MC caster fix, Frank style

[Crissa]

What about magical warriors and super-good theives?

What about the guy who's so good he kicks the lock, it goes click, and he walks in?

I don't understand your post at all, RC.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1087172709[/unixtime]]What about magical warriors and super-good theives?

What about the guy who's so good he kicks the lock, it goes click, and he walks in?

A magical warrior is just that... magical. So he does stuff that is beyond the normal human warrior because he's magical.

As for super good thieves, it depends on what you mean by super good. A guy who can walk on various surfaces making no noise at all, a person who hides in the shadows so well nobody can see him, a guy who can pick any mundane lock and most magical ones and disable any trap. I don't think you need uber skill uses for that. And all that is pretty believable.

As for the guy who kicks the door and gets it to open, that's not being so good at picking locks, that's just dumb luck or some magical ability. Either that or having a huge ki attack in your foot to actually shatter the lock. But actually picking the lock by kicking it is just silly imo.

[Username17]

A magical warrior is just that... magical. So he does stuff that is beyond the normal human warrior because he's magical.

Can you even hear yourself talk?

Seriously, what you are advocating is Ars Magica. If you think that's a really good system, go play it. The rest of us would sort of like the "Knight" and the "Sorcerer" to be viable archetypes right next to each other as co-protagonists of the same story. And that means both characters have to follow real logic or fairy tale logic to the same degree.

If you, even for a moment, question whether unlocking a door just by kicking it is "too unrealistic", then you have no place at all in this discussion. Seriously.

The Knight and the Sorcerer are co-protagonists of a fairy tale. They both do things that make sense in the context of a Tall Tale, not a frickin historical account. Pecos Bill doesn't have any magic. He can still harness whirlwinds and ride them to New Mexico.

That's the bottom line. Deal with it.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1087184736[/unixtime]]
Seriously, what you are advocating is Ars Magica. If you think that's a really good system, go play it. The rest of us would sort of like the "Knight" and the "Sorcerer" to be viable archetypes right next to each other as co-protagonists of the same story. And that means both characters have to follow real logic or fairy tale logic to the same degree.

No, they don't. They just have to be equally effective in contributions to the group.

If the wizard's contribution is that he scries on people and the paladin's contribution is that he handles negotiatons, then things can work, despite levels of realism.

Even though Gandalf can do lots of cool stuff, he still needs Aragorn, so things can work, even though Aragorn can't ward off balrogs or generate pulses of light from his staff.

So long as a player doesn't feel left out, it doesn't matter what levels of believability you hold the classes to. So long as you're telling a cool story and people are enjoying it, the system works.

Honestly a lot of the magical skill uses just sound lame. If the skill use is something that makes you say, wow that's awesome, then it's good. If it makes you just shake your head in disbelief and say "where'd they think of something that stupid." then you probably don't want it in your game.

That line is drawn at a different spot for everyone. For me picking a lock by kicking it is just lame. Everyone's preferred game flavor is going to differ, which is why I think various super skill uses should be enabled by class abilities and/or feats, which a DM can easily allow or disallow on a case by case basis. Because you want to give the proper options to a DM running a more realistic fantasy setting and the one who wants to run a totally over the top tall tale high magic setting.

Because fairy tales and LotR/Conan are both considered fantasy, and D&D should be able to handle both of them.

[Crissa]

I don't get it.

Real theives and real soldiers really do hide in plain sight.

Why do 'magic' users get the free card to do everything and everyone else gets to go suck on their thumbs? Even though their numbers exceed the magic user's?

I'm really, really lost here as to why no one else get 'magical' abilities. It's fantasy.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

I'm fine with limiting access to actual magic abilities but some people really need to get a grip. HIPS isn't some mystical ability. I'm sure everyone here has opend a cupboard to get something and not seen it. Then gotten laughed at when someone else sees it straight away. If an inanimate object can do it then someone with actual training sure can.

[RandomCasualty]

1087270991[/unixtime]]I'm fine with limiting access to actual magic abilities but some people really need to get a grip. HIPS isn't some mystical ability. I'm sure everyone here has opend a cupboard to get something and not seen it. Then gotten laughed at when someone else sees it straight away. If an inanimate object can do it then someone with actual training sure can.

