User talk:Spazalicious Chaos/Visionary Derpism (3.5e Trait)

Ratings
== Bad Idea ==

Nevermind the extra paperwork for the DM here, perma-true seeing obtained as a trait? Are you kidding? Do you know how strong that spell is? -- Eiji-kun 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the character is also on a pernament acid trip from hell that prevents from determining if the imps he's seeing are there or not. Literally impossible, as any attemp he makes on top of true seeing to distinguish delusion from reality just reports back with the same data.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch my last. Played right, this trait can quickly disolve into a flaw. Say the party is infiltrated by a doppleganger. Sure, the guy with this trait can see him for what he is, but now must either tell someone who might believe him, or attack a fellow party member, and he is nopt even sure if he's right. If he's wrong, he loses credibility with his comrades and possibly just killed another player.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hell even worse, the hallucinations are always present. What is to stop a player from ending up with magic weapons and armor that he charges into battle with, leaving a bunch of orcs thinking "WTF?" as a little naked elf dude charges at them and swings about wildly before they gut him? Or the same character moving in to attack some monsters that the BEG never summoned? And these things are always there, always changing, and the poor bastard can never tell the difference. That that is assuming he goes it alone. If another caster is there to verify what he sees through his own magic, than 50% of the time this person is not just wasting his resources, but his friends resources, like so:
 * VD: Guys, I think we are surrounded by invisible ninjas again. Gary, can you check?
 * Gary: (casts spell) No, there are no ninjas, and that was my last third level spell. Thanks a loat, asshole.
 * --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, depending on your DM, this trait will be somewhere between True Seeing for free at level 1 and the complete inability to make any decisions based on the world around them. It's inherently unbalanced. --Foxwarrior 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "played right" is the problem here. When played right, I can't imagine the true seeing would be suitably worthwhile to even keep the character in the party. And when played wrong (or when you have a familiar you trust and communicate with, though some games might make you wait until level 5) it's a straight up awesome boost. It's a pretty substantial mechanical boost held in check with somewhat fuzzy roleplaying guidelines, and those don't tend to work out well. - Tarkisflux Talk 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically, what the example proved is that in no way can a character with this be played without either screwing his DM or himself. Yep, sounds right. - TG Cid 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The balance is as effective as the GM. I personally would just staple this as unquantifiable if we are looking for a balance point to keep this thing in. For GMs that cannot handle this trait in players, it can still work in monsters for a very unsual encounter: a being they cannot fool, but ultimately might not need to be.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 03:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why even bother making up mechanics for it at all if it is as effective as the GM? Just make it unquantifiable balance, since it obviously is and change the text to work like: "Whenever the GM feels like it, you have a hallucination". It's still stupid but at least you aren't assigning actual mechanics to something that is completely arbitrary. Even still, I think this article is a good candidate for the delete template, by virtue of not really being good quality. --Aarnott 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * With one exception (that is likely an oversight), other traits don't have balance points. And for good reason, they're not well supported in the idea. Balance points exist to indicate how well content plays with other content and challenges as level increases, and traits aren't intended to be tied to level at all. They're generally a numbers trade off, bit more here for a bit less there, and that sort of thing should be viable at all levels and balance points. So tagging this with unquant isn't a very satisfying solution. I think this is another one that might work at your table Spaz but that doesn't have a place on the wiki due to pretty severe reliance on GM intervention, a notoriously volatile thing. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the quality (or lack thereof) of any game is up to the moderator and the players. If you are play Monopoly wih a banker that imbelzes, it will never be as fun as the standard game. The same is true exponentialy for RPGs. If run too lightly, this trait is a very powerful free ability. If run too harshly, is traits is a flaw that prevents the character from functioning as a person, let alone a hero or villain. If anything, this trait is roleplaying incarnate- how balanced or unbalanced it is depends on the how well the players work together.
 * In the camapaign this trait was developed in, the player with this trait was a shaman who used too much peyote on his vision quests. At first, it was ruled that he had only a small number of hallucinations and could use his other spells to determine truth from peyote. Unfortunately, logic and game mechanics agreed this was not good, thus it was modified to the point where he could never tell the difference. The hallucinatory terrain and mirage aracana evolved at higher levels to reduce post-it deaths. Finally, when he took major intellegence damage I ruled that his hallucinations were not as severe. He kept a few that were pretty constant- he always felt a warm wind and there was always a pixie and a brownie dancing somewhere around him- but the tranistory ones were only as intense as the scene. At a tavern the hallucinations were either obvious (pheonix in his beer) or just background (girls that weren't there, etc), while in the dungeons or combat they turned into summoned monsters and abandoned crossbows. But his sporatic behavior saved the party more than once, like charging foes across illusory pits or through illusory dragons, locating key magic items mid combat in a horde, and slaying invisible monsters with reckless abandon.
 * This was a good playing of this trait. And it was a full party cooperation peice. The shaman was the only primary caster, but the rogue ended up being the verifyier, the bard was the one who could identify whatever the shaman saw, and the fighter was the glue holding everyone together. And I stayed on top of it at all times, making sure the hallucinations were consistent and the real perceptions were always there mixed in.
 * Long post made short- games are as good as the people who play them. If your friends are metagameing hack-n-slashers, or your GM is an egotistical and sadistic insecure prick, chances are your game already doesn't work and this trait will not make it worse. Thus, have faith in your friends.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this...
I removed the delete template but severely toned down the power. Any other low power divinations that can fall under this trait?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 16:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd have those to be cast as a silent, stilled spell-like ability at will. Having an always on detect magic is still really really good. Having to spend actions on it balances it significantly.


