Stance on Hay Bail Walls

[Xynn of Ched Nasad]

completely agree with you on that inox, havnt seen it used in years and when it is.... problems of cheese ensues.

side note- my post was just a shot at thom, since i hadnt done it in awhile.

[Inox]

That works...one should always take shots at Thom when possible. :D

[fingers630]

but what about the plus size thief..... let us not forget toes the theif and/or thumbs the assassin that isnt of the 18" tall when on his/her belly. the hay bail idea would be size bias to people as fat as thom....
what about pass wall, we would have to change it to "hulk smash wall" if we started to use hay bails.

*blink*

Toes is a cleric, not a thief.

I plan to ignore all fireballs. Throw real fire at me, if you can. i will also kick a hole in any hay bale whenever I cast passwall. because I can.

That works...one should always take shots at Thom when possible.

this is true =P

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

I can honestly say I've never seen an argument about Passwall, and have had and seen plenty of fun.

Unless of course you mean, by argument, the one time I remember bringing an army through someone's back gate and they said "HOW THE * DID YOU ALL GET IN HERE? YOU ALL CAN'T CLIMB WALLS?" and I said, "I cast `Passwall`", and then they said, "Oh, okay", and started fighting us.

[Sir Sturmbjorne]

I can honestly say I've never seen an argument about Passwall, and have had and seen plenty of fun.

Unless of course you mean, by argument, the one time I remember bringing an army through someone's back gate and they said "HOW THE * DID YOU ALL GET IN HERE? YOU ALL CAN'T CLIMB WALLS?" and I said, "I cast `Passwall`", and then they said, "Oh, okay", and started fighting us.

This seems to be the case most of the time when I've seen Passwall used as well.

But, OP, I agree, real walls would be idle in my mind, as long as we can make them safely.

The less we hafta to imagine and make rules to explain them, the better we are as a club; otherwise we constantly have to explain the rules to people mid-fight/adventure.

[Varnak_the_UnNamed]

I was thinking about the same things at Bellum. Another issue with the rope is that its hard to determine the actual gate, (even when its decorated), and people run into the rope when the sun starts to go down. One thing Ched was considering is similar to what Excllium did with the tarps. We are thinking Canvas strung around the camp, but rather than elevate it off the ground, just leave it un-tethered in a number of places. Then if im really feeling froggy I might just paint the canvas to resemble stone or wood OR SCREAMING SOULS.. you know whatever. Then you dont infringe on any of the rules, you still block line of site, and enhance the camp.

[Inox]

The less we hafta to imagine and make rules to explain them, the better we are as a club; otherwise we constantly have to explain the rules to people mid-fight/adventure.

This. 1000x this.

[Sir Aethilgar]

Also, we could just get rid of Passwall. It's one of those spells that creates more arguments than fun.

I'd love to sit down with you off-line, Inox, and go over these kinds of rules... those that create more arguments than fun... and brain-storm either updates to them to improve the fun aspect or work to remove them altogether.

[fingers630]

Personally I find passwall to be one of the more fun mage spells out there (when there are adventure rules and walls). Nothing better than sneaking up and dropping it on a defended keep with a horde of fighters charging in to cause some ruckus.

Just out of curiosity, Exillium wouldnt have gotten mad had I used a boxcutter to passwall on their tarps right?

[shroom2021]

It almost feels like spells like passwall are designed to work with walls that don't actually exist.
Maybe just say that passwall weakens a section of wall allowing a combatant to smash through them.
Another perk of straw forts would be that siege weapons could actually be used to blow holes in the defenders wall, the remaining rubble would still provide somewhat of a hinderence to attackers.

I see a lot of perks with real walls, albeit straw ones, over ropes or even tarps. If someone wants to climb a wall, climb a wall. If you shoot an arrow, you have to arc it. Using spears on the wall would also be more realistic as defenders can spear attackers, but will expose themselves to return fire from arrows or other spears.
I see very few drawbacks, ie. some rules don't function appropriately with real walls.
I don't see that as a problem, or at the very least they have a simple solution. IE. Passwall, cast it, pull down the wall, done. Gaseous form, cast it, climb the wall, tell everyone who stabs you that you are gaseous.
Thiefs, climb the wall..... done

[fingers630]

I like the sheet walls. Passwall, move the sheets 1 person width apart. Done

[Inox]

It almost feels like spells like passwall are designed to work with walls that don't actually exist.

Bingo. And this is the problem with goofy abstractions like rope walls: They encourage the creation of other rules that involve even more make-believe.

This not only confuses the hell out of new people and crossgamers, it creates a lot of misunderstanding even among veterans as to what in the hell is going on.

I know some of you Mages are arguing that Passwall's been fun for you, but honestly, I've seen a lot of arguments over people getting into forts with magic. Especially Passwall.

If you've fought in a bunch of sieges, you know that it's highest adrenaline when the gate goes down without too long a delay. Most of the good fighting happens there. The worst is when it's never opened (e.g. Fireball, Mending! Fireball, Mending! etc., etc., ad infinitum).

