Powerlevels and Pretension: FatR's own fantasy heartbreaker

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Emerald
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:18 pm

Post by Emerald »

FatR wrote:Personally, I'd still prefer to keep the "action debt" system, but I wonder what the Den thinks about this.
I dislike the action debt approach for a few reasons, none of which involve it feeling like you're being penalized for anything:

1) An immediate this round eating your swift next round is really the only case where something like that happens--readying takes up your standard action before your out-of-turn action rather than after, an AoO is free and getting more with Combat Reflexes doesn't require spending any extra actions before or afterwards, extra attacks from TWF or haste or the like don't ever cost you more actions, and so forth--and the only similar case is the celerity line where you're explicitly borrowing your own future time via magic.

2) Immediates taking up your swift encourages characters to focus on either immediate-action save-yourself abilities or swift-action boost-yourself abilities, and those who take a mix of both are punished somewhat by the inability to use them in conjunction. It's kind of like how most extra attack abilities only work with full attacks and you can't move and full attack on the same turn, so fighters picking up standard-action abilities like a ToB strike maneuver or Awesome Blow or warblades picking up extra-attack-on-full-attack abilities is kinda pointless.

3) The extra restrictiveness of immediate actions causes people to try to write around them to avoid stepping on swift actions. Take snake's swiftness:
The subject can immediately make one melee or ranged attack. Taking this action doesn’t affect the subject’s normal place in the initiative order. This is a single attack and follows the standard rules for attacking.

This spell does not allow the subject to make more than one additional attack in a round. If the subject has already made an additional attack, due to a prior casting of this spell, from the haste spell, or from any other source, this spell fails.
There's no reason that the entire spell description couldn't just be "The subject can make a melee or ranged attack as an immediate action" because avoiding the old "quickened spells are free actions you can only take once per round" circumlocution was the whole point of codifying swift and immediate actions, except that the spell shows up in a book introducing a ton of new swift-action spells so making it incompatible with them would be counterproductive.

4) It's a bit harder to remember for new players. "You have one standard, move, swift, and immediate action each on your turn" is easy, as is "You have one standard, one move, and either a swift or an immediate," but "You have a standard, a move, and a swift unless you took an immediate action last turn because you used your swift now for your immediate back then; no, you can't borrow standard or move actions, just swifts" can feel both confusing and arbitrary.


Saving up swift actions isn't really any better, for the reasons you noted. You might as well just give people one swift and one immediate per turn and be done with it; if immediate actions are going to be a big part of the game, with most characters being expected to have several immediate-action abilities, it makes sense not to make it harder or more annoying for characters to use them, and if they're only going to come up occasionally or only for some characters then special-case-ing the action debt isn't really necessary.
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

Thanks for the answers. After discussing the problem with my group, I've decided that just allowing a character's swift action to be used at any time before that character's next turn would be the least problematic solution of those I see, if only because it is simpler and streamlines the system. Giving everyone both swift and immediate would almost certainly result in all characters using the same counter/swift action spell every round, unless both the total number of powers in the game, and the number of powers a character can have ready to use are massively increased, beyond even what 3.5 had (because in 3.5 only characters with quickened spells really had diverse options for their swifts/immediates), which would be opposite to my design goals.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Perhaps something like you can give up your next move/standard action for a 2nd swift action so you still have a mechanic for "this desperate maneuver unbalances you"
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

The ability to forego your standard action for another swift is in these rules since the earliest versions, OgreBattle.

To think of it, perhaps I need to post at least a relatively detailed list of significant changes, additoons, and stuff I'm working on, here in forum post, to invite more discussion.
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

I've abandoned this thread for rather longer than expected, because after we with my friends started doing actual playtesting I was occupied with that, and there were quite a few sweeping changes to the core. One of those changes is rather too sweeping, and I'd like to ask the Den's advice on it. The impetus for it was seeing hit points on high-level creatures swiftly climbing towards four digits, but it is also intended to try to fix another standing problem of DnD, the one with disparity between reducing hit points and bypassing hit points.