HiPS is actually not doing that. HiPS is hiding when someone is staring right at you, and tracking you with their vision, and it doesn't require you to actually move. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with HiPS if you required a decent amount of distance to do it, and you had to run somewhere. But what really bothers me about HiPS isnt' that, it's the fact that somehow being in shadows can help you against something with darkvision (to whom shadows have no meaning). That's what really bothers me above all else and creates a "mystical" feel.

It's really tough to see the whole hide in plain sight thing, and I don't think normal people do it. When you're actively chasing someone, there's very little they can do to hide from you until they get out of sight for a moment, because otherwise you're going to see them go whereever they go. And there's certainly nothing they can do in a 5' square that would make it so you don't see them anymore.

As for actually hiding in plain sight as you describe, like an object, that's more a poor spot roll than anything else, and it's unlikely to happen unless you've got a crowd or some scene where it's likely you'd have trouble noticing something. Allowing a hide roll for a rogue to blend with a crowd is perfectly ok, even if the people can actually see the rogue. Though actually that may be more of a disguise check, not sure.

But if the same rogue wants to try to "hide" in the middle of a deserted street or football field, then nobody is going to not see him. And if someone misses him, it has nothing to do with the rogue being good at what he does, but at the guy trying to see him being blind as a bat. And it's perfectly ok to require a normal spot check for someone to see a rogue at a reasonable distance, especially if he's standing still, but it'd be based on distance alone, because without mystical power there's no way you can help yourself hide in plain sight in this fashion. A cup in a cupboard has just as good a chance as you do.

And more on the topic of supernatural skills, I don't have problems really with characters gaining exceptional skills beyond normal humans, they just have to be somewhat cool and not lame. A high level ranger with scent or telescopic vision is cool, as is a high level rogue with some ability to mask his own scent and prevent magical detections from finding him. A monk that can do cool stuff like walk over a pit trap pressure plate without triggering it using the balance skill would also be cool.

A rogue on the other hand who can pick a lock by kicking it, is IMO pretty lame. Same for a guy swimming up a waterfall in full plate. It's just not the kind of thing that I'd like to see characters doing, because it makes the game seem more like a cartoon than an RPG IMO.

[User3]

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with HiPS if you required a decent amount of distance to do it, and you had to run somewhere. But what really bothers me about HiPS isnt' that, it's the fact that somehow being in shadows can help you against something with darkvision (to whom shadows have no meaning). That's what really bothers me above all else and creates a "mystical" feel.

Oh that's good. When subjected to darkvision you find that it strains credibility? Darkvision? Just checking again, when someone is using darkvision, then hide in plain sight strains credibility for you?

Are you on drugs? Darkvision is a non-magical method of passively dectecting things independently of the transmission of any force or particle. And that doesn't bother you? It's a basic violation of the Uncertainty Principle, and its limitations (total distance from yourself, independent of path length) is essentially nonsensical.

If you can accept Darkvision at all, then you have nothing to stand on. Unlike hiding in plain sight, darkvision is actually impossible. It's just convenient for the game, once you've made that concession you can just shut the hell up about realism on all fronts.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Darkvision beats darkness and shadows, It lets you see black and white in an area regardless of light conditions. That's what it does. Now since darkness is no longer a factor for you, then shadows don't even exist, so hiding in a shadow just doesn't work against you anymore. I don't know how darkvision works, but I know it's nonmagical and I know the description of it. I also know that something with total concealment by darkness is revealed in darkvision. So HiPS versus darkvision raises some serious problems.

Saying "it's ok for me to be invisible to darkvision because darkvision shouldn't see me from the beginning." just doesn't cut it.

We know what darkvision does, and based on what it does, it makes little sense for HiPS to work against it.

You're argument is like claiming cold resistance should work against a red dragon's breath weapon because a creature that breathes fire is unrealistic and I don't know how it does it. So therefore because I can't explain how a dragon breathes fire, I'll simply say that my cold resistance applies toward that fire, because I can't explain how either effect works. Because since I can't explain the first ability, I dont' have to explain how any second ability interacts with it. Therefore anything can stop anything magical that I damn well feel like, because I don't have to explain anything by your logic. I dont' even need cold resistance, I can just carry around a pair of wet socks, and since you can't tell me why the dragon could generate fire in the first place, you can't tell me why my socks wouldn't stop its fire from affecting me.

