I'll be rolling some things for during the week, will be up soon. Sorry, have a brand new puppy in the house that is absorbing most of my time atm.
Ransaq - Sure, but subtract 10 from your result (up to a maximum loss of 9gp).
Meh, nevermind. -10 is a pretty hefty penalty. I thought bluff was the actual roll you made to gamble when I asked. Ill just loiter.
DM-Kal, question. How would you handle if say I lit a candle and placed it under the very rotted wooden door until it lit on fire? Aurora should be able to deal with the flames for more then enough time to get the door to light (with her fire resistance 5). Not really a situation that is covered in any capacity within the rules. Trying to get a figure for how outside the box I can let my actions be.
Although that might normally work, rotting wood is typically wet and therefore not flammable. Such is the case here.
Plus we don't really need to get creative, just need to not roll terrible, I suspect.
I agree we don't need to get creative, it's a fairly straightforward issue we're dealing with. it's just fun sometimes to think way outside the box.
Very true. Create water is an amazingly useful spell if you get creative with it. The cruelest thing I have ever done as a cleric was in Living Greyhawk. My rather arrogant war priest became upset with a certain ghost. He had the metamagic feat that let any spell affect incorporeal beings. Dousing a ghost in water, that will never dry out due to the absence of heat was particularly gratifying. Especially considering he worshiped the goddess of fire and vengeance. :)>
This door was environmental. It was never meant to be a legitimate obstacle.
Hahah, now all we need it for Ransaq to knock it down in one go :P
Reminds me of that fan movie, The Gamers, where the barbarian sprains his back trying to pull out a grate, and the weak elven archer proceeds to do it and goes "Life with your legs, not our back"
Freekin dice.
Oh, btw Orald, that Ghost thing made me feel all sad. That priest must have been a sadist.
So you've encountered your first puzzle. This is a problem that can't just be solved by perception rolls or int checks, but must be resolved by player actions and creative thinking.
I had to call it out for the villains too. They just kept trying to find the right die to roll. They became quite frustrated. Although, perhaps most surprisingly, not one of them tried to detect magic.
So I'm just curious, how did I not find the inscription under the table with a 27 perception check?
So you've encountered your first puzzle. This is a problem that can't just be solved by perception rolls or int checks, but must be resolved by player actions and creative thinking. I had to call it out for the villains too. They just kept trying to find the right die to roll. They became quite frustrated. Although, perhaps most surprisingly, not one of them tried to detect magic.
-Posted with Wayfinder
I guess what you meant to say then, is that you aren't going to allow a perception roll to solve the problem, because finding something is the very definition of what can be solved with that roll. That's fine I suppose, I just misunderstood because I didn't apply the "GM can do whatever he wants" rule to the instruction.
Searching a room for twenty minutes as thoroughly as you can does not mean you find everything. For eksample, I wouldnt assume that the characters pulled a shelf out from the wall and looked on its backside when performing a sweep of a room, they would have to specify as much for that to happen.
In the same vein, I wouldnt assume that the characters took the time to give the bottom side of a table a thorough scan for hidden texts. The text probably isnt very visible either, so you would have to actually lie on the floor and look to find it.
Garroth said it better. Thanks Garroth.
-Posted with Wayfinder
You don't need to assume at all, the check reluts themselves are meant to tell you if a player searched well enough to pull a shelf out from a wall or check under a table.
With a result of 27 on perception and knowledge of a magical curiosity, it seems like he certainly would have looked under the table. At least we found it though I guess.
There is more I could argue, but I decided just to pretend it was 28 and move on.
To each their own, although going purely by dice, even a semi optimized perception would find everything and anything every time without fail when taking 20 minutes to search isnt an issue (Which it often isnt).
Some things are meant to be found by the player, not his dice.
Some things are meant to be found by the player, not his dice.
That's purely subjective. It's fine though, its just not the style I'm use to.
have to agree with Garroth here, though most of the time when my DM wants some creative thinking he just sets the DC at some stupidly high arbitrary DC. (like DC 40 knowledge checks at lvl 1). Sometimes it's better for the characters to actually solve a problem versus having the puzzle solved because of high dice rolls.
It doesn't matter if everyone disagrees with me, its subjective. And by subjective I don't mean the rules, cuz they are clear that that's exactly whats covered by perception checks. I mean the way you like to play. Preference is all that matters. The reason I don't like it myself is because I like playing my characters skill level and not my own.
Well the "puzzle" challenge is specifically player-not-character. Since the villains are also in a puzzle challenge, after you're both done with your respective quests, we'll have some discussion on puzzle challenges in general.
Ah no, its fine. I'm just not use to playing like is all. I might like it though:)
Very well then. I believe your presence is required in gameplay.
