AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Then, can you please be more clear. I beg pardon for asking but that past incident is a reasonably significant point of Amian history.

The more recent instance I only have scant details on so I can't say.. but there had been a rather grievious incident which was part of the major impetus to remove the Thayvians from the island (alongside other things).

Quote:

They are not flat out immune to damage. They are set to plot characters because the DM team does not want people killing NPC without their supervision. If you want to kill an NPC, call a DM of that respective location and I am certain he will be more than pleased to indulge your attempt.

Quote:

And Since it was posted, Dead I'm glad you brought up that point. You, if you really want to, CAN actually attack settlements and inflict damage under DM supervision. They just don't want someone on a random lark to go killing people in a rage and then have the PCs come to them after the fact with 'Hey I did this'

You see the problem here is putting more on the DMs plates, they're already overloaded. Take this topic for example apparently it's a subject that has been beaten to death, and the large majority of the population wants a change but it hasn't come. If that doesn't scream "Hey, DMs are probably overburdened as it is!" I don't know what would.

Players don't need DMs help to play a siege conflict, we're all mature enough to figure out how-to, and how-not-to go about a siege, and if we don't oh well, we can learn! To require a DM to interact with NPCs on such a basic level is frivolous and nixes a large asset that can be used to enhance the players' ability to interact with and mold the server, and isn't that what we're all on about anyways?

How do you create more intricate, complex and compelling conflict? Give players more tools to do just that, strip the necessity for DMs wherever possible.

Perhaps OOCly we should stop trying to win and try to create a good story along with the other members of Amia? After all we are a community. Of course, you should take actions to "stop" the evil, but why not have an agreement that he/she escapes? If not by the skin of his teeth? Then both sides have something to talk about for a while, instead of deciding how OOCly things will be handled. Lets be honest here, is it really fun to have like 15 people gank 5? Or would it have been more fun to have the 5 retreating under fire, elusive to the do-gooders? This is along the lines of 'to change the game we must change ourselves'.

Easier said then done, of course.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

I've got an idea, but no time to spell it out. But the jist of it is an Amian Alcatraz. A maximum security penitentiary where bad criminals can be sent and Rp together while captive. Somewhere that rescue attempts can try and fail or succeed without interrupting or inconveniencing the Goodly intended RP. So it's not the Kohlingar's fault for letting the prisoners get away. It's the Alcatraz. But it's also no longer their problem, either. They don't have to manage to police a bunch of captives (For what is admittedly a small jail).

My other Character Caige tried this and found that everyone said it was useless because you can just "Kill them and be done with it"

Yeah? Say hello to alignment evil :lol:

Quote:

And Since it was posted, Dead I'm glad you brought up that point. You, if you really want to, CAN actually attack settlements and inflict damage under DM supervision. They just don't want someone on a random lark to go killing people in a rage and then have the PCs come to them after the fact with 'Hey I did this'

Uh Yeah. The drow have tried to schedule -and- improvise -and- flat out spontaneously asked in the DM chatt if somebody wanted to supervise an attack

Not in six months. Not even once. I am still extremely disappointed.

Yeah, that's a thing too. The captives would likely have to be delivered alive. And a lot of the guards work would be keeping inmates from killing each other- Especially because its a viable method of escape. To die and get raised, that is. So with some understandings, you could probably avoid this from turning cheap, by mentioning that people who murder others to set them free will likely be captured and imprisoned in stricter settings (Solitary confinement). And have a team of neutral clerics on board.

But even if they escape, there's rp to be had. The prison can hire bounty hunters to discretely return escaped inmates. It's got a reputation to uphold.

You could have mages in 'towers' counterspelling magical inmates. Guard NPC's nearby so inmate violence is curbed without DM supervision, but small stuff and conversational Rp would be totally free. Basically saying- You could try to kill yourself, or others, but that would invite steep consequences. Same with hellballing and area, or something. As a prisoner, you don't want to fail and then be kept in Solitary, because then you don't get RP.

The idea of the prison is to make and foster compelling and developing RP inside the prison, so that its done in a way that players don't -want- to leave it, OOCly. At least, not right away. Evil folks might find friends on the inside, for example. Sporting players might love the character development of being an inmate, regardless of alignment. Even if your entire faction is imprisoned, you basically become a jail faction. Different than the direction you may have once sought, but you could find power still on the inside, with the right people. And then once you break free in some epic fashion, you've suddenly now become badass.

