I did look up for guidelines on the gamemastery guide and ultimate intrigue about confusion, as those books have "how to"s to handle a bunch of situations as the GM, but nothing on the topic of confusion.
@eimyr in tone, the only differences between shadowrun editions were from 2nd to 3rd, 3rd 4th and 5th follow a similar tone, a bunch of rules got simplified, specially from 4th to 5th, but the tone is similar across these 3 editions. 3rd started a "modernization" of the setting based on technologies of the real world. The dice mechanic also suffered major changes, the target number for every check is set at 5-6, and you only need to track the number of successes now.
@AnneAunyme there are many topics like that in the system to be fair.
confusion is just one that rarely comes up, and when it does, people do whatever they find best to suit their playstyle.
It's like, what are the limitations of charm person/monster? how about suggestion?
@AnneAunyme When I told my boss that Apocalypse World 2nd edition doesn't really change all that much, he replied that "It's not DnD, it might not be broken enough need a lot of fixing with each edition" :P
@eimyr here is a really good question asking the differences between 3rd and 4th edition shadowrun.
the guy says there was no difference in tone, but that's not true. i suspect he didnt actually check the setting books for 3rd, but stayed at the core.
it went from a punkish "we are mercenaries that will do anything for money" to an heroic "corps are evil, but we can do good"
It's not out of the ordinary to just appear; but that in addition to being silent, not smelling, and even muffling the sound of anything it interacts with, most creatures would probably assume it to be fake
Between "it might be a summoned creature under the effects of a zone of silence that just took a bath and happens to be summoned out of sight" and "the wizard is pulling your leg", I think I'd pick the latter
@ShadowKras If I saw an ogre, I would assume it's real. If I didn't think it was, I would either interact with it or use an action to check. Or I could choose to ignore it if I thought there was a greater threat.
There is no need for a separate check to disbelieve. If you attack it and the blade goes through without resistance, you automatically discern it as an illusion
@Szega is correct, that is the proper way to beat a silent image in pathfinder (interact with it), if you fail your save, you believe its real, and here the metagaming starts.
It could be a lot of things, but I think the lack of almost all the things that make up a real being except visual cues would be a pretty clear indicator
@Szega which is interesting...because a martial with more than on attack is much better suited to use one attack to discern rather than the whole action in 5e.
(It's also assuming that a Wizard can create something that convincingly moves like a real creature, which turns out to be insanely hard in the real world; we still have a hard time creating believable fictional creatures. Most D&D games kind of gloss over that part)
even if you believe its real, silent image will eventually prove to be a fake, because the ogre appears to be attacking, but he cannot actually hit or cause damage
@ShadowKras In 5e, interaction with and rolling a check are different things. If you've interacted with it, you know it's fake. Done deal. If you instead choose to try and see if it's an illusion and fail...it's real.
@Szega the caster can move the silent image at will, he could make the creature move around. And here is when the rules are vague: the illusion has an AC? if so what is it? what happens if characters attack it and they already failed their save?
@Erik It greats tricky there. BUt I agree with @Szega: if you see someone interact with it, then you also discern it for an illusion. but if you're engaged wth another creature, it isn't likely you saw that interaction.
My opinion: it has no AC, attacks automatically hit. But since your character believes he is real, he believes the creature either took damage or your attack was inneffective.
@ShadowKras in 5e, the illusion has no AC. Any physical interaction with it reveals it. The AC encompasses resistance to damage, not just missing the creature. As in, "you hit it, but not hard enough".
@eimyr It's got Eyes of the Stone Thief campaign book. In it, there are undead librarians, that shush players who talk louder than a whisper during the fight, doing psychic damage.
Yeah, as I've said before, if I ever have a group that wants something like a D&Desque mechanical experience, 13th Age will probably be the system for it.
"For me, I review 13th Age as a d20 game with an emphasis on story, medium crunch character development and combat, and ease of play. By those criterion, I will say 13th Age has succeeded admirably."
And then it does this cool thing where the raw d20 roll is analysed in multiple ways depending on your class and features to produce multiple outcomes from a single roll. Like, when a bard makes an attack he also gets to do a bardy thing, but which bardy thing depends on if the d20 comes out even, odd, 15+, etc.
