Resolute PR Department - WITHDRAWN

[Bront]

[OBSCURE DRAGON COMPENDIUM JOKE] If I was really a savant, I could share my bonus with the rest of my party [/OBSCURE DRAGON COMPENDIUM JOKE]

Isn't that an idiot savant? (You're up in Teacher btw)

 

[Rystil Arden]

Isn't that an idiot savant? (You're up in Teacher btw)

No, it's the Savant class--the ultimate dabbler. And actually, you're up

 

[hafrogman]

Are you going to pull the proposal then?

Well, considering most of the thread has turned to expanded Training Room debate, it seems likely. Or perhaps it should just be shelved until people decide what they want the Training Room to be

I think H4H has the general right of it though. In general, a DM could run an adventure like this without it needed special sanction.

 

[El Jefe]

I'm a bit bemused as to why we'd need it here any more than LEW or LEB.

Um, becuase it's much more complicated than straight D20, a greater quantity of ambiguous rules interpretations present themselves than in D20, the game system has less maturity (shelf life) than D20, and a higher percentage of people here have never gamed with the ruleset before (by definition). Not everyone needs training wheels, but it makes sense to have them available for those who want them.

Maybe I'm a bit unusual, but I can tell you that I created Circe after having just picked up the book for the first time, and I'm having no problems at all with the M&M system.

You're unusual. I did the same with Avatar, but I'm quickly seeing that he's far from an optimized (powergamed?) M&M character. And I'm unusual in that respect...I'd bet that I had a much easier time of figuring out how damage works in M&M 2.0 than most people who just pick the book up. But, this isn't really about the two of us, or even any of the other players out there. It's about dealing with the rules, and there just isn't and never will be a set of rules that covers every practical situation. And even if there was, there is still the problem of memorizing (at least well enough to know that a specific rule exists, let alone being able to quote the rule).and interpreting a fairly complicated system of rules. If I may give a current D20 example?

In Ashin's Commission, a LEW game that I've picked up from a GM who is having connection problems and that Rystil Arden is playing in, one of the PCs manifested a spell-like ability.

Let us first leave aside the matter of the fact that at the time I assumed that the character in question simply had the spell-like ability in question...since then, I've come to question just how he came by it, and am drawing a blank (not a racial ability, the character is human; not a class ability, being a low-level cleric grants spells, but not spell-like abilities; not a domain ability per the written domain description in the LEW house rules, althought the character in question claims it is, etc.) But leaving that aside, since my doubt didn't emerge until well into an encounter several rounds after the ability took effect...

Just what is the duration of a given spell or spell-like ability in D20? You'd think that would be so settled that the question wouldn't be worth asking. The player (and remember, this is an experienced player, and this is his character) claims that if he can speak and concentrate at the same time, then he is concentrating and the spell-like ability is still up. But, if not, the duration is 3 rounds and has just expired. The spell description (and we've already established that the spell-like ability works exactly like the spell of the same name) reads duration: "Concentration, up to 1 round/level" (the PC is 3rd level). So, the correct answer is, because one can perform a free action (talk) and a standard action (concentrate), the PC is able to concentrate for 3 rounds, but after that the ability is down.

Ok, leaving aside that an experienced player running under a well-established ruleset had difficulty with that (and we all have our mental lapses), consider that there is an additional complication. The player with the spell-like ability is in the middle of the initiative order, and a party member at the top of the order was affected. Consider the sequence of events:

- PC 1 acts, is not affected by the spell-like ability
- PC 2 manifests the ability, concentrates to maintain it, and talks
- PC 3 is affected by the ability, which determines his actions
(second round)
- PC 1 is affected by the ability, which determines his actions
- PC 2 concentrates and talks
- PC 3 is affected by the ability, which determines his actions
(third round)
- PC 1 is affected by the ability, which determines his actions
- PC 2 concentrates and talks
- PC 3 is affected by the ability, which determines his actions
(fourth round, duration of the spell-like ability has expired)
- PC 1 may act freely
- PC 2 has to do something else
- PC 3 may act freely

Notice that although the duration is for 3 rounds, PC 1 is only affected for 2? Some GMs would interpret that last round as so:

(fourth round)
- PC 1 is affected by the ability, which determines his actions
- PC 2's spell-like ability expires, so he has to do something else
- PC 3 may act freely
(fifth round)
- PC 1 may act freely (etc.)