Thing is, you're basically describing one of EFU's setups. This isn't sophistry or anything; it's a very good setup. The scope, however, is essentially that of a server of its own.

It would be at the very least a microclimate. But it would have to be tailored in a way to allow for any DM to assume its NPC's whenever they felt like providing RP to the inmates when they're online. I'll flesh out some details, and see what kind of picture I get. Would make for a good Alternate Beginnings, with late-game functionality for the whole server.

As Pony said, every time this discussion is sparked, bunch of improvements are mentioned, raise dead, healing pots and prison area (this is like 2nd or 3rd time that the prison idea is mentioned) are discussed, and then the thread dies, only to be re-opened 2 years later.

How about constructive suggestions are moved to Improving Amia, and instead of discussion, some of the ideas are pushed into motion?

KingArthur129 wrote:

Perhaps OOCly we should stop trying to win and try to create a good story along with the other members of Amia

As far as changes go, I can take or leave them as they do not impact my enjoyment of the server. But unfortunately for most of you, you aren't me.

So if there is anything I might be able to do to help make that happen, well, I will try.

Bleh, seems I am compelled to make another post here after all. If you play on a persistent world, where roleplay drives story and affects characters, wanting full and absolute control of your own characters is a hypocritical and selfish stance. It comes down to wanting to be able to affect the world, just the world not affecting you in a way you do not want it to.

Not everyone (obvious and understated) is happy with the how things are. Trying to keep the status qou means you are not making everyone happy, you are choosing to back those who do not want to give anyone but themselves the tools to affect the world. That players have left and continue to leave as conflict roleplay on Amia does not work seems to be completly ignored, while many use the example of people possibly leaving if there are consequences to counter change.

The only way you can affect the other players in the game world currently is through destroying what others build and protect (attacking the banite keep, assassinating NPCs, and the like), while you yourself can not be penalized for doing so. That approach is flawed and frustrating, and it has never worked and it will not work. Especially if you consider that the horde attacking the banite keep had absolutely nothing to lose, while they were able to wipe out months of work.

And that is one of the biggest reasons why we get ooc whine attacks. Person sneaks into kohlingen, murders civilians, and there is nothing that can be done to stop him. Person visits the dale or amia forest, contineously causes trouble, and nothing can be truly done. So the balance and check to this flawed system, are the out of character disputes that generally lead to one side leaving at some point.

Ransom's and prisoner swaps I think would be a good way to go about things just as long as it didn't get out of hand, and if both sides would come to an understanding on turf skirmishes i think it would clear up a lot of frustration on both sides. Pick your battlefields wisely and always know a calculated retreat is an option.

Personally I'm scared to death of pvp on this server. Not of the conflict itself but the possibility of being banned for it. Most players that do a lot of pvp and do it from an evil perspective seem to get banned. I play almost always evil characters but in the time I've been here have got involved in pvp probably half a dozen times only. Many players view conflict as being rude and insulting to other characters and then leave when things escalate.

I realize this is an RP server but maybe we need an open pvp area. Perhaps a lawless region where evil groups can do their scheming and evil to poor caravans and pilgrims while good characters come to save the innocents and battle evil. Personally hate the conflict and

For me and my family that play here the appeal to Amia is that it has something to offer for everyone.

Actually, Pony, we've been told that given the state of martial law in these major cities that clandestine operations inside them, and attempts to make impacts against their civilians population, army, etc will be grounds for permanent consequences.

Wicket sneaking into Cordor and doing what she did was done at the risk of permanent capture for her character.

So while that may have once been the case, offensive operations against another city now are grounds for serious IC consequences. No matter which city. I know Tarkuul just gave some very serious consequences to a player who had affronted them in the past, and those involved in the aftermath against the city are equally at risk of being permakilled.

The stance we've been given is that if you're trying to affect a city like that, that you're putting your character at risk of heightened consequences. So sneaking into Kohlingen and kidnapping civilians? Our characters run the risk of being captured alive and imprisoned in maximum security anti-magic without room for the 24 hour "get out of jail free" card. And if they're not rescued, it is to be considered a permanent 'death'.