Sorry bout the delay on the post. Can I get the results on my know arcana check before I decide whether or not to make a will save?
Ransaq makes a fine point. No will save is required; you may simply choose not to be affected.
-Posted with Wayfinder
I would suggest that if Garroth's sense motive beats my bluff that he get another sense motive check vs a dc set by GM for him to determine my nature. If he passes, he realizes I'm just pullin his leg as a friend. If he fails, he thinks I'm genuinely insulting him lol.[/ooc]
Being that I'm certainly smirking, I would think the DC would be pretty low.
35.
Im actually not sure how to play it now. Do we assume Ransaqs lie is told right after what Garroth just said so as to keep continuity intact? My first idea was also that he would ask Orald for confirmation, but im not sure to what level we play failed Sense Motives against bluff. Is it just a straight up, "Failed, well I guess ill accept it"?, or more of a "Ok im willing to accept the idea, but lets have some proof"?
As for smirking to indicate leg pulling, it could also be seen as "smug bastard" smirking, which doesnt help ;)
Hey, if you want to hit him, I say hit him. Orald seems to have pushing the plot in order.
35? pffff lol
Look what you got me in to Mel.
So Orald, I assume you realize that unarmed strikes without Improved Unarmed Strike provoke attacks of opportunity, deal nonlethal damage, and take a -4 penalty to the attack roll.
They provoke and do non lethal yes, but the -4 is only for disarm or if i try to use a normal weapon for nonlethel
Ah, you are right of course. And I forgot that nonlethal was the intention with this combat as you are the heroes. Carry on then.
Religious sites beyond the city walls are most often dedicated to lesser beings, such as outsiders or fey, rather than actual deities.
For divvying up treasure, I am fine with it just going to the most needful. After all we are the good guys, if we can't share the loot we are pretty much doomed already.
I would say the two most dangerous people to be out of(or turned against us) the fight should have them. Definitely the wizard as color spray is gross.
I would say Garroth next due to multiple attack actions.
For loot distribution I'm not to particularly concerned about everyone getting an exact equal share - items, IMO, should go to whoever could use them the most.
The second cloak I'd like to see go to Garroth to avoid SoS spells or Aurora to boost her will saves specifically.
The 4 potions of protection from evil should just be sold.
Well im certainly flattered you all find me so dangerous :)
I would suggest the potions go to those who dont get cloaks. The bonuses are quite formidable at early levels, and since we will most likely be fighting mostly evil enemies...
Id also like to add im cool with people just getting stuff. My suggestion was more for the "if" of it than actually needing it.
I personally like the method Garroth mentioned better, but Orald's got a good point, we are good guys, we'd probably handle it casually.
I'd appreciate that if someone's going to push me over a ledge that they make the appropriate rolls rather than just assuming they succeed. Otherwise I guess I'll just also assume any spell I cast in return also succeeds.
@Garroth Also, what joke is Garroth referring to? Because you failed your sense motive with the inscription. So if that's what your talking about then your metagaming.
Playing it by pure mechanics would just as likely see you simply fall because I didnt manage to catch you. Playing it by mechanics is also what made Garroth believe a lie that would never fly with anyone in a million years. Ill admit I had forgotten about that bluff, likely because the results were so preposterous. I thought Garroth had asked Orald for confirmation, but I guess I only thought about doing that in the discussion tab and never specifically did so in gameplay. He should have though.
Ill be sure to roll to hit the next time I pat someone on the shoulder though.
Playing by the mechanics, I would have never needed you to catch me in the fist place.
The results are nowhere near as propisterous as you claim. The site isn't far from town, and Garroth punches people in the face with little provocation. Someone you got into a brawl with could have easily hidden out here at some point. The fact of the matter is, you received a huge bonus and failed. I didn't expect you to fail, but you did, and now yur being a poor sport.
As to your claim suggesting you merely patted me on the shoulder, THAT's proposterous. A pat on the shoulder's not typically a combat action. Grabbing someone and holding them out over the edge of a roof always is. It also requires a grapple check AND a resolve from the GM.
I appreciate your willingness to try and uphold the rules in the future. Thank you, I'm sure it will come up again.
Garroth, you did ask Orald and received a less than helpful reply.
Ransaq, as for the conversation mechanics, they work as well as the involved players choose to interpret them. They aren't magic spells, the skill checks are a convenient way to quickly deal with an npc that you meet for a few minutes or for immediate reaction not for long term relationships as will happen among pcs.
Garroth used a roleplaying scene that had ZERO negative impact on your character to show how offended he was by your little joke. Take it to heart and move on.
A reminder ooc as well that this is the GOOD GUYS group. Intentionally alienating another party member for the sake of a petty joke is not good. It is just dumb.
