|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 5:29PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Maybe I missed it but where in the rules does it say a wizard that takes damage needs to make a concentration check? Which PDF and what page please.
It's on the wizard character sheet itself, under 'Casting a Spell' beneath 'Arcane Magic.' A wizard who takes damage becomes disrupted. While disrupted, they have to make a DC 10 Constitution check to cast any spell other than a minor. If they fail the check, their action is wasted, but they keep the spell prepared.
The two clerics do not have this problem, for obvious reasons.
That said, Drunkmage might also be a way to -answer- against disruption. If their wizard is using magic missile to disrupt you, Drunkmage can simply reduce much of the incoming damage causing that disruption to not occur in the first place.
I'm not sure how I feel about Drunkmage.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 5:52PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2001
|
Also i believe magic missile is a minor spell so it can never be disrupted.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 8:39PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2009
|
I'll expect we'll probably see a Drunken Master feat that gives more bonuses for being intoxicated down the line or removes the Disadvantage from being intoxicated.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:19PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2012
|
All in all, I think the DR for any character from being drunk is the worst thing I've read in the new rules. That, and the armour rules (but I won't go on about those), are making me feel a little doubtful about the new edition. The simple fact is, whether or not a character would feel less pain drunk, they would be clumsier and stupider and thereby take MORE actual damage. Now, if there was a "condition track" or something like in Star Wars Saga Edition, then it would make sense to perhaps reduce the chance of dropping on that from an attack, since the character feels less pain and is less hindered by it, but I've seen drunk people fight before and they don't last longer, they last almost HALF as long! Haha, if anything, I think that being drunk should add damage to enemies' attacks against you. But all in all, it makes most sense to me to include drinking in the game not for it's "combat benefits" (really guys, what successful fighting people in history have done so through the usage of alcohol on the battlefield?), but instead offer a sort of carouse benefit. It needs some work, but the link below offers one man's old rules for partying that I think add a LOT to a game. jrients.blogspot.ca/2008/12/party-like-i...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:31PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
(really guys, what successful fighting people in history have done so through the usage of alcohol on the battlefield?)
Vikings, Scots, pirates.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:05PM
#76
|
|
|
The British navy, for a few hundred years anyway.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 3:08PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
I would change the name and I would say condition numb or insensitive.
Other condition would be "euphoria".
It would better if the good and the bad condition are separated, nor mixed/fused like only one.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 3:28PM
#78
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Howdy folks,
I am moving this thread to the Playtest Packet Discussion forum.
Thanks.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 3:42PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2012
|
(really guys, what successful fighting people in history have done so through the usage of alcohol on the battlefield?)
Vikings, Scots, pirates.
Indeed, vikings and scots probably drank a lot, but "pirates" by our traditional standards (ei: pirates of the caribbean, treasure island, peter pan, etc.) are mostly fictional. Very few if any ships ever flew the jolly roger in the name of individual loyalty. Anyhow, that's not the point.
You're correct, some forces did that, but I don't think the alcohol actually made them better fighters. Braver perhaps, because it reduced their cognitive abilities. Reckless perhaps, which occasionally leads to dumb luck because of ridiculous strategies. The point is, it could perhaps offer a bonus against fear, a bonus for saves against pain, but not an actual reduction of the damage done to a person. No way. That just doesn't make sense.
If worst comes to worst I could always refuse to use the rule in my own games. But still, I'll have to deal with it as a player. It's really atrocious in terms of logic, though I see the fun behind it. Just really cheezy.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 3:44PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2012
|
I would change the name and I would say condition numb or insensitive.
Other condition would be "euphoria".
It would better if the good and the bad condition are separated, nor mixed/fused like only one.
Also: I like this idea. I mean, what about other drugs? What about magical effects that make you "happy" or "numb"? All in all I just don't even think there should be a rule for it; I mean the exact effects of alcohol are complex enough to take a whole handbook to rationalize and numerize if we really wanted to. 
|
|
|