Had we returned with the rest of our number that wasn't just killed, and tried to attack the Kohlingen troops stationed in the swamps-- we would have been liable to have been permakilled, if we failed.

My understanding now is that if you have a base with supported NPC's and a means for properly defending yourself, that there are much higher consequences at stake. In the defense of your base or city, the offensive folks are at risk of permanent consequences. After all-- they are trying to make permanent offensive impacts in the enemy's forces. So it is only fair that they too suffer the risk of being permanently killed.

That being said, the Thayans don't have a defensible, NPC supported base. Which is why these first few months of play, a faction can be very, very vulnerable. You have to play it smart, bide your time.

I don't get it.

People debate about changes they want and refuse to do it themselves without it mechanicly being enforced? Why? It's less valid for people if the entire server isn't subjected to the same?

I don't think the prison is a good idea since there rarely would be enough prisoners to keep them entertained. I doubt it would be much fun for long to be in prison with the same three others for days on end.
Splitting of a portion of the players from the others doesn't sound like a sound idea to me either.

I think 'team neutral' doesn't pander to 'team good' at all and doesn't snub at 'team evil' either unless said evil bit them before.
But I don't think anyone would let Harry macbabyeater in town anymore after he set the neighboring town on fire. That's common sense.
I think 'team evil' has to pick their fights and especially their allies carefully.

Grymia, Hackums pretty clearly explains there were two incidents, one in the past with fire, one recent without fire.

Quote:

I know an orphanage fire happened a long time ago by an old Thayan group. I was under the impression that BornToKill was referencing the recent orphanage dilemma involving Thayans, in which there was no fire.

Hudson wrote:

But I don't think anyone would let Harry macbabyeater in town anymore after he set the neighboring town on fire. That's common sense.

So, why is Cordor letting anything from drow over goblins over Ogrillons into town again? And why does this fly? Why is a town council that allows this not kicked out of office or outright hung by their populace? How does Cordor justify demanding taxes from people in its outlaying farms while allowing the very same creatures who pillage them into town to do business and trade with the goods stolen from Cordor's own citizens?

Why aren't Cordor's people opening the gates for their Amnish liberators?

If you want players to show, and respect, common sense, you need to do your part to curb outright nonsense as well.

Hudson wrote:

I don't get it.

People debate about changes they want and refuse to do it themselves without it mechanicly being enforced? Why? It's less valid for people if the entire server isn't subjected to the same?

We few here on this topic, or even 95% of all players can do it, but if its not enforced, then those 5% of assholes really ruin the experience.

I think you're bordering on unconstructive feedback, BornToKill. Again, the information you are citing is simply incorrect. That's three times now in this conversation. Your points are made only after ample exaggeration. Please alter your method of feedback, or refrain from posting it.

The information I'm citing is the Cordor ban list. If it is incorrect, please fix it.

I can see what you mean Flame but I'd say those 5% should be avoided then pvp wise if they don't want to get what they give.

Enforcing mechanical penalties wouldn't solve it I fear as they can find ways around that too (Logging on another toon for one.)

BoT, pretty much what Hackums said.

The drow part is explained by the work done by the Eilistraeens who are well regarded in Cordor North due to past contributions and the tax paying farmers want them to be able to enter, a blanket ban on all drow would force them out too.

Your comments aren't constructive and chide players such as the Cordor guards and other inhabitants of Cordor who have a hand in shaping such laws. If you want your questions answered do so ingame.
I am sure afore mentioned groups can enlighten any of your toons if asked.

The players are fine. If I had a city of thousands as my willing minions who swallow whatever I tell them without a word of protest, I'd run things however I liked, too. There is more to running a city than just making a law and saying "it is so". However, anything beyond that is out of the players' hands.

Legislature has consequences, even in a feudal system or a dictatorship. It's not just lawbreakers who need DM oversight to see how the NPCs react, it's lawmakers as well.

Of course, you are going to tell me this oversight already exists.

Hudson wrote:

I can see what you mean Flame but I'd say those 5% should be avoided then pvp wise if they don't want to get what they give.

Enforcing mechanical penalties wouldn't solve it I fear as they can find ways around that too (Logging on another toon for one.)

Im fine with them logging to another character, because it removes their character from circulation, due to needing bedrest, or what have you.