Like, the local witch might only have a 4 litre small block engine, any competent mage sports a V8 and the royal magus gets his power from a high-torque Wartsila maritime slow-stroke.
In shadows of esteren, "wizards" extract their power source from fossilized matter.
there are druids and priests using spiritual and divine magic though
But a magic item is a combination of steampunkish machines and a cannister with fossilized material extracted from woods, plants, rocks or dead bodies.
A short tale from our round-robin GM'd DnD: I notice that player X in our table seems a tad bored out of combat. I decided to give him some magical thing to do out of combat. I discuss this in confidentiality with another player, Y - he suggests a Figurine of Wondrous Power. So when the party slays a group of cultists, they find he was carrying a Silver Raven... which Y dibs'd for himself in a nanosecond.
(joke's on him though, the Raven won't function for anyone who's not a king of the forest... and X's character, being a bear barbarian, counts)
you should make it not only that it requires that type of person, but that there is a curse property for anyone attempting to use it who doesn't have it.
@NautArch No, I think he just forgot we had talked about it. We had like a month's break between sessions, so I decided I'd nudge them to give it to X in-universe instead.
They also stole another magic item from a store earlier, it turned out to be a little marble statuette of a monkey with cymbals. It starts beating them together loudly if it hears a rhythm. cue hobgoblin army marching past
so -- laying out a crypt/catacombs -- right now, I have two levels: an upper level of isolated crypts, each 5 rooms or so, and a lower level that's a canal system with a definite beginning and end (highest and lowest point) + a way to get back around from the end to the beginning (two really: one for the canal gondolas that only works on empty gondolas, and one for people)
I'm trying to figure out right now how much effort I should put into laying out the upper levels (and if I should have some back passages directly between upper levels, as perhaps the navigable canal system wasn't part of the original design?)
if i were to design a crypt that was connected to a canal system, i would put the crypt bellow the canal level. And would design some kind of trap to flood the crypts in case an invader attempts to break in.
@ShadowKras OK. yeah -- I'm leaning towards having the whole thing laid out ahead of time as well
@ShadowKras how would drainage work then? would you have to have pumps dewatering all the crypt-clusters constantly? or would there be two systems of water movement, one above for transportation + trap flooding and one below for drainage?
If the water source is actually on an upper level than the crypt, and there is a built drainage system (the canals) under the crypt, all the crypt builders need is some way for the water to flow from the uper levels to the lower levels.
flooding the crypt is a matter of closing this connection.
There are a few circumstances where it will have an impact. You can't make any opportunity attacks if you can't see anybody for example. And If you play with any kind of facing rules and attack blindly in the dark where nobody is standing, the DM might just have your attack auto-miss.
i like shadows of the demon lord approach, you have advantage? you gain +1d6 on your check. You have disvantage? you gain -1d6 on your check. A single advantage can cancel a single disvantage at GM discretion, but otherwise you roll with all of them.
Even without facing rules, the DM might force you to call a direction when you make an attack and give you an auto-miss if you pick a spot where nobody is standing
we play the standard rule on adv/dis, but i'd prefer to add up the adds/dis and determine a result.
I also like the interpretation of invisibility/stealth where your location is still known unless you take the hide action. But my table plays invis as "it disappeared!"
yeah -- tallying advantages/disadvantages I think is a middle ground between the stock 5e rule of "any advantages cancel any disadvantages" and the whole bonus/malus business from previous editions
@NautArch i wouldnt hate it if the "all disvantages cancel all advantages" rule didnt exist.
in SotDL, lets say you are in a situation where you have advantage (the target is flanked), he is prone (another advantage), but the light conditions are bad (a disvantage). You roll 1d20 + 2d6 - 1d6 (different colors are necessary if you roll all at once, obviously).
@ShadowKras I think their intent with that rule was that, in general, if there is so much disadvantage or advantage that it seems stupid that one source of advantage can negate all of it, then the DM should probably just say that the task is impossible. Or if the reverse is true, then the player should just succeed without a roll.