Sorry Frank, but the whole argument of "Ability A shouldn't work by the laws of physics, therefore I don't have to explain how ability B counters it." is inherently flawed.

If you go about the game with that premise then there's no way to tell what skill does what, because you've thrown all logical relation out the window. You can then start doing crap like using your listen skill to counter a fireball or a forcecage.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

RC, I think you're being deliberatly obtuse here.

Darkvision allows you to see into places where there is no light.

Hide In Plain Sight lets you avoid being seen despite the absence of something to hide in/behind.

HIPS trumps Darkvision because HIPS has nothing do do with shadows, or the absence/presnece of light. The ShadowDancer can HIPS anywhere within ten feet of a shadow, even if it's under a floodlamp. (Though, I must say that connecting it with shadows at all is retarderriffic). The fact that we don't know how darkvision does what it does is irrelevant, because we know WHAT it does - Eliminate the need for a light source to see.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

And that's why I think HiPS has a mystical element to it. Because if you're not using the shadows to hide, then you're doing something weird and magical with them.

Either darkvision should negate it, or we have to accept that it's a wholly magical ability and that ordinary things don't hide in plain sight.

[Username17]

So you can accept an entirely bullshit non-magical method of seeing in the complete absence of photons, but you can't accept a non-magical means of not being seen by people who can see with that ability?

What the hell? Seriously, I can't even make a coherent argument here because it doesn't make any sense for you to have a hang up here.

Darkvision is completely impossible, but is dramatically appropriate. If you can accept it without the intervention of magic you can accept anything. Darkvision is more impossible than riding winds, climbing thunderheads, arbitrarily kicking doors unlocked, or even spontaneously teleporting with a jump. All of those things are unlikely. Some of them are so unlikely that they will almost certianly never occur in the entire lifetime of the universe. But they are possible.

Darkvision is impossible. As in, it is a violation of Heisenburg's Laws. Unlike all those other things which are so vanishingly unlikely that I would be willing to bet my life against their occurance, darkvision is completely impossible. Its chances of occuring aren't vanishingly small. They aren't really close to zero. They are zero.

If you can accept darkvision without explanation you can accept people kicking doors in a way where all the tumblers in the lock happen to align properly for the door to unlock. Unlike darkvision, that might actually happen.

If darkvision doesn't make your realism quotient come to a screeching halt and explode, nothing should. It by far is the most impossible thing so far considered on this thread.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1087334759[/unixtime]]So you can accept an entirely bullshit non-magical method of seeing in the complete absence of photons, but you can't accept a non-magical means of not being seen by people who can see with that ability?

Once you accept what the ability does, which is see in darkness, then you can't obviously hide by normal means in darkness against that ability.

We really don't care scientifically how it works. We just care about the effect and the description. Its effect is it nullifies vision problems caused by lack of light and by non-magical darkness. The description is that you see the area in a black and white view as well as you do under normal vision.

So if you're hiding in a shadow, then darkvision removes that shadow for the purposes of the guy with the darkvision.

If you can accept darkvision without explanation you can accept people kicking doors in a way where all the tumblers in the lock happen to align properly for the door to unlock. Unlike darkvision, that might actually happen.

I can accept that if it was an ability that didn't hinge on the open lock skill. Because it has nothing to do with skill, it's blind luck. If it was something a cleric of Tymora could do with the luck domain, then fine. But a trained rogue doing it is just silly. When you kick it you aren't using your open lock skill, you're hoping for a 1 in a billion shot. If you dont' got probability control you're screwed, and regardless of how good you are at opening locks, it won't make a bit of difference. Because you're not using your skill you're just relying on luck.

If darkvision doesn't make your realism quotient come to a screeching halt and explode, nothing should. It by far is the most impossible thing so far considered on this thread.

Eh... you can explain it rather easily, assuming you throw a little sci-fi into it. Just assume that all matter gives off a certain emanation that is similar to light but is outside the visible spectrum. Darkvision allows you to pick up and see these emanations, much in the same way you see reflected light. This particular emanation however doesn't go very far before becoming too blurred to be discernable, therefore darkvision only goes to short range. Some creatures have more sensetive darkvision than others, being able to pick up minor traces of this emanation at longer distances.