I'm going to respond to the original post about good conflict

Conflicts evolve and end, if your game is going to be directly instigating PC conflict then you should be prepared to accept and willing to embrace your faction's or PC's demise. And that's not really a bad thing because that's how conflict goes, plus going out in a blaze of glory is pretty awesome. (and personally I'd rather my characters get perma'd than resigning them to the archive)

That said, direct conflict doesn't need to end in your character's or faction's death, rather acceptance that the party needs to take a good break. Better short and sweet than long and tired.

Genar_Detkasa wrote:

I'm going to respond to the original post about good conflict

Conflicts evolve and end, if your game is going to be directly instigating PC conflict then you should be prepared to accept and willing to embrace your faction's or PC's demise. And that's not really a bad thing because that's how conflict goes, plus going out in a blaze of glory is pretty awesome. (and personally I'd rather my characters get perma'd than resigning them to the archive)

That said, direct conflict doesn't need to end in your character's or faction's death, rather acceptance that the party needs to take a good break. Better short and sweet than long and tired.

Normally i'd agree, but when our enemies have massive, thousand man npc armies,and literally ~no~ chance of defeat against us...it makes conflict rather difficult.

What your saying makes it sound like anyone who wants conflict should be willing to perma their characters, which I just do not agree with.

Difficult, not impossible.

It makes it difficult for when we approach the issue as a 10 man group. But if we acquire NPC's, and play the Amian political game, we can mash our armies together and cause more effective mayhem.

It is not a problem if they log onto another toon. It is good if they do that. The proposed system is not about punishing the player. It is about adding ic consequences to conflict roleplay, not ooc consequences for players.

And if you want players to handle it themselves, then add the system on an optional basis as I suggested on the testers forum to get the ball rolling. For those who do not have access to the tester forum, here was my write up for it.

PvP and PvM Standard and Advanced Consequences Toggle System

This is not a new suggestion of mine, but one that I have rewritten and altered a bit and wanted to run by you all one more time.

The basic idea is to give players and DMs the option to adjust the PvP and PvM settings for encounters. Players have the option to change the setting once each reset. DMs can override the settings for events if they wish to. If the same type of light wound is inflicted twice, it instead activated the corresponding serious wound.

So the players can choose if they want to play Amia in the way we all know, or if they might want to spice things up with adding a bit of risk. DMs have the option to toggle the options for players, if they want, to give certain events or plots a bit more risk when the stakes are higher.

You can select one option for which PvM you want to play on, and one option on which PvP mode you want to play on. Here would be the options:

Quote:

1.) PvM Mode I - Standard

- As it is now. Characters do not suffer wounds upon death inflicted by NPCs.
2.) PvM Mode II - Advanced

- If this option is activated, characters can suffer wounds upon death from NPCs.

Quote:

1.) PvP Mode I - Standard

- As it is now. Characters do not suffer wounds upon death inflicted by other player characters.
2.) PvP Mode II - Advanced, Limited

- If this option is acticated, player characters can suffer wounds upon death from other player characters who have this mode activated.
4.) PvP Mode II - Advanced, Complete

- If this option is activated, characters can suffer wounds upon death from all other player characters. Regardless of what modes their opponent has activated.

Wounding System:

If a player character is killed in a manner corresponding to his advanced settings, a wound roll is made. A wound is a penalty that the character suffers for a duration of a time, which can stack if characters suffer more than one death.

Light Wounds can be removed with the use of Greater Restoration. They last for one week unless removed. If three light wounds are already in effect, a serious wound is instead inflicted.

Serious Wounds last for two weeks. They can not be removed. If three serious wounds are already in effect, a character is critically wounded. If the same type of serious wounds are inflicted twice, it instead inflicts a critcal wound. The same occurs if a serious wound is already inflicted (like Severe Head Trauma), and the corresponding light wound is inflicted (Head Trauma).

Critical Wounds last for two weeks. A character suffers -3 to all attributes, -5 to saves, - 5 to skills and -20% to movement speed. If another wound is inflicted, the time refreshes.

Ressurection Spells add a negative modifier of -10 to the roll, allowing a chance for no wounds to be taken. This means they also prevent the danger of Critical Wounds from a Wound Roll, unless 3 serious wounds have already been received.

