you aren't singling him out.oncelor wrote: I really don't like singling out characters and marking them for death.
He is making himself a target by wielding such powerful magics.
There is a difference.
Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh
you aren't singling him out.oncelor wrote: I really don't like singling out characters and marking them for death.
I do not agree with you. The powers that he is attracting and that will be targetting him for being powerful, are controlled by the judge. So the player's PC is being singled out by the judge. Whether in the judge's mind this is a result of the "PC is making himself a target" or whether this is "the judge targetting this PC" simply relates to the level of abstraction of the game that you have.AJClark wrote:you aren't singling him out.oncelor wrote: I really don't like singling out characters and marking them for death.
He is making himself a target by wielding such powerful magics.
There is a difference.
I would look into this angle; the clerics' gods' probably don't appreciate being used to heal this nonbeliever. Is he paying appriate dues and sacrifices to the cleric's god? If he has been brought back from the dead multiple times already he should be profoundly in debt to the god or else the cleric is seriously sinning against his god.oncelor wrote:
He's been killed in combat a couple times, but death in combat only seems to be a minor inconvenience: one of the clerics inevitably heals any fallen character within the 1 round / level limit, and the "Restore Vitality" spell removes any of the permanent damage. I am planning on addressing both these items with house-rules (negative HPs, ability damage from dying cannot be healed with "restore vitality.") Though I don't mind having monsters identify targets of particular threat, or for powerful characters to develop the attention of powerful rivals, I really don't like singling out characters and marking them for death.
Lol. Brilliant.cthulhudarren wrote:I would look into this angle; the clerics' gods' probably don't appreciate being used to heal this nonbeliever. Is he paying appriate dues and sacrifices to the cleric's god? If he has been brought back from the dead multiple times already he should be profoundly in debt to the god or else the cleric is seriously sinning against his god.oncelor wrote:
He's been killed in combat a couple times, but death in combat only seems to be a minor inconvenience: one of the clerics inevitably heals any fallen character within the 1 round / level limit, and the "Restore Vitality" spell removes any of the permanent damage. I am planning on addressing both these items with house-rules (negative HPs, ability damage from dying cannot be healed with "restore vitality.") Though I don't mind having monsters identify targets of particular threat, or for powerful characters to develop the attention of powerful rivals, I really don't like singling out characters and marking them for death.
I don't see it as people going out of their way. Actions have reactions. To me this is what makes the game fun and continues to put twists into my online campaign that have evolved as a result of character actions.Skyscraper wrote: I know some people will argue that the +10 healing color spray is not broken. Okay, call it what you will The very discussion on this thread is pretty revealing to me. People are going out of their way imagining ways to kill the character, retire it, steal his staff, or otherwise bend the story to accommodate that power. You can call it otherwise than broken if you feel the game works well with such a power, I won't argue with you. But the bottom line is: other classes, other characters, do not have access to this type of power; and the power requires the game to bend to it, otherwise the PLAYERS do not have fun playing the game. To me, that's broken.
I do like this as a possible option!Skyscraper wrote: You can propose an heroic retirement, e.g. you will play an in-game contest where he needs to confront enemies in a test to become head of the wizard order. I.e. make him fight his way out of the campaign.
All things that aren't the characters are controlled by the judge. With the above in mind anytime the Judge does anything to the characters the judge is targetting them.Skyscraper wrote: I do not agree with you. The powers that he is attracting and that will be targetting him for being powerful, are controlled by the judge. So the player's PC is being singled out by the judge. Whether in the judge's mind this is a result of the "PC is making himself a target" or whether this is "the judge targetting this PC" simply relates to the level of abstraction of the game that you have.
+3d24.beermotor wrote:My only complaint is y'all keep saying "balance" as if it is some talisman against evil. Rock/paper/scissors is balanced. DCC isn't and wasn't even meant to be. Real life isn't balanced either. That's why I think for all its gonzoness, DCC has more realism than, say, a more methodically balanced game like D&D 4e. Too much balance is a terrible thing and makes everything the same, and boring. I want my players to seek out advantage, to seek to become powerful and unbalanced. Then I can crush their tiny little dreams.
As you understand, I agree, but to be clear, I'm not saying that DCC is broken. Just one combination (the +10 healing color spray), according to the judge's description of his game. DCC brings in great things, I honestly love the system, for many different reasons too.cjoepar wrote: But I also don't know that I would go so far as to say that the system is broken because of it. It's a rare occurrence that you get this kind of a situation, and I've seen similar things happen in other rpg systems. Sometimes you just have to step outside the game and say hey, it's time to move on to using characters that are balanced because ultimately this one character is ruining the fun for several people. I think most players would be on board with that and though they might groan a little, they would see the point and go along with it. Now if the player running this guy is the kind that's always trying to build some killer combination, because he approaches rpg's like a Magic the Gathering game, well that's a different problem.