See, there... that wasn't so hard.

I don't know what your hang up over darkvision being impossible is.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1087338458[/unixtime]]I can accept that if it was an ability that didn't hinge on the open lock skill. Because it has nothing to do with skill, it's blind luck. If it was something a cleric of Tymora could do with the luck domain, then fine. But a trained rogue doing it is just silly. When you kick it you aren't using your open lock skill, you're hoping for a 1 in a billion shot. If you dont' got probability control you're screwed, and regardless of how good you are at opening locks, it won't make a bit of difference. Because you're not using your skill you're just relying on luck.

Open lock does not just tell you how to open locks with a variety of small wires and tools, it tells you how to get through locked doors Period. Upon inspection of the lock, the rogue notices that the way this lock is designed, the sharp application of force to a specific spot would open the door without signifigantly damaging the door or the lock. So the rogue double checks his info, steps back, and slams the heel of his boot against the lock face. The lock's mechanism slip just a bit, enough for the bolt to retract just enough to get out of the door-jam.

The application of skill with a little bit of luck opens the door, and since it requires knowing exactly where to hit and how hard, there is no magic involved.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

The problem is that any kind of reasonable quality lock is going to prevent that sort of thing, as they'd be designed to prevent a straight out brute force approach.

And the whole kicking the lock open doesn't involve any inspection as it's a free action to do it.

The thing is that you couldn't even reproduce the right kind of force to the front of a lock under controlled laboratory environments, let alone a first try basis on a lock the rogue has probably never seen before. Good locks are designed to resist bashing.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1087339860[/unixtime]]The problem is that any kind of reasonable quality lock is going to prevent that sort of thing, as they'd be designed to prevent a straight out brute force approach.

This isn't the brute force approach, though. That would be bashing the door down or smashing the lock, either of which are handled through strength checks, and ruin the door and the lock afterwards

And the whole kicking the lock open doesn't involve any inspection as it's a free action to do it.

Zuh?

The thing is that you couldn't even reproduce the right kind of force to the front of a lock under controlled laboratory environments, let alone a first try basis on a lock the rogue has probably never seen before. Good locks are designed to resist bashing.

There is more than the just the lock whose quality is at issue. There's also the door itself, and the jam it's in.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

Well, like I said before, different people prefer and accept different levels of realism as normal. If you think that kicking the lock open on a door is OK, then by all means you're free to allow it.

Personally I just find something wrong with the picture of a rogue running around in steel tipped boots kicking locks instead of picking them. Just seems very silly to me.

I have no idea if that's the norm or not, but that's just my opinion on the matter.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

And I don't see what's unrealistic -- much less unbelievable -- with the result of a Pick Lock roll being "You kick your heel against the faceplate of the lock. The bolt slips an the door swings open, showing you the room beyond".

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

I guess I just find something ridiculous about a rogue running around kicking locks instead of actually picking them.

I just picture this little gnome rogue saying stuff like "Lockpicks are for n00bs! I'm so 1337 I can kick doors down!"

Maybe as something the rogue does like once in a career it'd be cool, but constantly being able to do it whenever you want just seems pretty silly.

[Essence]

As soon as the Barbarian is strong enough to kick down a locked door in one attack, the Rogue had better be skilled enough to pick the lock and get them through the door in less than a standard action, because if he can't, the Barbarian is going to become the new point man.

[Username17]

There are a literal world of ways in which that won't explain darkvision.

@ Darkvision does not depend upon the size or constitution of the objects.

@ Darkvision sees through empty space as well/poorly as through water, air, or glass.

@ Darkvision can see reflections.

@ Darkvision can see the reflections of objects in a path dependent manner if the object is within 60 feet of the viewer, even if the path is more than 60 feet long.

@ Darkvision cannot see an object which is more than 60 feet away even if the path length is less than that of the path length above.

@ Darkvision allows you to read.

---

Yes. That's really impossible. Absolutely impossible. Unlike jumping from one side of the wall to the other without travelling through intervening space (which, via tunneling, would be so unlikely that if the universe were a billion times older than it is, odds would still be poor that such an event had ever happened), darkvision simply can't work within the context of real physics.

Not a little bit, not "it's kind of strange", not "it's stretching credibility", no! It's physically impossible, like a perpetual motion machine.