Quote:

1. Wounding Table PvM (d100)
-10 to 0 No Wound
1-90 Light Wound
91-99 Serious Wound

2. Wounding Table PvP (d100)
-10 to 0 No Wound
1-50 Light Wound
51-97 Serious Wound
98-99 Critical Wound

Quote:

1. Light Wounding Table (d100)
1 - 20 Mildly Impaired Sight and Hearing (-10 to Spot and Listen)
21 - 35 Head Trauma (- 1 intelligence, - 1 wisdom, - 5 concentration)
36 - 50 Broken Arm (- 1 strength, - 1 dexterity, - 1 attack bonus)
51 - 65 Broken Leg (-1 dexterity, - 1 constitution, - 1 armor class, -10% to movement speed)
66 - 80 Broken Rip (-1 constitution, - 5 discipline)
81 -95 Broken Jaw (-1 charisma)
95 - 100 Serious Wound

2. Serious Wound Table (d100)
1 - 5 Light Wound
5 - 20 Severe Head Trauma (-2 intelligence, -2wisdom, -5concentration)
21 - 35 Shattered Arm (-2strength, -2dexterity, -2attack bonus)
36 - 50 Shattered Leg (-2dexterity, -2consitution, -2armor class, -20% to movement speed, -10 to MS and Hide)
51 - 65 Shattered Rip (-2constitution, -5 discipline)
66 - 80 Shattered Jaw (-2charisma)
80 - 95 Impaired Sight and Hearing (-20 to Spot and Listen)
95 - 100 Critical Wound

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Difficult, not impossible.

It makes it difficult for when we approach the issue as a 10 man group. But if we acquire NPC's, and play the Amian political game, we can mash our armies together and cause more effective mayhem.

Oh yes, ~I~ know this now, working with our group, but others may not. I know if you want to make an impact you need to go about it a certain way, and it can take a long time.

The problem is surviving that long.

I dig it. I wouldn't mind experimenting with it for a while. And it seems like it's voluntary, unless a DM plot. But the DM plots are usually well-received for bearing consequences anyway.

I like it.

How would it go through the reset though?
And how would the heal skill be applied to this?
Would the hospital areas give faster healing?

Mr. Hackums wrote:

I dig it. I wouldn't mind experimenting with it for a while. And it seems like it's voluntary, unless a DM plot. But the DM plots are usually well-received for bearing consequences anyway.

Yes and no... In my years I have seen some out to lunch DM plots/monsters because they lacked the grasp of balance, and in truth given how the last year or so more and more DMs replies on DC request forums are "I'm fine if Sune is" "As soon as Suney is happy with the balance, I'm ok with this." "Sune covers the other balance aspects."...ect

And you may thing what does that have to do with it, well DC requests is our stuff, has long lasting consequences as we keep it for good and effect everything around us, most small random DM plots are gone in a few days and if you get nuked by OP hitler monster that's super unbalanced and die, you get a raise and no big problem or long lasting negative effects to one self so players grumble a bit and fluff it off.

But if said DMs who have a bit less grasp on balance now start doing long lasting consequences with their super unbalanced monsters, it wont be fluffed off. I have had to fight a ton of monsters with +7 and higher weapons, 2d12 element damage on weapons and tons of other crazy stuff, I stand by if I'm expected to kill that IC and I do, I get to loot every damn thing off his body... AKA don't give monsters stuff you don't want us to loot and if we do claim its unbalanced for players.... but it was unbalanced when the monster kind of used it.

Erm, no. Off subject, but no.

A monster's chest piece might have a ridiculous amount of powers on it, but that's because it's the only piece of equipment we're giving the monster. Sorry that you would prefer us instead to make every single ring, boot, belt, helmet, and necklace of a suitable power, so that the package becomes what the original armor piece, together, was.

So when we say, "that item is too powerful for players, it wasn't supposed to drop, give it back" it's because that -one- item represents an entire gearset with magical buffs. And of -course- that's not balanced for a player.

@ Dead:

If there is enough support for it, so that the DM team will decide that it is worth the attempt, I would think we would start with a General Discussion on the specific concept. The community can bring in their ideas and thoughts. Once we got a good amount of ideas and thoughts collected, we would move it to the tester or design forum for finalization. The specific type of wounds, their penalities and their chances for example would all need to be considered more closely before a release.