Basically, the idea is a brand new damage, system, that goes like this:

Instead of hit point each creature has Toughness, preliminary taken to be equal to 10 + Level + Con + primary casting/initiation/etc attribute for characters with classes (so a level 1 character will start with Toughness around 15-18, and then it will increase relatively slowly; while NPC mooks and schmucks will have 10-11; a heavy warhorse or a bear 15; by level 10 Toughness of 28-30 can be expected from a competent character, and by level 20 44-48; the tarrasque will have 46 at CR 16). Most attacks, including many attacks that before were mind-affecting, basically everything that attempts to brute-force some effect, as opposed to tricking the target, have damage values. Damage is compared to Toughness. Damage below current Toughness has very little effect. It reduces Toughness by 1 point. Consequently all character with a decent amount of levels under the belt have another “you must be this good to really harm me” threshold that cuts off low-level losers, but a hero still can be eventually shot to death by a lot of archers. Damage at or above current Toughness reduces Toughness significantly – as the default, by Attribute used to modify the attack (so, the Strength value in case of most melee attacks, etc). Critical hits multiply not damage but Toughness reduction. Most of what was special attacks in the previous version of these rules and save-or-whatever attacks originally in 3.X would inflict a minimal effect – a brief debuff – when striking below Toughness, and a normal – better or long-term – effect at and above Toughness, instead of reducing the toughness value. There is no need for confirmation criticals on just about every non-damaging attack in this system, thus reducing the amount of rolls, and there is no original 3.X problem of characters instantly getting taken out of battle (often really easily) through means that are perpendicular to dealing damage, rather than synergistic with it. And both direct damage and special attacks will have maximum effect if their damage is double a target’s current Toughness. That would mean an instant win – the target is incapacitated/paralyzed for a day/dominated/otherwise clearly loses. Thus, if basic damage of weapons and attacks is not set too high, the typical combat between equal opponents would proceed along the “scratch-bruise-scratch-heavy wound-finisher” lines typical for heroic fiction.

Damage resistance to a certain category (piercing, fire, etc) still halves damage, making exceedingly difficult to reach Toughness and deal more than scratches. That would increase value of damage resistance a good deal.
Damage reduction now becomes Super Toughness, reducing by a certain value all Toughness reduction, except reduction from a specific bane.
Fast healing and regeneration restore Toughness.

Fortitude Defense from the old version of my rules is extraneous and this scheme of things and may be completely replaced by Toughness.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

This problem was solved in 1989. If you do not want people to be bashing each other for 37 damage out of 249 hit points on a regular basis, then you fix everyone's hit points at 10 (or whatever) and vary the amount of hit point loss according to the comparison of attack strength to soak strength. Fucking sorted.

-Username17
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

It's no secret that I've pretty extensively played and examined a heroic fantasy game which featured largely fixed (compared to damage amounts) hit points and soak, i.e. Exalted. It was constantly caught in the dilemma between making soak effectively second armor class (if your number is not high enough to bypass the defense, your attack effectively does nothing, the difference between an attack that does anything and an attack that reduces an opponent to paste is fairly insignificant compared to overall damage outputs of experienced characters), and making it into stealth hit points increase (nearly all attacks will do damage, with soak it just won't one-shot you). Besides that, the low hit points/high defenses paradigm just never felt satisfying in actual play. Hit points are just plainly better for the typical high-powered fiction paradigm, where the heroes get beaten up and bloodied over the course of their fight, even if that hardly impacts their actual combat ability until someone goes down. I don't see how my proposal is just soak. I'd scrapped it myself otherwise.

And of course the systems with soak still had the second problem I mentioned, damage and instant win powers just operating in entirely different dimensions. Though for DnD it is traditionally more important. Another things that playtesting stuff made obvious was that even with an extra roll thrown into their routine characters specialized in dishing out save-or-loses (or not-get-hit-or-loses in this case) still are super good. So far ramping relevant defenses somewhat was my reaction, but I've wondered if a more conceptual solution is possible.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Exalted has many problems and is generally shit all around. Problems for Exalted's specific use of damage boxes include (and are by no means limited to):
  • Not actually having fixed hit points. There are a shit tonne of stupid ways to get extra damage boxes, and then the system doesn't make any sense.
  • Having too many die rolls. Attack, Dodge, Damage, Soak? Fucking seriously? Yeah, nWoD was a shit sandwich because 1 die roll isn't enough to tell the difference between a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher, but 4 die rolls is fucking ridiculous.
  • Having too many "Perfect" things. When you have a bunch of die roll checks along the way to conducting any action, having a bunch of abilities coming from all directions to completely invalidate the system in various ways is awful.
  • Non Proportional Damage. When you have a dicepool system your numeric outputs are inherently exponential. So having them do linear damage from overflow is horse shit. It means that dicepools have to grow way too large in order to be able to have a hope in hell of one-shotting anything, and then the whole game becomes grossly deterministic.
The thing is, Shadowrun (for all its many flaws) managed to solve all of those issues in its first edition in 1989. Making a level 1 wound do 1 box of damage, a level 2 wound do 3 boxes of damage, a level 3 wound do 6 boxes of damage and a level 4 wound fill in all your boxes solves all of those problems 11 years before Exalted was ever written.

