I've ran across this a few times. I like to "fudge" rolls.
(feces, I crit, and he has 2 hit points left...)
Me: So, I rolled a 15, does a 24 hit?
PC: Yeah (groan).
(rolls 2d6 and gets 12...)
Me: Alright, that's 8 damage.
PC: Alright, I'm unconcious. I'm just glad you didn't crit.
Me: Yeah, me too.
So, I made a modification.
This adds a 'GM Only' selection to the Attack Macro. When selecting GM Only, it will send to the GMs and Self only. Everyone else will see 'Secret Attack'.
It also helps if you want to roll without the players seeing that you're using a +3 Holy Avenger Greatsword. (PCs: So, our identify found out it was a +3 Holy Avenger Greatsword... GM: Ugh, I shouldn't have said that in the macro.)
Installation Instructions:
1. Find the dark grey macros in the Lib:libDnD35Pathfinder token called 'Attack', 'LibAttack' and 'pAttack' and delete them.
2. Import the attached macros into that same token.
[MOD] Secret Attacks
Moderators: dorpond, trevor, Azhrei, giliath, Gamerdude, jay, Mr.Ice, lmarkus001
Forum rules
Discussion regarding lmarkus001's framework only. Other posts deleted without notice!
Discussion regarding lmarkus001's framework only. Other posts deleted without notice!
[MOD] Secret Attacks
- Attachments
-
- LibAttack.mtmacro
- [UPDATED Aug 15, 2010 @ 7:59 AM]
Replace LibAttack Macro in Lib:libDnD35Pathfinder with this. - (4.34 KiB) Downloaded 116 times
-
- Attack.mtmacro
- [UPDATED Aug 15, 2010 @ 7:59 AM]
Replace Attack Macro in Lib:libDnD35Pathfinder with this. - (3.64 KiB) Downloaded 108 times
-
- pAttack.mtmacro
- [UPDATED Aug 15, 2010 @ 7:59 AM]
Replace pAttack Macro in Lib:libDnD35Pathfinder with this. - (1.03 KiB) Downloaded 104 times
Last edited by Imper1um on Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: [MOD] Secret Attacks
Cool.
I have a house rule that I use though: if a PC takes enough damage to be "dead-dead" (not just negative), then the other PCs have 1 turn to get to him and bring him up high enough that raise dead is not required later.
I justify that by saying that actions in combat are simultaneous and therefore it's reasonable to let other PCs get one action. Of course, I don't like metagaming so asking "how negative are you" is out of the question. In my home games, a question like that means any healing won't help (you've angered the gods, so to speak!).
This really increases the tension level when a comrade goes down during combat!! And there's no metagaming so having a PC drop unconscious at just -1 is treated almost like being at -20! But overall the players realize that they're getting an extra action to avoid the cost of raise dead and appreciate the house rule.
Probably can't use it in PFS as there aren't supposed to be "house rules", but using the justification above it could be viewed more as an interpretation of the initiative sequence and not a rule change. Pages 24-25 of the 3.5 DMG talk about simultaneous actions in more detail and basically just leave it up to the GM.
I have a house rule that I use though: if a PC takes enough damage to be "dead-dead" (not just negative), then the other PCs have 1 turn to get to him and bring him up high enough that raise dead is not required later.
I justify that by saying that actions in combat are simultaneous and therefore it's reasonable to let other PCs get one action. Of course, I don't like metagaming so asking "how negative are you" is out of the question. In my home games, a question like that means any healing won't help (you've angered the gods, so to speak!).
This really increases the tension level when a comrade goes down during combat!! And there's no metagaming so having a PC drop unconscious at just -1 is treated almost like being at -20! But overall the players realize that they're getting an extra action to avoid the cost of raise dead and appreciate the house rule.
Probably can't use it in PFS as there aren't supposed to be "house rules", but using the justification above it could be viewed more as an interpretation of the initiative sequence and not a rule change. Pages 24-25 of the 3.5 DMG talk about simultaneous actions in more detail and basically just leave it up to the GM.
Re: [MOD] Secret Attacks
I have a secret attack roll as well, but it shows the results to the owners and the other players don't know the player got attacked. I also have a different HPChange (completely different) where I can hide any healing or damage done as well. If an invisible npc is healing, I don't really want the players to know about it.
@Azriel - I have a similar rule. If a PC goes to -10 or below (as low as -50 for medium size and adjusted for size [small is -40] then if they can heal him up to 0, then he doesn't die. He is disabled for the next 24 hours and can not be healed above 0 in that time. He'll need to make a fort save after 24 hours to see if he survives. If they only heal him above -10 but not to 0, then the difference will be the penalty to the survival check. The fort save is 15 and failure doesn't necessarily mean death. Really the affect is up to the GM, but a loss in a point of CON is possible or some flaw perhaps based on the experience. The loss of CON can only be restored with a wish or similarly expensive method. Player may chose to die and be brought back with a true resurrection to avoid CON loss or other consequences.
Having them disabled adds another level of roleplaying I think. Because, it's not like "oh well, we'll get him raised later" and toss his body in to a bag of holding. Now they have to care and protect their vulnerable companion which is much more of a pain for the PCs than just dealing with his death.
@Azriel - I have a similar rule. If a PC goes to -10 or below (as low as -50 for medium size and adjusted for size [small is -40] then if they can heal him up to 0, then he doesn't die. He is disabled for the next 24 hours and can not be healed above 0 in that time. He'll need to make a fort save after 24 hours to see if he survives. If they only heal him above -10 but not to 0, then the difference will be the penalty to the survival check. The fort save is 15 and failure doesn't necessarily mean death. Really the affect is up to the GM, but a loss in a point of CON is possible or some flaw perhaps based on the experience. The loss of CON can only be restored with a wish or similarly expensive method. Player may chose to die and be brought back with a true resurrection to avoid CON loss or other consequences.
Having them disabled adds another level of roleplaying I think. Because, it's not like "oh well, we'll get him raised later" and toss his body in to a bag of holding. Now they have to care and protect their vulnerable companion which is much more of a pain for the PCs than just dealing with his death.
Downloads:
- Notepad++ MapTool addon
- RPEdit details (v1.3)
- Coding Tips: Modularity and Design
- Videos: Macro Writing Tools
Re: [MOD] Secret Attacks
I forgot to apply the fix to the Attack Macro as well. I provided them above.
I also fixed a few output bugs.
I also fixed a few output bugs.
Re: [MOD] Secret Attacks
Can you post your version? The reason I ask is because this version only I the GM sees the result and I do not have as much experience as I like and as they say two set's of eyes are better than one.aliasmask wrote:I have a secret attack roll as well, but it shows the results to the owners and the other players don't know the player got attacked. I also have a different HPChange (completely different) where I can hide any healing or damage done as well. If an invisible npc is healing, I don't really want the players to know about it.