Piece of hardware has hardware id, i am interested how hackers do it – when even if they are in internet cafe, or somewhere on public wifi and using TOR, or some other form of protection. Supposing goverment would somehow got their hardware id, would they be able to trace it back to them ? I am think hackers probably use some modified hardware, or stolen etc. But i am just curious how it is.
The wording of the Vampire’s charm action has me a bit confused on whether a blind person either gets no saving throw from it or can’t be charmed at all like this.
Here is the exact description:
Charm: The Vampire targets one humanoid it can see within 30 ft. of it. If the target can see the Vampire, the target must succeed on a DC 17 wisdom saving throw against this magic or be charmed by the Vampire.
Of course, this question is also relevant in case the Vampire is invisible or otherwise hidden in plain sight from a target with normal eyesight.
Time for all to follow Tim Morrison & leave the failed tyrant! Who wants to be left with Kushner, Ivanka, Mullvaney, Kellyanne, Larry Kudlow, Peter Navarro, Stephanie Grisham & other flawed characters? Go while you still can!
Take for instance, the spell Prayer of Healing (in the online Basic Rules):
Up to six creatures of your choice that you can see within range each regain hit points equal to 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
The “Damage Rolls” rule says that “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them.” Does that same principle apply to “Healing Rolls”?
That is, if I target my whole party with a spell like this, is it a separate 2d8+modifier that gets rolled independently for each target, or do I just roll the once and that same amount is what each target gains?
Obviously the game “works” either way, and playing it however one’s table finds most fun is great. But, I’m looking for official sources or references if available. If there aren’t any, then I would accept any semi-official or well-informed well-reasoned arguments, preferably backed up by evidence that it’s the usual way that groups handle this.
The intellect devourer is a Tiny aberration, which would normally make it immune to the 1st level spell charm person, but when it successfully uses its Body Thief ability on a Medium humanoid:
The intellect devourer retains its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, as well as its understanding of Deep Speech, its telepathy, and its traits. It otherwise adopts the target’s statistics.
Does adopting the target’s statistics include the monster type changing from an aberration into a humanoid, which makes it vulnerable to charm person?
What happens when a charmed intellect devourer is Charisma (Persuasion) check’d into teleporting out of its host’s skull and it becomes a Tiny aberration again? Is it still charmed?
I read Rough Nights & Hard Days, a WFRP-4e scenarios book from Graeme Davis. In the first plot of the first story, they mention the protagonist against Gravin Maria-Ulrike von Liebewitz of Ambosstein: Baron Eberhardt von Dammenblatz of Wissenberg.
On the fourth cover of the book, they mention Baron Otto von Dammenblatz. This name is from the White Dwarf #94 of November 1987, the first iteration of this story.1
I tried to find other occurences of the name Eberhardt but even in the character list, only “Baron von Dammenblatz” is mentionned.
- Is this an error, or are Baron Otto and Baron Eberhardt different people? Was the official name changed? Two name that Wissenlanders use ?
- In White Dwarf #94, Baron Otto von Dammenblatz is from Wissenburg, not Wissenberg. I’m not German, so maybe this is exactly the same thing, but I’m not sure.
I’m looking for an official source.
- Who’s Who & What’s What in Warhammer at :
- Franke, Bruno
- Liebewitz of Ambosstein, Gravin Maria-Ulrike von
- Rough nights & Hard days, WFRP-4e scenarios book from Graeme Davis, p9 -Plot summaries -Plot 1
As a GM, I’m not sure whether should I try to avoid 2nd person narration whenever possible. For example, instead of saying, “You feel a chill in the air,” would it be better to say, “The air grows cold”? Or does it not really matter that much? Is it bad form dictating what the PCs are seeing/feeling? Although it sounds rather impersonal saying, “There’s something shiny in the mud,” versus, “Something shiny in the mud catches your eye.”
Is there a generally accepted standard regarding second person narration in RPGs and what are the pros and cons in play of using it?
Dominate Person states the following:
Each time the target takes damage, it makes a new Wisdom saving throw against the spell. If the saving throw succeeds, the spell ends.
As written, this would presumably include damage from an ally – am I right?
From a gameplay perspective, this is a great boon to players who lose a team member to a vampire (or whatever) since it is a lot easier to damage the ensorcelled player with ranged or AoE attacks than with a greater restoration which is a touch spell. Nothing in the Vampire’s Charm description indicates that it is different from the Charm spell; it does specifically refer to it as magic, rather than innate.
Is there something that I am missing?
It is not fair and his death was an immediate shock to me and some of my coworkers as well. He will be remembered as a champion of the poor and their rights, a friend of Racial Equality and Women’s Rights. What do you think?
In a campaign I’ve been playing in, we’ve been having a real tough time deciding how powerful to make the first level Charm Person spell for Magic Users. We are playing Swords & Wizardry, a D&D 0e retroclone.
In S&W, it’s described this way:
If the spell succeeds (saving throw allowed), the unfortunate creature falls under the caster’s influence.
It’s the interpretation of that last word that we can’t agree on. Some in the group want to see it as just making the ensorcelled person feel that they are the caster’s best friend and would like to help them out if they can, but not so powerful as to make the target do anything they wouldn’t normally do.
Others in the group argue that such a reading makes the spell nearly useless because it does nothing more for the caster than what good role playing and a high charisma could accomplish. Instead, barring asking the target to do something like commit suicide, they should be compelled to do almost anything the MU asks.
Seems to me that the first reading makes the spell too weak, and second reading makes it too strong. It’s only a first level spell after all. To complicate things, S&W has a 3rd level spell called Suggestion that forces the target to carry out a hypnotic suggestion, but just the one task. AD&D has a similar spell, except at the 4th level. How is this different from Charm? Shouldn’t a higher level spell be much more powerful?
Has anyone else run into this dilemma? If so, how did you resolve it? Anyone have any thoughts about how to find a middle way? Thanks in advance for the help.