Now, you'd think that issue (whether a duration expires on a turn boundary, or on a PCs initiative) would be well settled. But it (apparently) isn't. I've seen this interpreted both ways in LEW and elsewhere, including one example where it made the difference between a character reaching -10 hp and dying, or being saved at -9 hp. Nor can I find this in the D20 SRD.

My point is, if something that fundamental is either open to interpretation (or if not, has a resolution so obscure to so many players) in a very well-established ruleset that is published online and accessible to a very large user base, shouldn't we be a little mindful of potential rules problems in a newly-revised (within the last 12 months) ruleset that is only accessible to the relatively small number of people who have purchased the rulebooks?

Given that, if people want a place to practice, I wouldn't deny them.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It would seem you have established good reason to have a training room for LEW and LEB then Actually, it seems to me that M&M play is actually far simpler than d20. Character creation is about 25x harder, I'll give you that, but play is streamlined dramatically. As I told my 13-year-old brother when I taught him how to play "Alright. I'm going to see if you know how to use the mechanics that I haven't taught you yet. Just remember--no matter what question I ask you, the answer is 'Roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifier'."

 

[El Jefe]

Actually, it seems to me that M&M play is actually far simpler than d20. Character creation is about 25x harder, I'll give you that, but play is streamlined dramatically.

Hmm. That might be. I didn't read all of the combat section, and was halfway through my first combat when I realized that there are no Attacks of Opportunity in M&M. Now, that is a good reason to have a training room for M&M...if I can be that green, anyone else new to the system can be, too.

And the character creation stuff does affect gameplay. You don't always get a full appreciation for how a power works by skimming through the description. Trying the power out in the training room would be a great way to get a proper feel for things like this.

Um, and considering character creation affecting gameplay, even the feats can be a handful. My character has both Power Attack and Sneak Attack. My nominal attack bonus is +4. If I Power Attack during surprise, can I take a -5 on my attack to get a +5 to my DC chance, or am I still limited to +4/-4? We've been handling it one way so far, and I'm ok with that, but where is it written? Someone in the rules, or just somewhere on atomicthinktank?

It's like the old joke about the consultant who charged several thousand dollars to turn just one screw on an expensive but malfunctioning machine. Asked for an itemized bill, he submitted:

$ 0.25 Turning adjustment screw 1/4 turn
X,XXX.75 Knowing just how far to turn which screw

So, rolling a d20 and adding the appropriate modifier: $ 0.25. Knowing just which modifiers to apply: $ X,XXX.XX.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Sneak Attack adds to Damage. You still cannot decrease your +4 Attack Bonus below +0, so you are limited to Power Attack 4, surprise or no surprise

 

[El Jefe]

Sneak Attack adds to Damage. You still cannot decrease your +4 Attack Bonus below +0, so you are limited to Power Attack 4, surprise or no surprise

Something didn't seem right about that when I typed it. Let me try again:

I'm equipped with a heavy pistol (DC4). So, Power Attack by it self can only be used for -4 to attack and +4 to DC, since you can't more than double the damage DC.

But if I sneak attack, my damage DC is 4+2=+6. So, can I combine Power Attack and Sneak Attack to get -5/+5 (since 4 + 2 + 5 < 2 x (4 + 2) ?)

 

[Rystil Arden]

Something didn't seem right about that when I typed it. Let me try again:

I'm equipped with a heavy pistol (DC4). So, Power Attack by it self can only be used for -4 to attack and +4 to DC, since you can't more than double the damage DC.

But if I sneak attack, my damage DC is 4+2=+6. So, can I combine Power Attack and Sneak Attack to get -5/+5 (since 4 + 2 + 5 < 2 x (4 + 2) ?)

Ahhhh, ok. You can Power Attack for 5 and take a -5 to hit. However, the -5 lasts the entire round, and only any attacks that happen to be Sneak Attacks will get the +5 to damage. The others will get only +4 despite still being at -5 to hit, because they stop at the cap. It seems intuitive and I don't see how there is room for any other possible interpretation, but I may just be missing something.