Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

 
WitchHunterRegault Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Champion

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 32
Reply | Quote
Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


A unique situation came up the other day in an randomly generated dungeon and I wanted to get the general consensus of this forum on the matter. I'll simplify on the details of how all this came about and just present the relevant facts:

A necromancer was generated and after trying to kill him and failing, the Warriors opted to flee in the opposite direction. They prevented the Necromancer from following by creating a Pit of Despair in a corridor, effectively cutting the Necromancer off from the warriors.

Since the Necromancer is still on the board, does he continue to cast spells against the Warriors and summon more and more monsters to fill up his portion of the board section, or do we just assume the Necromancer can leap the pit and give chase?

Most of the enemy spells in the RPB do not indicate that the caster must be on the same board section or even in a line of sight to cast most of their spells. Instead, they just indicate that a counter should be drawn to determine the target. Presumably, it's assumed that the warriors aren't going to be very far from the monsters they are fighting.

I ended up ruling that the Necromancer would wait until he could see the Warriors again before casting any more spells. As it happened, the warriors ended up taking a different path altogether and found the objective room without having to dispatch the Necromancer.

What do you guys think about this situation?
22/Jul/2006, 3:02 am Link to this post Send Email to WitchHunterRegault   Send PM to WitchHunterRegault
 
thecustodian Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2003
Location: The Temple
Posts: 809
Reply | Quote
Re: Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


Is Line of Sight an issue I wonder?
22/Jul/2006, 3:34 am Link to this post Send Email to thecustodian   Send PM to thecustodian
 
WitchHunterRegault Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Champion

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 32
Reply | Quote
Re: Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


I would think that would matter only if the spell indicates it. In a game with no GM, monsters with missle weapons choose their target by counters, and it looks like that's mostly the case with the spells.

When a Warrior casts spells, the spells are all very specific about which monsters are eligible (on the board section, on the board, in line of sight, etc.), but that's because they get to think about who they want to attack and why. The player-controlled monsters don't get that luxury, so...
22/Jul/2006, 4:24 am Link to this post Send Email to WitchHunterRegault   Send PM to WitchHunterRegault
 
AncientNomad Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord

Registered: 04-2004
Location: In the graveyard
Posts: 102
Reply | Quote
Re: Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


I guess I would roleplay the situation. Usually me and a friend plays and we decide things like this as we see fit.
But I would probably let the necromancer stay put and cast his spells until the warriors left him in the dark or so.
28/Jul/2006, 3:30 am Link to this post Send Email to AncientNomad   Send PM to AncientNomad
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1273
Reply | Quote
Re: Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


In the scenario you give, I would let the necromancer cast the directly damaging spells only on warriors in LOS.

However, the summoning spells state that the monsters summoned are to be placed "on the board" and they "may move and fight this turn". It doesn't limit this to the same board section as the necromancer. Therefore, I see a great opportunity for the necromancer to place the monsters on the other side of the pit of despair to give chase to the warriors. I really like to see the warriors running for their lives. emoticon

But, again, I would likely require LOS to the place where the summoned monsters would appear. Otherwise, the necromancer could send his minions instantly to pin and attack the warriors anywhere on the board.

---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
31/Jul/2006, 2:08 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
WitchHunterRegault Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Champion

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 32
Reply | Quote
Re: Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


I think from now on I'll only make targets in Line of Sight eligible, with "Summon X" spells being castable anywhere on the casters board section (including the other side of the pit!)

On a related note - When playing a GM'd game, does the GM pick the spells the cast each turn, or should it be left to the random roll on the spell tables?

-Regault
2/Aug/2006, 1:15 am Link to this post Send Email to WitchHunterRegault   Send PM to WitchHunterRegault
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1273
Reply | Quote
Re: Opinion Poll - Evil Spellcasters


I think GMs would normally roll on the random tables, but of course a GM may do whatever he thinks best. I would think that even a GM (most of them anyway) would enjoy not knowing exactly what comes next.

I almost always do the random rolling, because I think that generally represents the unpredictability of the evil magic users, while keeping the GM (myself in this case) from going too easy on the warriors. Though, I think a designed sequence of what spells are cast might be interesting depending upon the storyline.

Here's an idea:

Since you are developing a treasure card system, I might suggest doing spell card decks for each type of evil magic user (orc spells, neromancer spells, and etc). This way you could generally determine the chance of certain spells being cast, while still maintaining the sense of randomness. Especially when dealing with magic users at higher levels, I would think the spell decks would need to get larger to avoid having to reshuffle very often. Maybe for Monster Table 1 a couple rounds of each spell mixed into the deck, but at Monster Table 10 maybe 4 or 5 rounds of spells.

Of course, if you did use spell decks, you might want to purposely change their composition from time to time when used with the same group of players, so that they wouldn't be able to "count cards". Imagine an orc shaman having immediately used the only two Brain Bursta spels in the deck and some really smart players figuring out that they now have FOURTEEN whole turns before that potentially deadly spell will get reshuffled into the deck. emoticon

Just thinking about the possbilities here almost makes me wish I were GMing games with players in the actual tabletop game. But, I only GM online and then play solo also on my computer. I don't have the physical stuffs around anymore. Real life crowded it out I guess. emoticon

Last edited by OldWarrior, 2/Aug/2006, 5:10 am


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
2/Aug/2006, 5:08 am Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)