Alternately, if fortifications allow for constant or too-easy invasion, they're also no fun. You need to not have them become a killing box where you're constantly fighting a stream of invaders from all sides. Just tactically, that's a lousy situation.

I can almost feel one of you getting ready to say, "Well, Passwall is supposed to give you that tactical advantage over the defenders! Magic booga booga that's why it's in the game!"

We use forts in the first place because it is fun to fight in forts. Congratulations, your use of an abstraction of an abstraction, containing no real skill or ability whatsoever, breaks good fort fights more often than not. Would you feel similarly proud of yourself if the game let you do Power Word Kill?

Passwall is a silly thing we adopted because we were trying too hard to copy 1st Edition D&D. We were only able to copy it because we stopped building forts with actual wood piled up into walls.

Passwall might even be ok if it worked in dungeons only, but honestly, we probably need fewer high-power spells in the game anyhow.

TL;DR: Real walls, axe Passwall.

[Inox]

Also, we could just get rid of Passwall. It's one of those spells that creates more arguments than fun.

I'd love to sit down with you off-line, Inox, and go over these kinds of rules... those that create more arguments than fun... and brain-storm either updates to them to improve the fun aspect or work to remove them altogether.

Sounds good! Let's plan that offline.

[Lord Valfryn]

I never really dug how having a castle/ tower is usually a hindrance in one way or another. It's just funny how taking cover behind the castle, not in it... is the best bet.

Honestly, I think castle/ siege fights should be a timed event. If the bad guys can't breach the gates/ ring a bell/ take a banner in less than 30 mins, call it. Adjust the match accordingly, much more fun.

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

I never really dug how having a castle/ tower is usually a hindrance in one way or another. It's just funny how taking cover behind the castle, not in it... is the best bet.

Honestly, I think castle/ siege fights should be a timed event. If the bad guys can't breach the gates/ ring a bell/ take a banner in less than 30 mins, call it. Adjust the match accordingly, much more fun.

I don't get your first point. Being in a castle makes you immune to radius from spells. Being behind it doesn't. It seems like being in it is a great place for most people.

As for the second, I enjoy long sieges but sometimes they get so long it becomes stupid. If there was a rule about that, it would encourage outside forces to actually attack, which Is something that sometimes takes foreeeever to happen.

[Inox]

As for the second, I enjoy long sieges but sometimes they get so long it becomes stupid.

Sieges are long because there's too much rules abstraction to deal with.

Some of the fastest & most brutal siege fights we ever had were those with physical representations of walls. Even recently, when we did "build a wall with what's there" battles at Millersville in the woods.

[Lord Valfryn]

Inside the keep you can be hit. If you're behind the keep, you're all but immune to being hit. You need to be hit with an absolute PEACH of a lob to come down on the right angle to inflict damage. Thrown weapons can't typically get that close (because of skirmishing) and siege weapons fail to be able to lob that way (construction dysfunction).

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

As for the second, I enjoy long sieges but sometimes they get so long it becomes stupid.

Sieges are long because there's too much rules abstraction to deal with.

Some of the fastest & most brutal siege fights we ever had were those with physical representations of walls. Even recently, when we did "build a wall with what's there" battles at Millersville in the woods.

I don't think it's the rules that make them last long, it's that they are fought over land, and people are very defensive. You end up with two groups just shooting at each other with spells and siege weapons for 15 minutes, and when they finally do engage, it's attack, retreat and heal, attack (which is great strategy for winning, but boy does it add up in time).

Hell, in the last one I eldered, both sides stood completely still practically and stared at one another for nearly the first five minutes. They didn't even shoot anything at each other.

[Inox]

It happens on Adventures and at campouts, too, though.

I've seen Fireball-Mend-Fireball-Mend-etc. fights go on a LOT. Then, you have people inside trying to watch for Passwall and such, and other people casting things to negate, etc. It becomes more about what the rules say is technically possible with magic than anyone throwing, shooting, or swinging something.

[Kobalos]

Honestly, I think castle/ siege fights should be a timed event. If the bad guys can't breach the gates/ ring a bell/ take a banner in less than 30 mins, call it. Adjust the match accordingly, much more fun.

I'm all for it. As Land Marshal, I actually told the war-action participants once (Ched vs. someone) during a siege that if something momentous didn't happen within x more minutes, I was going to call the fight. That went over well But I was an irritable LM sometimes.

[fingers630]

Yep the NK vs CB keep battle in the woods of Redland was a 15 min snoozefest of them staring at each other. I had as much fun eldering as I do when Im doing my taxes.

[Inox]

It's primarily because attackers are afraid of being magic'd into oblivion, and/or standing outside with no way in.

Gates easier to take down, ditch AOE. All of a sudden, fights would kick off with all speed.

[fingers630]

I fully support unmendable gates.

[LordTyrantCort]

I fully support removing gate from being mended by spells. And just return into existence after x amount of time after engaugment.

[fingers630]

Yep once a gate is down, it is down. Elder may declare when it is replaced.