GM WhtKnt's Into the Borderlands, Table 1 (Inactive)

Game Master WhtKnt

There. Doesn't this just _feel_ better? =)

Also, we're keeping the gnome alive, so this plan MUST be working well! =D

Sorry, guys. Con is in three days and I'm in panic mode. Will get back to normal after this weekend.

There. Doesn't this just _feel_ better? =)

Lol.

I initially read that as "Just. Feel. Better." It just now occurred to me that mainstream social media platforms use a single-symbol code for formatting: _ * > and so forth.

My main forum is only a bit more updated than Paizo, so I'm super-acclimated to the [b][/b] [i][/i] (can't remember the name of the code). God, I'm so old.

Sorry, guys. Con is in three days and I'm in panic mode. Will get back to normal after this weekend.

Enjoy the con!

Anyone else think that this Gease ignition mechanic could use a case-by-case DC? I feel a little scrubish using it but I'd feel really dumb not using it. A conundrum for the ages, I tell you.

I suppose the first question here is: GM, would you be willing to give the Gease some kind of situation-based ignition DC? Assuming, of course, the idea is unanimously accepted by the party.

For my fellow internal logic-enthusiasts, it's not like it's impossible to fail at igniting a flammable substance. Throwing a lit match into an open gas tank won't result in an explosion 8/10. Game-wise, there are obstacles and people to think of. My fireball could have it the metal on an orc boot or the top of a rock. And something like a tossed torch could easily be caught by a nimble enemy.

There is also plenty of grease that won't light on fire. Could always be one of those.

Back in my PF days, we alsways said grease wouldn't light because there was a higher level spell similar to grease that would light up. Not sure if it's true in 5e.

I am fine if it burns or not.

Have any of you played Divinity: Original Sin? The WHOLE ENTIRE COMBAT MECHANIC is built around "environmental damage" mechanics such as that.

There is a spell called "Oil spill" that does nothing but cover an area in oil, which is slippery but not dangerous, and there is a spell called "Flare" which does make a character "Warm" if it hits, for moderate damage, or which can ignite a pool of Oil.

I WISH that D&D had as many Creative Solutions as D:OS does. WOULD that we had a Poison Cloud arrow, and that Poison Clouds were flammable. I mean, there's the Web/Fire two-some, but that's just one.

Anyway, I digress. I'd differ to the rules, that, since the Oil spell is actually MORE POWERFUL than a flask of oil (since it is 1] A 1st level spell and, 2] can make a surface slippery, which a flask of oil can not) that there's nothing wrong with just applying the effects of a flaming flask of oil (pg 152) to the area covered.
Ever more so since it takes the actions of 2 characters AND a spell to get the effect, so it's hardly cheese. =)

In general, I'm against interacting spells unless dictated in their descriptions. The game, spells included, tends to be balanced around those effects not stacking or creating new conditions: 'Grease' as designed offers a disincentive for moving through the squares in the form of a fall chance, not a fall chance and damage. When you change the power of something, it can get tricky keeping everything in check.

All of that to say, it's not the end of the world either way, and I'm all for occasional Rule of Cool enforcements, but that's my 2 cents.

(and we're far from the 1st group to discuss the merits of lighting Grease on fire and we certainly won't be the last.)

I don't have a problem being able to ignite the Grease. My issue is that there isn't currently any way to fail an ignition attempt. I'd just like there to be a DC that takes into account things like physical obstacles and terrain.

Sure, the floor of the corridor was flammable. It was also full of a half-dozen orcs, to say nothing of the stalactites that likely litter the cave floor. Plenty of nonflammable targets for my flame to find. I think the mechanic would feel more balanced if there is a chance that you waste your turn.

Ever more so since it takes the actions of 2 characters AND a spell to get the effect, so it's hardly cheese

Tossing aside a torch would almost definitely be a free action. If the square in front of you is Greased, then you could just drop your torch at arms-length. Also, it may take two actions, but not necessarily two characters. Ya'Bo has Firebolt as a cantrip too.