We would also not need to start with everything set in place, but it could be expanded on it time. So for example, the heal skill and hospitial aspect could factor into it in the future, but it does not need to right away. What is most important is to have a simple working mechanic, that we can improve and build upon for the future.

My idea for the reset mechanic is that the option you activated during your last session is the one in place. In the first thirty minutes of your new session you can change it via the rest menu, and then it remains locked until the next reset once more. You can adjust it both for Amia A and Amia B. DMs of course have a widget to remove the effects, if you get griefed or you get plot cured.

Flameborn wrote:

Genar_Detkasa wrote:

Yabbering

Normally i'd agree, but when our enemies have massive, thousand man npc armies,and literally ~no~ chance of defeat against us...it makes conflict rather difficult.

What your saying makes it sound like anyone who wants conflict should be willing to perma their characters, which I just do not agree with.

I'm saying people who make instigating PC conflict the primary drive of their character should be open to perma'ing that character. What better way to send off such a character than having them dying in the conflict they've sought to create? I think it makes conflict more meaningful, plus it adds a real element of risk for yourself which is what conflict is about.

What is detrimental to conflict RP is a 'death is cheap' mentality and the onus of combating that is on the players.

As players of PCs who instigate conflict, we shouldn't just think about creating conflict, but also what consequences we're willing to accept for the conflict we want to happen.

When we talk about creating "conflict," I think of it as chaotic. People are removed from the field for good, the dynamics of power shift and change. It can be serious stuff.
That said, it isn't necessarily a zero sum game either.

Flameborn wrote:

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Difficult, not impossible.

It makes it difficult for when we approach the issue as a 10 man group. But if we acquire NPC's, and play the Amian political game, we can mash our armies together and cause more effective mayhem.

Oh yes, ~I~ know this now, working with our group, but others may not. I know if you want to make an impact you need to go about it a certain way, and it can take a long time.

The problem is surviving that long.

I see your point FB but allow me an example to highlight my feelings on that issue.

As an example, what if ten or twenty people all roll a mage, level up to thirty in a week or two and then all toss a hellball at Tarkuul simultaniously (Or any settlement) or all disjunct Tarkuul and expect it to plunge in the sea. Should Tarkuul be reduced to a smouldering rock or neo Atlantis? I don't think so.

The reason why not is how would that be taken by those that sunk years into Tarkuul and building it up and making it the awesome place it is (Players like Dead, NC, Azure, Bob, Silk and Glim as DM ofcourse) - It'd expect it'd be a slap in their faces at the very least. People who maybe spend a month or two on their toons would undo years and years of investment and rp.

That's the main reason why I personally am hesistant with plots of (mass) destruction (especially by characters that are not all that long around.)

I think people have to consider the above carefully when going for pvp and when picking fights. Set goals accordingly and carefully and start with building up something for yourself before you seek to destroy.
That way consequences would go both way as your home/base/work can be ruined as well even if you seek to undo another's home/base/work even moreso as character death (The only real thing you can suffer if you don't have much investment otherwise) doesn't mean all that much.

If you don't have nearly as much to lose as the opponent I'd say the ante isn't fair.

I hope that makes sense.

I am all for wounds systems as long as it is used with mutual consent (Preferably agreed on before a battle.)
The only real weakness I see in the pvp wounds table is that the wounds you receive aren't decide by chance alone but also by the victorious opponent.

I'm interested in the general idea of a wound system, Pony, but what you've got there seems... maybe a bit over-complicated? I'd maybe contemplate a way simpler version, something like, if a character is forced to bear a light wound, they can't be healed beyond 75% of their hp total for those two weeks you mention; a serious wound means they'd not be able to be healed beyond 50% for two weeks. So they'd have to walk around with "Injured" or "Badly Wounded" floating over their heads, and could RP the specific nature of the injury as they pleased.

"But Liz," someone is about to argue, "why wouldn't that damage be able to be cured IC by a normal Regen or Cure X Wounds spell?" Well, good question. I don't know. But a Regen or Cure Wounds spell should be able to heal a bruised eye or cracked rib, too. Did you have a thought in mind on that, Pony? Why does it take the relatively awesome power of a Greater Restoration to cure something as routine as a cracked bone?

Last edited by Pony on Tue, Jul 15 2014, 12:44 PM, edited 1 time in total.