-Username17
User avatar
Foxwarrior
Duke
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
Location: RPG City, USA

Post by Foxwarrior »

Interesting that Frank would be the first person to object to your new CAN-style damage system.

I do think that it might make fights a little too predictable if you can know with certainty that the enemy doesn't have the power to take you out next round?
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

We can look at the issue of one-shot abilities one-shotting people in the first round or not being able to do so from two angles.

From the purely mechanical perspective, unless SoD/SoL abilities are nerfed in their applicability to the point where making them stick on an opponent of roughly equal strength is highly unlikely (sub-25% chance), they reduce game to a rocket launcher tag. Monsters and characters must be designed and generated on the assumption that unless the party is incompetent and the GM wears velvet gloves, there is a substantial probability of getting one-shotted in challenging fights, and therefore unless you can give yourself a long list of immunities against death, mind-affecting, and so on, you must have a rocket launcher of your own. Or at very least be able to stunlock opponents. I’m noticing this need in my own monster design. An inherent disparity between attacks that reduce hit points and attacks that bypass them also arises.


To see what needs to be done, if anything, we should consider whether having the possibility of one-shots through SoD/SoL abilities in the game is worth heavy tradeoffs described above from the viewpoint of overall goals of the ruleset and supposed atmosphere of the game. OD&D/AD&D, which introduced all these ultralethal abilities to begin with, was intended to be a character grinder, where PCs were generated fast and died fast, and you had to be both smart and lucky to survive into high levels. Almost everything in the early game was so lethal that dying on a failed save did not stand out too much among other dangers. On the other hand, having the ability to knock out a few targets with an SoD/SoL spell was worth much less when huge hordes of low-HP mooks appeared in adventures constantly, and your direct damage was both more effective against these hordes and respectable against stronger opponents. As about keeping your battle-scarred character alive in late game, you presumably reached it to start with thanks to picking a good Ring of Protection somewhere. So at high levels you could save on 2-3 against most things (though in AD&D lists of immunities also started to emerge as a solution).

Now 4E was made, ultimately, as tabletop WoW/Diablo (down to WoW-like aesthetics). These games did not feature instant kill abilities, and had offensive abilities which generally varied between damage and damage+mild debuff. So that was what 4E implemented. Too bad that people who wanted to play WoW had actual WoW in their disposal.

Now I’d like a system for running high fantasy with action anime influences. Both high-fantasy and anime feature various SoD and SoL abilities, so getting rid of them is not an option. If you don’t have and can’t have paralyzing nerve strikes, blades that curse or poison people to death with a scratch, fear auras capable of routing small armies, and death rays in a system that claims such roots, you clearly need to get back to the drawing board.
But the thing is, in high-powered fiction such abilities tend to not work on people that aren’t clearly outclassed, at least not on the first attempt. That’s nothing strange, swords and guns, which, after all, also kill people, operate on the same basis there. Opponents only go down on the first attack if they are greatly inferior. You have to whittle down their strength, which in this system can be done by striking against Toughness, and until it is done, SoL abilities still can make your life easier by applying debuffs, weaker/brief effects of the abilities that can effectively end the battle at their maximum effect.
Last edited by FatR on Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

And on soak. I don't know if the first edition of Shadowrun worked any differently from 20th Anniversary edition I used to check the mechanics. Soak there functions along the general lines already familiar to me, except with less rolls but more fiddly bits.
The fundamental problem with it is that Shadowrun version also just isn’t intended to handle a game where offensive outputs of weak and powerful characters are officially supposed to differ not by 2-3 times tops, but by an order of magnitude, because an ogre is supposed to crush a commoner with a club like a bug, a hill giant is supposed to similarly crush an ogre, a storm giant is supposed to crush a hill giant, a tarrasque is supposed to crush a storm giant, and monsters using old Epic rules are supposed to crush a tarrasque. (And of course it is not hard to build a similar food chain using examples from your favorite fighting anime, or a lot of higher-powered fantasy series, for that matter.) Shit, even in OD&D high-end monsters could deliver 20 times more damage per attack than a lowly kobold or goblin was capable of.