See, I have no particular taste to set up a table leading to my vengeance against the players. I assume you don't either and are only using this as somewhat of a colorful statement. To me, the game is not about me vs. them. I want cool cooperative storytelling and that everyone have fun together. If a mechanic gets in the way and we can't find a way to work around it, we remove it. Since this is a last resort and a rare occurrence, I have no problem doing it, in DCC or in any other game. And even the best games, when they get the chance to go through post-issuance balancing, will rehandle certain aspects. Nothing wrong with recognizing that.beermotor wrote:My only complaint is y'all keep saying "balance" as if it is some talisman against evil. Rock/paper/scissors is balanced. DCC isn't and wasn't even meant to be. Real life isn't balanced either. That's why I think for all its gonzoness, DCC has more realism than, say, a more methodically balanced game like D&D 4e. Too much balance is a terrible thing and makes everything the same, and boring. I want my players to seek out advantage, to seek to become powerful and unbalanced. Then I can crush their tiny little dreams.
This is the most persuasive argument I get from this thread. But to get there, Gandalf probably had to experience it first. He used his powers many times, and after being hit by hit squads, he came to the conclusion that he musn't. Thus: time of the game spent on dealing with it.Raven_Crowking wrote:
Avoiding using powerful magic when it isn't needed is all over the Appendix N literature, and largely because it draws attention to oneself. Hell, in LotR Gandalf is worried about so little an act as lighting a fire lest the Fellowship's enemies learn thereby that "Gandalf is here!"
The rest again pertains to options of how to bend the story around the mechanic. It's not that I cannot think about ways to do it in game. Again: I don't like that this mechanic be the decisive factor in what the game will be about; and that in waiting for it to be dealt with, the entire group needs to suffer through it.other stuff from RC
Well, I don't think anyone is saying they want an rpg to somehow be balanced like a game of chess. You're absolutely right, a certain degree of imbalance is completely unavoidable and, in fact, desirable.beermotor wrote:My only complaint is y'all keep saying "balance" as if it is some talisman against evil. Rock/paper/scissors is balanced. DCC isn't and wasn't even meant to be. Real life isn't balanced either. That's why I think for all its gonzoness, DCC has more realism than, say, a more methodically balanced game like D&D 4e. Too much balance is a terrible thing and makes everything the same, and boring. I want my players to seek out advantage, to seek to become powerful and unbalanced. Then I can crush their tiny little dreams.
cjoepar wrote:For me, by making the risk of corruption directly proportional to the amount of spellburn used has balanced things nicely in my group. For others, they might not like that approach or they may have players that find ways around that, too.
Somewhere further up the thread:beermotor wrote:I missed this, where did you suggest doing this? Sounds great to me. Do you make them roll for corruption like clerics have to on the disapproval table, Xd4 where X = disapproval? So X spellburn = Xdy on the Spellburn table? Maybe make Y = Wizard level or spell level, such that more powerful casters or more powerful effects create more problems for the caster.cjoepar wrote:For me, by making the risk of corruption directly proportional to the amount of spellburn used has balanced things nicely in my group. For others, they might not like that approach or they may have players that find ways around that, too.
I have also revamped the corruption tables. I prefer a Cthulhu-esque atmosphere about magic in my campaigns. As in the idea that toying with these things causes the wizard to risk madness, more so than some physical deformity (many of which are relatively harmless in the existing tables). Most of my corruption table results are things that slowly drive the wizard insane. I also like the idea that I don't use tables that are in the book, so my players literally don't know what could happen if they try to unleash magical energies that are beyond their means.cjoepar wrote:I have adopted a system of increasing the chances of corruption as more points are sunk into spellburn, with each point of spellburn adding an additional 5% chance of corruption. So using 9 points of spellburn would increase the chance of corruption to 50%. Any roll of a natural "1" results in 2 corruption rolls when spellburn is used. It is possible to successfully cast the spell and still suffer corruption and anytime the character sinks 19 or more points into spellburn, they will automatically suffer corruption.
Would you care to share?cjoepar wrote: I have also revamped the corruption tables. I prefer a Cthulhu-esque atmosphere about magic in my campaigns. As in the idea that toying with these things causes the wizard to risk madness, more so than some physical deformity (many of which are relatively harmless in the existing tables). Most of my corruption table results are things that slowly drive the wizard insane. I also like the idea that I don't use tables that are in the book, so my players literally don't know what could happen if they try to unleash magical energies that are beyond their means.
Sweet. That's a nice and intuitive alteration. I'd like to see your tables, too.cjoepar wrote:Well, I just increase the number when a corruption would occur when the player rolls his spellcheck. So if they use 4 points of spellburn, they will suffer corruption (or possibly misfire) on a roll of 1-5 when they make their spellcheck. If they use 9 points of spellburn, they suffer corruption (or possibly misfire) on a 1-10.
I use the same results in the existing spell tables for the level of corruption or likelihood of misfire, yes. And I only have them suffer patron taint on patron spells.
I can't disagree here.....time in the game must be spent dealing with the consequences of actions in order to make those consequences occur (or have real meaning) within the context of the game. Personally, I would imagine more in-game time would end up being spent looking for new spells or dealing with clerical disapproval.Skyscraper wrote:This is the most persuasive argument I get from this thread. But to get there, Gandalf probably had to experience it first. He used his powers many times, and after being hit by hit squads, he came to the conclusion that he musn't. Thus: time of the game spent on dealing with it.Raven_Crowking wrote:
Avoiding using powerful magic when it isn't needed is all over the Appendix N literature, and largely because it draws attention to oneself. Hell, in LotR Gandalf is worried about so little an act as lighting a fire lest the Fellowship's enemies learn thereby that "Gandalf is here!"