Now, like a perpetual motion machine, it makes a good story, and it isn't going to destroy a game. But like a perpetual motion machine, it can't exist in any real sense. And if you are sacrificing reality to allow something actually impossible into your game, then the fact that you are kicking and screaming about things which are vanishingly unlikely makes you a hypocrite or a moron. Take your pick.

As soon as the Barbarian is strong enough to kick down a locked door in one attack, the Rogue had better be skilled enough to pick the lock and get them through the door in less than a standard action, because if he can't, the Barbarian is going to become the new point man.

Exactly. High level people can open doors with an attack action by taking their adamantite swords and one-cutting the entire frame in half. It doesn't make a good story for the rogue to have to spend a long time (or any time) on any but the most important locks. If for some reason it took "time" to open your average lock, the swordsmen would simply cut it in half and watch the top slide off the bottom instead.

That's the story they live in. Unless there is a reason to unlock the door, the rogue has no place in that part of the story at all. When it is such a small investment for the swordsman to cut the door in half, there's not much wiggle room for there to be that reason.

And when you find that reason - or don't - then you'll find the way they are going to go about opening every single god damned door that ever gets in their way, right? So if you want people to ever unlock doors you really are going to watch them running around opening the doors by jiggling the handle and slapping them. Otherwise they are going to open every door by cutting the part that locks onto the door off with an unbreakable sword.

Either way is going to get old pretty quick, but it's just opening a frickin door. It's a really small part of the story, so the fact that it's going to get repetitive isn't all that surprising. If you want, you can gloss over that portion alot. Or you can have the rogue character come up with cool rants about he bypasses each one. Whatever makes a better story.

But holding people who want to unlock doors to some kind of arbitrary "realism" when you are letting people run around one cutting those same doors in half with admantite spoons or use their comically bad non-science to hand-wave away Darkvision is ricockulous. What the hell do you have to be smoking such that you get a hang-up about people pulling a Moonlighting on locked doors when your panties stay uncreased with people making a Planck Violation?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1087350292[/unixtime]]As soon as the Barbarian is strong enough to kick down a locked door in one attack, the Rogue had better be skilled enough to pick the lock and get them through the door in less than a standard action, because if he can't, the Barbarian is going to become the new point man.

Well, This really isn't a big deal, because chopping the door down makes a lot of noise, so the rogue's advantage is that he can do stuff with a bit more stealth. If you just want to get in quick, then sure the barbarian can chop it open, but you'll be alerting everyone in the area. The rogue can do so with a lot more stealth.

But open lock is kinda a crappy skill anyway... we could probably do better just to lump it into a feat instead of a skill or simply make it a rogue class ability where he checks 1d20+rogue levels or something.

As for the whole darkvision thing, it doesn't really bother me, as I really haven't thought about it that extensively. So it behaves by some weird different laws of physics. Eh, whatever.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Open lock is such a one trick pony that even if playing D&D (Which is the only d20 game left that still has Open Lock) I lobby to get Open Lock folded into Disable Device. Otherwise you're just robbing players of much-needed skillpoints.

-Desdan

[Username17]

As for the whole darkvision thing, it doesn't really bother me, as I really haven't thought about it that extensively. So it behaves by some weird different laws of physics. Eh, whatever.

This kind of attitude is fine. Now cultivate it for all the other aspects of your gaming experience, and you'll be a much happier person.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

The main thing I have a problem with is when something can't adequately be described. I don't really care how the physics of magic or darkvision work, but for hide in plain sight it bothers me because I'm not even sure how to describe it.

If it's a form of hiding, what does the guy who is staring at an empty room in darkvision see? I mean why is it so hard to see someone hiding in the shadows if shadows don't exist in darkvision? That's an entirely different problem which we do have to worry about in game.

The hide skill reflects he's tough to see, but what am I seeing in darkvision if I'm not seeing him. I'm certainly not seeing darkness, and he isn't hiding behind cover, so that means he has to be outright invisible. Only he's not invisible because the spot skill can still detect him as though he had concealment.

It's a contradiction of logic where you're left with a guy who is both invisible and not-invisible at the same time, because the mechanics work as though he were simply hidden but the description works as though he were invisible, and it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense in general.