After the size of soak pool expands beyond a few dice, unreliability of which gets keeps players on the edge of their seats, the whole system just stops producing any results I perceive as positive. Once numbers get high enough that you’d need a bucket of dice to roll for soak, you’d want to turn soak into a static number. It’s not like getting no successes at all on 25 or something dice is remotely likely anyway. Once soak is a static number or so high that it may as well be (or if it was a static number to begin with), it is no closer to my proposed Toughness system than to hit points. Both of the latter present an exhaustible resource instead of yet another static filter, unlike soak. And Even designers of Exalted realized that the double-filter systems sucks when soak can actually be pumped high enough to matter, that’s why they immediately tried to backpedal and make soak into nothing more than a stealth hit points increase through ping damage. Both of the latter make high-damage attacks more valuable, but do not entirely negate low-damage ones, unlike soak. And of course the proposed Toughness is different from soak in degrading when a character takes hits. I’m not trying to be defensive regarding the system on which I’m undecided myself, but I seriously don’t see the supposed similarity.
Trill
Knight
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 11:47 am

Post by Trill »

FatR wrote:I don't know if the first edition of Shadowrun worked any differently from 20th Anniversary edition I used to check the mechanics.
they work very differently and the problems you are seeing are there. AFAIK first edition used a proportional damage system, where you had 10 boxes (everybody had ten boxes) and the amount you filled in was dependent on the amount of net successes.
Symboldifference in rollsAmount filled
000 boxes
L11 box
M23 boxes
S36 boxes
D4+10 boxes

so a fight between a crab and a lobster and between godzilla and mothra would work the same, but a crab would never get enough net hits/successes to damage godzilla, while godzilla can just oneshot the crab
Frank wanted to make a conversion for 4e but was shot down, and instead he repurposed it for After Sundown
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Basically, exactly what Trill said. SR4 does many things right, but moving away from 1st through 3rd edition's LMSD wounds to White Wolf style wound boxes was a huge mistake and made scaling combat to tanks and dragons essentially impossible. In any case:
FatR wrote:Once numbers get high enough that you’d need a bucket of dice to roll for soak, you’d want to turn soak into a static number.
This is a general issue with dicepool games. There is a minimum and a maximum number of dice your system can roll before things start being stupid. If you want to roll less than 1 die you literally cannot, and if you want to roll more than 24 dice well you probably shouldn't. In either case, the "solution" is relatively clear, which is that you can have positive or negative auto-hits and keep the dicepools in the target region. So your hypothetical very small dog might roll 4 dice and subtract 3 hits rather than trying to roll negative six dice or whatever the fuck. Super Dragon can have 24 dice of toughness and then 14 auto-hits of damage soak rather than trying to roll 66 dice. And so on and so forth.

Of course, if you're doing a D&D hack, this probably isn't an issue. With the exception of the stupid fuckers trying to make roll under work, RPG random number generators other than dicepools already work like this. Whether you're rolling a d20 or 2d10 or whatever you're rolling the exact amount of randomness your game system has decided it wants and than adding static bonuses or penalties to that.

-Username17
User avatar
maglag
Duke
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

Post by maglag »

Trill wrote:Frank wanted to make a conversion for 4e but was shot down, and instead he repurposed it for After Sundown
Wait, I thought Frank only had tried to do work for PF and had given on 4e right away. Links/details please?
FrankTrollman wrote: Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

maglag wrote:
Trill wrote:Frank wanted to make a conversion for 4e but was shot down, and instead he repurposed it for After Sundown
Wait, I thought Frank only had tried to do work for PF and had given on 4e right away. Links/details please?
4th edition Shadowrun. Not 4th edition DnD. I offered to restore LMSD damage to Shadowrun 4, but the devs at the time wouldn't have it. Which was an error on their part.

Very few of the positions I took in disagreements on how to expand SR4 twelve years ago look bad in retrospect. There are things I would do differently now, obviously. But the general rule that Frank was right and they should have listened to Frank holds up well.

-Username17
Trill
Knight
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 11:47 am

Post by Trill »

maglag wrote:
Trill wrote:Frank wanted to make a conversion for 4e but was shot down, and instead he repurposed it for After Sundown
Wait, I thought Frank only had tried to do work for PF and had given on 4e right away. Links/details please?
SR4e, not DnD 4e. And the ruleset I mean is Alt.WAR
Trill
Knight
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 11:47 am

Post by Trill »

FrankTrollman wrote:Very few of the positions I took in disagreements on how to expand SR4 twelve years ago look bad in retrospect.
This made me curious: Which of your positions would you say were wrong in retrospect?
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

The LMSD damage system is certainly better than the usual soak. But the main thing I'm getting from the discussion and my own contemplations so far is that abandoning hit points just isn't worth the titanic amount of work and hassle.

The link for the current state of the rules if anyone is interested.
https://yadi.sk/d/EDAdisq63HWXjA
(I updated the link in the first post of the thread as well.)