.
.
.

In my opinion, the cheese factor comes from cost and fail-chance (RNG) - or lack thereof - not from the damage or impact output.

Cost: 2 actions, 1 1st level spell
RNG: 0 dice rolled
Outcome: 1d6/target added to 1st level crowd-control spell.

Let's look at a comparable 1st level spells.

Burning Hands does 3d6 in a larger area than Grease but every potential target comes with a fail-chance. You might deal 18 to 5 targets, or you might do 0. Full stop. The latter will never happen with the current Grease combo. You will do 1-6 damage to everyone in the range of your CC effect; which may have left 4 targets prone.

.
.
.

tl;dr (sorta)

Without some sort of check, this Lvl 1.5 spell gives the team access to a low-damage AoE that completely bypasses: attack rolls, enemy AC, and/or enemy saving throws. That sounds stuffed-crust cheesy to me.

My suggestions would be any combination of...

1. A standard Difficulty Check. Failure is always an option.

2. Give anyone who passes the Grease DEX check a chance to escape the fire unharmed with a second DEX or CON roll. This way we aren't guaranteed 100% value from the combo 100% of the time.

3. Fire burns off Grease's CC, ending the effect sooner. The Grease is supposed to be fuel for the flames. It shouldn't linger for as long as it would if it were, you know, not on fire.

See, you can't just throw fire at people. They might catch it. lol.

https://i.imgur.com/a5E36ZC.gif

Looks like we may have our first in-party quarrel. Theo's Good alignment stems almost exclusively from a universal empathy for sentient life and it's autonomy. The Neutrality comes from the extreme measures he'll take to defend them.

Imma need like a day (maybe less) to whip-up a proper reactiom. This should be fun.

Sounds good! Let me know what direction we want to take this, and I can craft appropriate responses.

Theo, you're free to react however you like, but keep in mind;

1) We're in combat,
2) We just killed half their tribe. They're unlikely to respond to any diplomatic entreaties, and, 3)
3) I may be wrong here, but I hear tell that Mystra "was not as concerned with the ethics of Good versus Evil as long as the laws of magic were upheld." I've always heard that Mystra was more concerned with Magic and the practice of it than any mortal qualms.
4) Aterro is likely to give you leadway, and say, "okay, but can you do it?" Failure to have the orcs follow any plan you try to enact is likely to just prove Aterro correct in his first assumption. ^_^

Jus' sayin. =)

Wait though, didn't you ask them to surrender and then they came out to talk and you guys blasted them?

That aside, I guess the question is: how deep are we going?

If we're gonna stick with the "all orcs are evil" surface level idea (which is why we're clearing out the caves for humans) and not go deeper that's one thing. If instead we're going to consider them redeemable beings with agency and the potential for good, that's another (and then we're the colonizers, which is less appetizing an idea, to me, anyway.).

I guess I need to know which it is before reacting.

From my point of view, I asked them to surrender unconditionally. They did nothing that I asked, and were threatening. I took that as a rejection of the surrender discussion and a re-engagement of hostilities.

I'm happy with the first idea (which I call the "Baldur's Gate paradigm" =) that all orcs are but experience for the purse, and going no farther than that.

To do any more, I, also, am not comfortable with, since it's more moral to allow orcs to die with honor, rather than to force them to give up their entire lifestyle of razing and pillaging and force them to wear clothing and take up the till...which is probably a lifetime of torture for them...filthy greenskin Xenos that they are. =p

If we're gonna stick with the "all orcs are evil" surface level idea (which is why we're clearing out the caves for humans) and not go deeper that's one thing.

I think this is a question for the DM. It's a question of world design, rather than character perspective. What's the reality of the world? Are orcs all Evil and we are the Good guys? Or is there moral grey?

I may be wrong here, but I hear tell that Mystra "was not as concerned with the ethics of Good versus Evil as long as the laws of magic were upheld." I've always heard that Mystra was more concerned with Magic and the practice of it than any mortal qualms.