The Forgotten Realms as a setting are not dominated by characters of level fifteen to thirty. That is why in the novels, you do not have this lack of believablity that Amia has. If you read the Cormyr novels, when King Azoun was wounded there were not twenty clerics available to cast greater restoration without breaking a sweat.

We play in a custom version of the Forgotten Realms, and because of the way leveling works and our character cap work, we have begun to adjust spells and abilities to remove the extreme aspect of a high fantasy setting being multiplied in terms of high fantasy fifty times over. That is why a hellball is no longer able to flatten a whole city district, summoning spells do not get you a planetar or pit fiend, monsters have been scaled up so not a single character can with ease defeat an ancient red wyrm, raise dead spells require a cooldown, etc.

We apply the same concept to healing spells. Yes, in the custom amia-forgotten realms setting there are now hundreds of priests that have access to mass heal and greater sanctuary instead of a few very rare ones. However, to balance that out again these spells are not quite as strong as in their pnp counterpart. Instead of Greater Restoration being an insant cure it all, it is an immensely powerful spell that can remove considerable physical harm and affliction from a body.

Why? Because it either was always the case, or AO simply decided that the gods were giving too much divine power to their servants, or the gods decided that their faithful have begun to abuse their their blessings, and hence they should once again begin to learn the value of life and that divine gifts have a greater meaning entrusted with the paragons of their faith. IT can be left up to speculation why it occured, as what ever power changed this hardly will feel obligated to justify itself to the mortals of the prime material.

Because Mystra decided to change the nature of the spells (as we always say IG when some spell undergoes a balance change).

Pony wrote:

The Forgotten Realms as a setting are not dominated by characters of level fifteen to thirty. That is why in the novels, you do not have this lack of believablity that Amia has. If you read the Cormyr novels, when King Azoun was wounded there were not twenty clerics available to cast greater restoration without breaking a sweat.

We play in a custom version of the Forgotten Realms, and because of the way leveling works and our character cap work, we have begun to adjust spells and abilities to remove the extreme aspect of a high fantasy setting being multiplied in terms of high fantasy fifty times over. That is why a hellball is no longer able to flatten a whole city district, summoning spells do not get you a planetar or pit fiend, monsters have been scaled up so not a single character can with ease defeat an ancient red wyrm, raise dead spells require a cooldown, etc.

We apply the same concept to healing spells. Yes, in the custom amia-forgotten realms setting there are now hundreds of priests that have access to mass heal and greater sanctuary instead of a few very rare ones. However, to balance that out again these spells are not quite as strong as in their pnp counterpart. Instead of Greater Restoration being an insant cure it all, it is an immensely powerful spell that can remove considerable physical harm and affliction from a body.

Why? Because it either was always the case, or AO simply decided that the gods were giving too much divine power to their servants, or the gods decided that their faithful have begun to abuse their their blessings, and hence they should once again begin to learn the value of life and that divine gifts have a greater meaning entrusted with the paragons of their faith. IT can be left up to speculation why it occured, as what ever power changed this hardly will feel obligated to justify itself to the mortals of the prime material.

Yeah. Part of me wishes this were not so, but when you take a game that was intended for a small group of tabletoppers in a world micromanaged by a single DM and then try to make it a large multiplayer, you either scale the challenge into levels of ridiculous (world-ending plots and planar adventures) or you water down the insta-epic masses so that you can avoid manufacturing a world populated by world-destroyers.

Or you level cap at level 10, but that option is out of the question.

I get the power creep argument and I'm all on board with it, truly. But this is a bit different, in that you're not talking about giving some certain monster an extra +1 to its claws, or some certain NPC guard an extra +10 to Spot, or nerfing a specific unbalanced spell. You're talking about scaling down every spell that heals. That's a *lot* of spells, and it would be a significant blow to one of the core aspects of D&D, the healer cleric. I'm of the opinion that the healer aspects of the cleric class are already marginalized enough, with every PC on the server being able to function as a pocket cleric by spending a few thousand gp on scrolls and potions. I think if anything, we should be scaling clerical healing magic *up* in power, though that's not likely ever to happen, I acknowledge.

I'm going to say one last thing in this thread:

If you want meaningful conflict, you need to toss anything along the lines of "seniority" out of the window. It should not be a factor how long or how much effort you have put into something. If you want conflict, predetermining the ending is the biggest mistake you can make. But thank you for telling us. It's good to know.

