Forces" being quite easy to define in system terms for use in such a game.The core problem, to me, seems to be that defining something in "system terms" when you don't have a system to cover the aspects of play that an element relates to is more than a mite tricky!Make a system for the mental realm - with attributes and so on as for combat - and I can see great game play arising. Give that street kid a longing for affection (that works a bit like a Vulnerability, maybe?) that boosts the effectiveness of the Charm. Give that Paladin an Oath attribute (like a feat or something) that must be overcome before the Charm will affect the subject of the oath - maybe working like Resistance, or additional "hit points" to be overcome before the Oath will be compromised.I've been working up some ideas in this area, but it's hard to get it right. If someone comes up with a good stab in published form, I'll gladly buy it!</blockquote>

Verification