Again, clerical disapproval springs immediately to mind as an example where DCC goes out of its way to bend the story around the mechanic. That is the nature of the beast as it is written. "Quest For It" is a strong injunction to bend the story in order to gain a desired mechanical benefit. I don't think of this as a flaw, but I do encourage you to change the game however you like to make it suit your needs.The rest again pertains to options of how to bend the story around the mechanic. It's not that I cannot think about ways to do it in game. Again: I don't like that this mechanic be the decisive factor in what the game will be about; and that in waiting for it to be dealt with, the entire group needs to suffer through it.other stuff from RC
IME, the warrior slaying the duke's men is not always a group decision, nor is the thief's attempt to burgle the Lord Mayor's house. In DCC, the cleric may be sent on a mission to heal the ill whether the party likes it or no.It's not the same thing as the warrior slaying the duke's men in my mind. Slaying the duke's men is, firstly, most probably a group decision. (If not, then it's another question.) While using the superpower is working towards the group's goals (presumably), but using one particularly powerful means to achieve that group goal, that allows you to outclass everyone else. And then the judge deciding that using superpowers is a sin according to XYZ Power from Beyond and the wizard should be dealt with.
My point, though, is that the impact of that +10 healing color spray should not always be the greatest impact available to the group as a whole...or even to the wizard. The problem, from my POV, is not that the wizard is overly powerful, but that meaningful decision-making doesn't occur when the optimal solution is always the same. I assume that a 6th level warrior with his +6 Initiative bonus is going to go before the wizard lots of times, sometimes defeating foes before a spell passes the wizard's lips. I assume that the thief will have a chance to sneak and deal with traps or locks. I assume that the cleric's ability to Turn the Unholy, Lay Hands (because even with "heal spray", the group must deal with things like poison, disease, and broken bones), and cast divine spells will be of importance. Banish has proved particularly effective for one cleric in our group, for example, but that does not mean that banish becomes the solution to all problems.The example of the warrior always blinding opponents is interesting, but of limited applicability. You can simply say "hey, think about other ways that your deed can be used to similar impact". Whereas the wizard with the +10 healing color spray doesn't have another power of similar impact. Nor does anyone else. (And, honestly, one blinded opponent is not like 5 blinded opponents and 5 healed allies, is it?)
There has been misfire and corruption: He blinded himself for one round once. His skin turned a bluish-rainbow color. His hair turned purple. The spell was delayed by a turn one time. He lost one point of Personality from patron taint (which he didn't really care about).Raven_Crowking wrote:A couple of quick notes:
First off, I can see how the Color Spray + Healing mercurial could get to be a problem, although I am not at all certain, if the caster is using two spells per round, one on 1d20 and one on 1d16, why corruption and/or misfire hasn't caught up with him yet. Does he never accidentally blind himself or his party members? The odds would seem to be against such fantastic luck....?
The foes also get the healing when they're in range, but the wizard can usually position himself to affect a minimum number of foes.Raven_Crowking wrote:A couple of quick notes:
As for the healing, I am assuming that the character's foes are also gaining the benefit aka "Breath of life. Casting this spell imbues the caster and those around him with beneficial energies. All within 15’ of the caster (both friend and foe) are healed 1d6 points of damage for every level of the spell (i.e., a level 3 spell heals 3d6 damage)." Does that never cause consternation for the characters, as the foes they have damaged are now healed? And is it always possible to keep the party within so tight a radius? In my games, the PCs tend to spread out in order to better deal with their foes and avoid area effects. Of course, that 2d6 per round is going to encourage the PCs to clump......
I think we were all in agreement that the +10 "Color Spray" isn't balanced with the sorts of powers that average 5th level characters have. I think we also all agree that it needs to be addressed in some way, that the campaign oughtn't go on allowing one character to dominate and trivialize most every combat.cjoepar wrote:I see a lot of contrived ideas to deal with the color spraying wizard. But like the Onceler, Skyscraper (and maybe some others I'm missing) are saying, when you have to direct game design and game play time to specifically deal with just one character all the time, whether that's altering the saving throws for monsters or creating situation after situation where his powers are neutralized, you have a balance problem. It is what it is, guys. You don't change the fact that an imbalance exists in that party by just adopting the opinion that the Onceler hasn't tried hard enough, or been creative enough in dealing with it within the game mechanics.
One of the things I appreciate about the DCC system is that it doesn't seem to allow players to build killer-combos deliberately. Anyway, Idris the Welsh Wizard isn't run by a power-gamer. All he did is get lucky rolling an 18 INT and use spellburn to get a good result on the "wizard staff" spell..... Now if the player running this guy is the kind that's always trying to build some killer combination, because he approaches rpg's like a Magic the Gathering game, well that's a different problem.