@ Liz

I disagree and I agree. I do not feel this system makes clerics less relevant. If we gave no advantages to clerics in this system, the balance between clerics and none-clerics would remain the same. They would both just be a little bit less effective, because neither cure-it-all work.

However, given that I agree with the sentiment that clerics should be more useful htan pocket-clerics, this was already added in my suggestion. Clerics for example have a -10 modifier on wound rolls when casting ressurection. This results in a greater chance that no wound is taken, and removes the danger of a critical wound being inflicted on death when rolling on the wound tables. Clerics hence automatically are better healers than pocket healer. In the future, we can even expand on it. Perhaps those with a healing domain like the Salandrans get a -15 instead of a -10 modifier on the rolls. Perhaps for every 10 ranks in heal (not gear) you get another -1 modifier for the rolls. Perhaps a wound can allow a single heal check every 3 days with a DC of 95 for removal, making the healing skill more relevant as well.

So there are very easy ways in taking this general concept a step further.

Bot, your posts really give me the feeling you have very little feeling about what's actually going on the server and I think you are far more active on the forum then ingame.

Quote:

It should not be a factor how long or how much effort you have put into something

Effort is what's all about on Amia.

Quote:

That is why a hellball is no longer able to flatten a whole city district, summoning spells do not get you a planetar or pit fiend, monsters have been scaled up so not a single character can with ease defeat an ancient red wyrm, raise dead spells require a cooldown, etc.

Those cases are quite a differance from not being able to cure a serious wound as epic level cleric. I think Liz does make a good point there.
I think a better route would be claiming the body can accept only so much healing energy in a certain period instead of scaling down healing spells so drasticly.

You could be cured fine once per day or maybe per week but beyond that the body would be 'spend' so additional healing beyond the light stage wouldn't function well at all. Not because the spell is so weak but because the body is too drained to respond to it.

Would be nice if it ever happened, though still a bit light in penalties/RP for me. Still, I will only hold the sail on this ship steady, since pulling it in too many directions never works.

By the way, Pony's post about level scaling is spot on. IMO, "why don't you just use a heal potion, or greater restoration" in my opinion, is lame. Amians are all running around with superficial god like power. It would be nice if we didn't act like we had that power once in a while.

As long as the wound system works, and you do not tune it down to become irrelevant, I do not mind if you justify it with the body not being able to take more or if the gods are just sick that the mortals are tossing around incredibly powerful ressurection and greater restorations spells like they were fireworks on the 4th of July. It is the mechanic that needs to work, and I think we have enough ways to make that work ic.

Important is that if you want consequences, healing can not be an instant cure it all and there needs to be recovery time for it to matter. Loopholing the system with ways to avoid that makes it reduntant. And I do not care in your mind if that is justified or not, because your arguement for it will fall flat either way. You can either say we play in the Forgotten Realms, and then we should have a level cap because there is no island of four hundred level 30 player demi-gods, with another one thousand level 40 npc uber-demi gods to keep us in check. Especially not these type of demi-gods that rise from a kobold hunter to a dragon slayer in a week. Or you can say we play in a custom version of the Forgotten Realms, and then we have the leeway to change how these spells work.

Edit @ Mimiron

Yes, those penalties are light for me as well. But it would be a great step forward, and after 5 years of us not doing anything about it even this would be a huge improvement. It can be improved and work upon in the times to come.

Hm, those are some sensible refinements, Pony. I'd argue for better bonuses for Heal skill ranks than you've suggested, but I agree you're making the system way less of a screwing of healer characters with those additions. I could get behind something like what you're suggesting. (Though I'd still say that simpler is better.)

I'd like to see things as scaled down powerwise (not levelwise!) but then everything has to be scaled down the same amount.

That means we can't wittle down healing powers too much without doing it around the table, hence me suggesting a slightly differant pov which will net a similar result and not diminish healing power from clerics and druids so drasticly.

Very devoted healers (Salandrians) would even have reason to start studying the body more closely to see why the healing doesn't take infinitively and they can even look to cure small wounds by other means (herblore) as to avoid taxing the body.

I think finding a way to make it believable quite important though, as important as the actual mecanics are.

How to garner positive conflict.

Who is online