Can we get back to actually playing a game now?
I couldn't disagree more. The rules exist for a reason. My bluff beat his sense motive, there's no grey area there. If you can reference a page number that backs up what your saying then that would he another matter. And I didn't alienate anyone. If anything, he set his feet on that path himself when he took a stupid joke so g!~ d#!n seriously
I couldn't disagree more. The rules exist for a reason. My bluff beat his sense motive, there's no grey area there.
Peraps not. All the same, here are a few quotes.
Quote:
your gold is cursed and you should give it to me,
-This is TWO statements. Not one.Your gold is cursed is definitely a bluff. The character is lying.
You should give it to me is NOT a bluff. Its a suggested course of action. There's also a huge disconnect as to WHY you would hand cursed gold to a wizard. Priests usually deal with that sort of thing. The character might believe that the gold is cursed, but would take reasonable actions to verify/check/remove said curse.
Bold for emphasis.
IMHO:
Bluff can convince you that the speaker believes what they're saying to be true, but it can't *necessarily* convince you that this isn't because the speaker is an idiot.
"Man, that nutjob thinks my gold is cursed now!"
And the most important quote:
Honestly, when did the rules become a bludgeon to strip everyone of the fun of playing the game?
---------
If anything, he set his feet on that path himself when he took a stupid joke so g#+ d$$n seriously
JOE: *punches Bob in the mouth*
BOB: "Dude, wtf man?"
JOE: "What?"
BOB: "You just punched me in the mouth dude!"
JOE: "Cmon, cant you take a joke?"
What you think of as a joke, others might see as an insult. "Cant take a joke" is in the same league as "We were just having fun", the premier excuse made by bullies when they get scolded.
---------
The results are nowhere near as propisterous as you claim. The site isn't far from town, and Garroth punches people in the face with little provocation. Someone you got into a brawl with could have easily hidden out here at some point. The fact of the matter is, you received a huge bonus and failed. I didn't expect you to fail, but you did, and now yur being a poor sport.
Yeah, someone Garroth punched could have hidden out here...then decided to write an insult about him, then decided it best to hide it thoroughtly under a table. It has no rhyme or reason. If made to chose between calling the scenario "unlikely" or "impossible", I dont even have to think about it for a second.
VADER: "Luke, I am your father."
LUKE: "No, no thats not true. Thats UNLIKELY!"
------
At this point id prefer to just delete the whole affair from in game memory and get back to what this game is supposed to be about.
I see nothing in all of that claiming you can just ignore my bluff. I mean, why would you even make the roll in the first place if you were just going to ignore any result you didn't like? I agree there's nothing forcing you to believe the bluff, but you were suppose to at bare minimum believe that I did. If that's what you want to go with then that's fine, but holding a man over the ledge of a building and threatening him for making jokes is a pretty ridiculous way to handle that. The rules are not a bludgeon to strip everyone of the fun of playing the game, but not following them is called cheating and is only fun for the person doing the cheating. You did this to me not once but twice. Once when you ignored my bluff, and again when you grappled me without a check. How can you not understand why I'm upset with the way you handled that?
Go ahead and delete the incident from your in game memory, I probably will not. I am tired of this argument though so this will be my last entry on it.
By strict RAW, PCs are only required to make (and, as would logically follow, abide by) social rolls when dealing with NPCs. However, given the nature of this game, with PvP as an option, opposing social rolls make sense. It also makes sense that if someone tells Garroth something he thinks sounds impossible (with or without a successful bluff check), hr may ignore or disbelieve it, writing it off as temporary insanity or the like. Of course this wouldn't put him in on the joke, which in this case was merely a misunderstanding. However, from a perspective of being in on the joke, turnabout is certainly fair play. Though Garroth, lacking a sharp tongue, might plausibly resort to physical humor. A low charisma score might lead him to believe that such an action as was taken might be an appropriate response, while an average or higher charisma score would likely have resulted in a more subtle approach. Either one, by RAW, should involve a roll or not be assumed to be successful. Perhaps a bluff check to fake him out or a combat maneuver check to bull rush/grapple. While normally it might feel safe to assume that Garroth could surprise round a successful maneuver against Ransaq's CMD, it's also important to note Ransaq's supernatural reflexes that could easily put Garroth in a spot, especially if Ransaq felt threatened.
Now all that matters little, because what really matters is that you guys post more in arguments in discussion than in gameplay. So why don't you just take it to the temple courtyard and go full non-lethal duel or just shake hands and move on. Either way, let's have a little more game playing, shall we?
And I think you owe your teammates a silver for putting up with this silliness.
-Posted with Wayfinder
Also, shame on you for making me type a novel on my phone.
-Posted with Wayfinder