Quote from: JonWake;763621Jailing any middling level character starts to resemble one of the Special Containment Procedure creepypastas.  I was running a superhero game where the mind controller was always followed by two squads. The first had orders to shoot him if he hesitated at all, and the second had orders to shoot the first if they acted strange in any way. It was a stressful work environment.

That's a cool way for normals to at leats try to deal with a mind controller.

You also reminded me of a supers game where the pc heroes were freaking out about a villain they locked up; they were worried he would mind control the guards.
Funny thing is that this villain only had telekinesis; no mind control at all..they just assumed.

Quote from: Bill;763724You also reminded me of a supers game where the pc heroes were freaking out about a villain they locked up; they were worried he would mind control the guards.
Funny thing is that this villain only had telekinesis; no mind control at all..they just assumed.

I love it when PCs overestimate (or outright hallucinate) threats like this. Seriously, it makes my day. As a GM I think it's a sign that they're hanging at the edge of their seats and that you're doing a good job. Well done. :hatsoff:

Quote from: The Butcher;763739I love it when PCs overestimate (or outright hallucinate) threats like this. Seriously, it makes my day. As a GM I think it's a sign that they're hanging at the edge of their seats and that you're doing a good job. Well done. :hatsoff:

Thanks!

And it was also fun to see the players absolutely seethe with fury at the 'revolving door' 'escap-o-matic' mental health and prison system.

Quote from: Bill;763766Thanks!

And it was also fun to see the players absolutely seethe with fury at the 'revolving door' 'escap-o-matic' mental health and prison system.

Yeah, could never get into Supers... execution was almost always the right answer.

Quote from: Opaopajr;763791Yeah, could never get into Supers... execution was almost always the right answer.

Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

Quote from: mcbobbo;763793Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

They did, he came with Demonic powers and really raised hell.

Prisons may have a revolving door, but they revolve a lot slower than the one from the afterlife.

Quote from: Votan;763683Or just steal a trope from Lord of the Rings.  Wizards need their staff to do the continuous low level effects -- like Gandalf with light.  

"Did I not counsel you to forbid him his staff?" And all.

Flavorful, fun, and makes prison viable.  If you worry about too much casting, make the staff suffer stress if it is under continuous use.  And make the process of replacing it non-trivial.

Quote from: Necrozius;763713I really like this idea. It is an easily accepted trope, as you said from Lord of the Rings but also for wands in Harry Potter. Or even other media in which the hero "needs" his/her item (lightsaber, Mjolnir etcc)

What's more, there's even some some in-game support for the idea, since in the playtest, at least, there were implements. I think you could use them to add your proficiency bonus to the effectiveness of spells, but I forget the details. Making cantrips dependent on them would be fair too I think.

Quote from: LibraryLass;763807What's more, there's even some some in-game support for the idea, since in the playtest, at least, there were implements. I think you could use them to add your proficiency bonus to the effectiveness of spells, but I forget the details. Making cantrips dependent on them would be fair too I think.

I like implements and foci. They will be a part of my game and a focus will be a requirement for unlimited cantrip use. It's just how I roll.

Quote from: LibraryLass;763807What's more, there's even some some in-game support for the idea, since in the playtest, at least, there were implements. I think you could use them to add your proficiency bonus to the effectiveness of spells, but I forget the details.

DCC does it better with the wizard staff spell.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763793Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

This post struck such a chord with me (and my continued frustration with supers RPGs) that I'm spinning it off on its own thread, right here.

Quote from: The Butcher;763813DCC does it better with the wizard staff spell.

Sounds similar to how it works in Chivalry and Sorcery 3e? And much like something I will do in my games.

Quote from: Marleycat;763809I like implements and foci. They will be a part of my game and a focus will be a requirement for unlimited cantrip use. It's just how I roll.

I was thinking that if I ran it (unlikely admittedly), I'd make casting without a focus at least a +1 penalty to spell level , so they would no longer be at-will and you would be limited to no more cantrips than 1st level spells (and so on, so you would lose the ability to cast your highest level spells as well).

It would be nice for there to have a bigger or smaller foci have trade-offs but I'm not sure the system lends itself to that level of differentiation.  Perhaps it could be like the "staff" spell in Gurps, which allows the "staff" to count as touching for touch range spells.  So having a larger foci gives reach at the expense of being harder to conceal and perhaps easier to disarm.  And the negative for say a tattoo as a focus (from my earlier post) is that people are going to slash it up or skin part of you instead of just take your stick away.

Quote from: Brander;763883I was thinking that if I ran it (unlikely admittedly), I'd make casting without a focus at least a +1 penalty to spell level , so they would no longer be at-will and you would be limited to no more cantrips than 1st level spells (and so on, so you would lose the ability to cast your highest level spells as well).

It would be nice for there to have a bigger or smaller foci have trade-offs but I'm not sure the system lends itself to that level of differentiation.  Perhaps it could be like the "staff" spell in Gurps, which allows the "staff" to count as touching for touch range spells.  So having a larger foci gives reach at the expense of being harder to conceal and perhaps easier to disarm.  And the negative for say a tattoo as a focus (from my earlier post) is that people are going to slash it up or skin part of you instead of just take your stick away.

The BASIC rules for foci are cursory I would like to see what's in the PHB or DMG before going hog wild. I figure for now I say wizards have both and need a focus to cast cantrips but your idea about +1 is intriguing I just wonder if it will mess other subsystems up.

I just noticed in the Basic pdf that you can use a spellcasting focus in lieu of material components that do not have a cost and are not consumed upon casting.  That's news to me.

Quote from: Brander;764269I just noticed in the Basic pdf that you can use a spellcasting focus in lieu of material components that do not have a cost and are not consumed upon casting.  That's news to me.

That's why I would hold off as my above post said.  What gets me crazy is that this is basically the playtest rules without the cruft yet people that should know better are spreading lies.

They toned the Fighters down a bit, clarified the Rogues, toned down cantrips but amped the actual spells for wizards so they do spike damage not consistent damage just like they wanted. But Clerics as usual are an issue...any kind of MC with them could be big problems especially with certain domains and subclasses without CharOP on purpose.