 * As for the drawback... I again suggest that since it is arbitrary GM crap, just say it is. Here;s the text I suggest. "The character almost always sees hallucinations. These are completely up to the GM, and may manifest themselves more or less severely during certain circumstances agreed upon by the GM and player. For example, a player might have more severe hallucinations when their Intelligence score is higher". And maybe just mention that this is a roleplaying flaw and should be accompanied by an agreement between the player and GM to play fair. --Aarnott 18:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to assume that people who play D&D have a reading level above kindergarten, but thanks.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people use context to help them comprehend the things they read. Since the context is "this is dnd-wiki, where everything is assumed to have the intent of being mechanically balanced to some standard," readers would be justified in assuming that Visionary Derpism isn't arbitrary DM crap. Since it is, that should be a fact you state outright and clearly, not hide in the mechanics. --Foxwarrior 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in Aarnots suggested text that is not explained more clearly in the existing text. The drawback section explains what the player experiences, and the special section explains how the GM brings those experiences into play in mechanical terms that leave little to no wiggle room other than what should be already existing agreements in the spirit of player/GM trust (which is mandated/explained on pages 10 through 18 of the DMG). Thus, I will not change the text to make it less clear, as has been proposed.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was covered...
This trait has had the bugs worked out, and Aarnots WC is just resumming his style complaints, not any actual problem with the trait itself. If there IS a genuine mechanical problem with the trait, fine, name it, but this page should not be sacrificed on the alter of Aarnots pet role-play peeves.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because you felt it was resolved, doesn't mean it was resolved. I'm reopening the issue the way I should have opened it in the first place: as a candidate for Winter Cleaning. It isn't just a matter of role-play pet peeves, it is a matter of both quality and more importantly, audience. Traits like this don't work well with D&D. They introduce arbitrary book-keeping for little gain.
 * As you can probably tell, I'm doing a lot of maintenance work on the wiki right now, primarily with respect to quality control. If you feel singled out, that's because you kinda have been at this point. I started by considering where the best place to look for areas where I could find the worst quality content on our wiki first. It's only because you've been contributing more recently that I starting looking at your articles first. I have other users on my list before I start an actual manual sweep of various sections of the wiki.
 * If you are wondering why I'm so insistent on improving the quality of this wiki, it is because that is the whole goal of this wiki. There are more than enough homebrew havens out there than are filled with crap. I've played with a lot of groups (as part of a campus roleplaying club) and the general thing is, DMs are very reluctant to include homebrew from the net. I'm very much on board with the goals of this wiki because I've actually seen a few DMs that are fine with stuff from here simply because we try to have a good sense of quality control.
 * So, back to your actual article. Forcing a player or DM to roll dice for no worthwhile mechanical effect in the game is a massive gaping mechanical problem. I've said it in the discussion above this one, but maybe I have to spell it out. "The GM before every encounter or scene should roll to see how many hallucinations the character perciveves, check to see if anything is actually there, and write down all information onto a note that is passed to the character after describing what everyone else sees". Are you aware of how much time this would take? And here's the thing: the die rolls mean absolutely nothing. The DM is just going to figure out what is going on anyways. So cut out the middleman, simplify the trait, (also run a spellchecker on your stuff!), and maybe you'll find I'll have some good things to say. --Aarnott 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if I am understanding you right, in the name of quality control, I must take a definite mechanic that produces quantifiable results and rewrite it so that the terms are vaguer and the effects are entirely up to interpretation? If that is the case, delete this and half the wiki while you are at it, as I have no use for your imput.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not really a "definite mechanic" when the "quantifiable results" mean absolutely nothing but GM fiat. It's like rolling for how many clouds there are in the sky. Maybe it matters for the plot of the game, but when it comes down to it, the GM is going to decide what shape the clouds are, how stormy they are, and really it isn't much of a stretch if that GM had just decided that there were 6 clouds in the first place. --Aarnott 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)