I'd probably do an "official release" on the Homebrew Forum once I manage to force myself to compile various campaign materials and half-formed ideas into something like a setting readable for others and once we get to run at least one proper campaign into high levels.
Last edited by FatR on Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

FatR wrote:The LMSD damage system is certainly better than the usual soak. But the main thing I'm getting from the discussion and my own contemplations so far is that abandoning hit points just isn't worth the titanic amount of work and hassle.
Setting the growth of attack strength and damage soak is a titanic amount of work, but once you have the numbers they are just numbers that grow in a defined linear fashion and applying them in-game or to create new monsters and weapons is trivial. But setting hit point and damage growth is literally exactly the same titanic amount of work, so whatevs.

The core issue is that the statement "I want it to take X attacks from an enemy Y levels lower to drop a character." is a statement which implicitly demands an exponential growth of hit points and damage such that enemies 1 level larger have N times as many hit points. Now you can use rising Armor Classes and Damage Reduction abilities and such to lower N, but N is still always and forever going to be a positive number, and monsters 5 levels higher will thus have N*N*N*N*N as many hit points and monsters one level higher than that will have N*N*N*N*N*N as many hit points and so on.

LMSD damage is a logarithm in the sense that it changes the requirement that monsters have N times as many Hit Points to monsters of a higher level having N more Soak. The growth is linear rather than exponential. 5 levels higher the Soak value is just N+N+N+N+N. It never gets to the hundreds or thousands unless you decide that you want levels to go up to the hundreds or thousands.

You'll also note that once you include things like Damage Reduction steps, that hit points are more complicated to design and to use at the table, because you essentially have a Soak step anyway. So leaving aside issues of what you are willing to accept as the size of a number on the monster writeup of a Titan, LMSD damage is actually faster in-play.

Now the real bottom line is that the growth of hit points or the growth of soak values still requires you to articulate a vision for how many attacks you actually want people to have to deliver at Level + 1. And to come to grips with the fact that Level + 2 is in fact the transformation for Level + 1 applied twice. See the biggest problem for designing any of this is not finding a mathematical regression, but confronting the fact that most peoples' concept of what they want level differences to mean are not consistent and that there are divide by zero errors when you verbally describe all the greater than symbols in your ideal. Issues of whether you want or don't want to write down "237 hit points" on a character sheet are totally secondary to the fact that probably there are some pretty large inconsistencies in how you envision fights between groups of various sizes of stronger and weaker characters and monsters.

-Username17
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

Well at least that last bit explains why there is no given insight to the placement of monsters by level in the other thread.

That aside, FatR are you still contemplating what form you're going to have Hit Points in this far into your project or were your musings over it made much earlier than this and it's basically retreading thoughts you had on the subject much earlier than this. I ask because even in the limited time I've spent doing my own designing the HP/SoD+L things came up very early on (just as Frank described the issue with deciding HP totals no less) and I can't imagine how you could have so much material written so far and still be contemplating making a change to HP. I haven't read up on what you've decided to do with Save or Fuck you abilities but, if my experience so far has been any indicator, messing around with that kind of thing at this stage would be a colossal amount of work even if you didn't just decide to jettison HP as a thing.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

No, I just had nothing to do and no opportunity to run games for a few weeks, so that resulted in strange ideas. At the moment nearly all SoD/SoL abilities need to hit with two attacks to work, a hit on the initial attack gives some small effect, or the normal SoL effect for 1 round only, a hit on the confirmation gives the full effect.
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

An unusual question for TGD. Can anyone suggest a single word to serve as name for the class of attacks that cannot be avoided by one's physical movement? I.e., putting unblockable/undodgeable - as is the case with many DnD powers like fear or other mental effects that simply affect the target - in a single word, without sounding strange like "unaimed" or implying that the attack cannot be resisted at all, as with "unavoidable"?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

FatR wrote:An unusual question for TGD. Can anyone suggest a single word to serve as name for the class of attacks that cannot be avoided by one's physical movement? I.e., putting unblockable/undodgeable - as is the case with many DnD powers like fear or other mental effects that simply affect the target - in a single word, without sounding strange like "unaimed" or implying that the attack cannot be resisted at all, as with "unavoidable"?
Depends on what you want to imply. If they can't be dodged because they are too big, then you want something like "area attacks" or "explosion" or whatever. If they can't be dodged because they go straight to your brain, something like "psychic" would make sense. If they always hit because they are super accurate some word like "unerring" would be reasonable. If they can't be dodged because they are too fast, some word like "instant" would be plausible.

-Username17
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

I want to imply that the attack does not have a physical, tangible component that can be dodged or blocked normally. This includes mindscrew, illusions, magics like polymorphing others or curses for which you just need to have a target, radiation-like auras, and so on.
echoVanguard
Knight-Baron
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:35 pm

Post by echoVanguard »

"Indirect".

echo
Post Reply