@NautArch They bungled it up by putting it in the PHB. They should've just said "a passive check is 10+relevant modifiers. The DM uses this at their discretion" for the PHB entry and then put all of the elaboration for passive checks in the DMG. But I feel like we've been here before :p
Yeah, that surprises me. For the most part it seems really straightforward. (Except my question on Initiative, which was more on my own "old way of thinking", I guess)
There are two outcomes that worry me the most. The first is that the players get hopelessly lost, frustrated, and eventually just beg you for the answer so they can move on. The second is that the players get frustrated that they have to use their brains and can't just use ability checks to model their characters picking up on things. I don't know anything about your players so only you can determine if either of those are legitimate concerns.
Of course, your players might love the idea, but those are just the two things that scare me the most when I think about adding a maze-like section to a dungeon
@Adam we've done puzzles in our games that are player solved, not character solved. This would be like that. And that's why I'm trying to figure out how to create the One True Path clues. I'm thinking there are symbols above each doorway. The correct progression of symbols leads to the Path. The incorrect leads you astray.
@Yuuki for this group, it wouldn't be inappropriate. The harder thing is that they may "discover" the key in the middle of it. I'm not sure how that would work.
@Ben want to hop in here to help clarify your question rather than doing it in comments?
If the One True Path is a sequence that needs to be figured out, they may start to understand the sequence in the middle and not the start - which may be confusing. Unless it's all numbers and I just make it fibonacci.
@Yuuki right, the clues to the sequence should be in each room that has a door to the Path.
Maybe I missed this part, but what is the cube supposed to be for? Who built it, and why did they leave clues on how to get out, and traps that kill the inhabitants?
@Erik starting to understand the clues brings them to rooms they think they will be in - which helps lead them out. The positive reinforcement is the confirmation of decisions.
@Yuuki like he can get to the room before the Foyer, but is bound against the foyer where the exit is. Maybe he's been in so long, that he's an untrustworthy narrator and can only 'remember' some pieces of the puzzle as clues?
initially, i was thinking of this as a Ranch style MOrdenkainen's magnificent mansion - with lots of servants.
The good guy might not know "the way out", just how to navigate the area. He might be relying on the players to actually open the door. (He might not even be a good guy)
@Erik true, but this encounter is part of an non-standard campaign we all share DM responsibilities with. It's basically a series of not-necessariy-connected-encounters.
I mean more those taking the test need to trust the one giving it, so in this case the characters would need to trust the lich. It's essentially the first problem again; why would the characters trust the markings?
@NautArch the problem with basing adventures of movies or other known media, is the metagaming that follows. If that is intended, its fine. But in my experience, the "reference" is only fun to a few people at the table.
@ShadowKras The reference is more to show my idea for the how it would work. While I'd like this to fit into a broader campaign, it doesn't have to. It can exist as it's own.
@Adam I could see a reasoning depending on the purpose of the trap. For example, some sort of power leech has captured a powerful individual. Ostensibly, the leech wants the trapped individual to be kept alive but also needs a way to consistently and reliably access the individual to leech power.
to clarify, i was a player. But the adventure was so much like the movie that in the first 5 minutes after "someone disapeared", one of the PCs already called dibs on a flamethrower.
and the idea of a space that constantly shifting, but does have a puzzle in it to learn how to get out, was something I think my table would enjoy. It's a bit of a mind trip, there's a system to discover, and there's encounters. ALl things my table enjoys.
@NautArch ah. well, wormhole space in EVE is basically constantly shifting as the connections between systems and to the "outside world" (i.e. known space) are formed exclusively by transient (time/mass limited) wormholes instead of permanent stargates/portals
@NautArch however, there is a method to the madness: every system is guaranteed to have at least one wormhole leading out of it (a so-called "static" wormhole) that is replaced by a new one whenever it expires/is crushed
@NautArch in addition, wormhole designations and system background colors (as seen by peering through the wormhole, so to speak) can be used to figure out the time and mass limits on wormholes + what classification of space is on the opposite side
@ShadowKras And above each door would be one of those clues. But to understand which clue means what, you need to explore to understand the greater story?
