Automatically makes all normal Vision rolls?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

By Heimdal's All Seeing Eyes what is the rationale for this ability?

Or maybe Alastor's Moody Mad Eye. (Okay, that's not how it works, but his visual omni-awareness feels close.)

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Influence rolls are contested, and Indomitable allows you to automatically succeed at those too. Also 15 points.

Influence rolls are not contests (Regular or Quick). "When an NPC makes a successful Influence roll against a PC, the GM should apply the NPC’s margin of victory as a bonus or penalty (as appropriate) to the PC’s die rolls when dealing with that NPC." (Basic p.359) All Indomnitable does is make a PC immune to the effect of an Influence roll, unless the user has some sort of advantage like empathy, etc.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Influence rolls are not contests (Regular or Quick). "When an NPC makes a successful Influence roll against a PC, the GM should apply the NPC’s margin of victory as a bonus or penalty (as appropriate) to the PC’s die rolls when dealing with that NPC." (Basic p.359) All Indomnitable does is make a PC immune to the effect of an Influence roll, unless the user has some sort of advantage like empathy, etc.

Same page:

An “Influence roll” is a deliberate
attempt to ensure a positive reaction
from an NPC. A PC with an appropriate
“Influence skill” can always elect
to substitute an Influence roll for a
regular reaction roll in suitable circumstances
(GM’s decision). See
Reaction Rolls (p. 494) for more on
NPC reactions.
Decide which Influence skill you
are using: Diplomacy, Fast-Talk,
Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, Sex
Appeal, or Streetwise. Choose wisely!
The GM may allow other skills to
work as Influence skills in certain situations
(e.g., Law skill, when dealing
with a judge). Then roll a Quick
Contest: your Influence skill vs. the
subject’s Will.

They're contested. Quick contests, to be specific.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Influence rolls are not contests (Regular or Quick). "When an NPC makes a successful Influence roll against a PC, the GM should apply the NPC’s margin of victory as a bonus or penalty (as appropriate) to the PC’s die rolls when dealing with that NPC." (Basic p.359) All Indomnitable does is make a PC immune to the effect of an Influence roll, unless the user has some sort of advantage like empathy, etc.

Margin of victory is a term used only to describe how much you won a contest by. Margin of success is the more generic term you may be mistaking it for.

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Kromm on Unfazeable:
Originally Posted by Kromm
Unfazeable comes with roleplaying advice because it's a wholly unrealistic mental trait and no gamer is likely to have a hope in hell of roleplaying it well. While fictional physical and social traits can be reduced to game mechanics, it's harder to do this with made-up mental traits in an RPG, where playing a role is at least part of the point . . . hence the advice. But you're free to ignore the advice and simply treat it as Immunity to Fear and Intimidation [15], sure.

Does anyone know it there has been an errata for this? I'm extremely disappointed at this quote, it means the majority of the text of the advantage listing is erroneous filler. "You are never surprised" , "You treat strangers with distant courtesy", "you remain civil even if forced to violence", " you never display strong feelings", You must roleplay this advantage fully, or the GM can declare that is has been lost"

This is not stated as advice in the RAW, it is stated quite clearly as a laundry list of personal traits that come together to grant the advantage. In a book where space was an issue, the description of an advantage where two sentences would have sufficed has been drawn out to four paragraphs. Yet in these four paragraphs, there is no mention of this being advice.

I usually have nothing but praise for Kromm and the SJGames crew, but this is just bad form. I might have taken this advantage at some point in my gaming career if I thought I could make my own decisions on how to roleplay it.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

Does anyone know it there has been an errata for this? I'm extremely disappointed at this quote, it means the majority of the text of the advantage listing is erroneous filler. "You are never surprised" , "You treat strangers with distant courtesy", "you remain civil even if forced to violence", " you never display strong feelings", You must roleplay this advantage fully, or the GM can declare that is has been lost"

This is not stated as advice in the RAW, it is stated quite clearly as a laundry list of personal traits that come together to grant the advantage. In a book where space was an issue, the description of an advantage where two sentences would have sufficed has been drawn out to four paragraphs. Yet in these four paragraphs, there is no mention of this being advice.

I usually have nothing but praise for Kromm and the SJGames crew, but this is just bad form. I might have taken this advantage at some point in my gaming career if I thought I could make my own decisions on how to roleplay it.

I would add that it's not entirely accurate that there are no fictional examples of Unfazeable. The kender of the Dragonlance novels (and yes, the D&D RPG campaign setting of the same name) are entirely immune to fear, even the kind of magical fear imposed by some supernatural creatures. And they're nothing like the description of Unfazeable (the roleplaying suggestions fluff part) - their immunity to fear goes hand in hand with a playful, intensely (often dangerously) curious nature. They can be surprised, and definitely display strong feelings. Their Unfazeable [15] is balanced out by On the Edge [-15] and added to with Curious [-5] for a net disadvantageous mental trait. To those who don't find them annoying, they can often be a lot of fun.

Unfazeable as written is more describing a mindset of being totally and absolutely jaded and dispassionate, which couldn't be farther from the kender (which, as far as I can think of, is the only example in fiction of a creature totally immune to fear).

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

Unfazeable as written is more describing a mindset of being totally and absolutely jaded and dispassionate, which couldn't be farther from the kender (which, as far as I can think of, is the only example in fiction of a creature totally immune to fear).

Actully you got it wrong, it written to represent the unflappable decorum if the British archetypes especially the butler, there's nothing jaded or dispassionate about it. Someone who can pass the spare ammo clip like they were passing the butter at tea time, not because they don't care about the outcome, but because they're that collected.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Same page:


They're contested. Quick contests, to be specific.

Yep. I missed that. I don't use Influence rolls very often in my games so I didn't slow down and read it carefully enough. My bad.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Actully you got it wrong, it written to represent the unflappable decorum if the British archetypes especially the butler, there nothing jaded or dispassionate about it. some who can pass the spare ammo clip like they were passing the butter at tea time, not because they dont are about the ut ome, but because that that collected

See also Alfred from Batman, Jeeves from Jeeves and Wooster, and so forth.