To be fair, not all priests act exactly is their deities want them to. :)

So while Mystra may say that morals don't really matter, individual priests may care more.

Take, for example, my own PC, who actively spits in the face of his own deity and wants nothing to do with the powers. Certainly not what one would think of for a Cleric of Talos.

Are all orcs evil? In large part, yes. The vast majority of orcs (goblins, kobolds, etc.) are raised "evil," and so are born into such a role. That said, the occasional good or neutral individual is certainly possible. They likely would not be found within the ranks of others of their type, but the potential certainly exists.

The nature of an "evil" humanoid is to take what they want and answer to only one stronger than they.

Okay, there, we have our answer. True to the nature of the module, we're in 1st ed D&D, where evil is evil (unless it's a drow with two swords, in which case he likes to hang out on the surface anyway).

Defending orcs is akin to defending fire ants, pedophiles, and people who talk during the movie.

Or wasps.

YaBo does not care either way. He just knows that they are there to clear out the caves. If that means killing all that live there or letting them walk out on their own, so be it. He feels it takes less energy to let them walk out, after “confiscating” all items that can be deemed stolen from the keep (anything of value to us).

1) We're in combat,

2) We just killed half their tribe. They're unlikely to respond to any diplomatic entreaties, and, 3)

I'll keep these in mind.

I hear tell that Mystra "was not as concerned with the ethics of Good versus Evil as long as the laws of magic were upheld." I've always heard that Mystra was more concerned with Magic and the practice of it than any mortal qualms.

Hence why she cares little when I choose to champion a mundane cause or take firm ethical stances.

4) Aterro is likely to give you leadway, and say, "okay, but can you do it?" Failure to have the orcs follow any plan you try to enact is likely to just prove Aterro correct in his first assumption. ^_^

I'm always up for a giant slice of humble pie.

If instead we're going to consider them redeemable beings with agency and the potential for good, that's another

This is the only part Theo and I are concerned about.If they aren't literally just ravenous animals, then serious attempts to avoid bloodshed needs to be taken.

Theo has technically been letting things slide since the beginning. We are trespassing. That means none of our kills were in self-defense, not really. I wasn't gonna split hairs when we'd just started, and was content just pretending diplomacy was doomed to fail (Baulder's Gate Paradigm). But if we've come to anything remotely like a negotiating table, that changes things.

The nature of an "evil" humanoid is to take what they want and answer to only one stronger than they.

See, guys? The simple fact that they respect any hierarchy, even might-makes-right, shows that the individuals can be managed. And, in fact, it gives us a very strong hand to play. We've killed their Vanguard, and we carry evidence of our victory over the Troll (something I’m sure they consider a threat). We’ve more than proven ourselves the superior force.

To do any more, I, also, am not comfortable with, since it's more moral to allow orcs to die with honor, rather than to force them to give up their entire lifestyle of razing and pillaging and force them to wear clothing and take up the till...which is probably a lifetime of torture for them...filthy greenskin Xenos that they are. =p

They obviously follow enough of a structure to maintain territory, they might be able to integrate into the local way of life without abandoning their roots and primal urges. There’s obviously a market for mercenary forces. Hell, if we play this right; get the Orcs to submit to us (and by extension our employers) as superior, and give the local monarch a silver tonguing; we could turn these dangerous pests into the first line of defense for the Keep. That’s to say nothing of them being the ultimate bandit deterrent. Enemy forces, poachers, bandits, deserters; I’m sure the Keep has plenty of human prey for our savage friends.

We’d just need to negotiate a safe path through the pass. Anyway, typing this all up has been inspirational. I’ll get on typing up the RP bit.

@GM (just so you have a heads up on everything)
I’m pretty sure I haven’t acted in the round in which Attero called for their surrender. If that’s the case, my first course of action will be to keep the situation form escalating. Attero says he’ll probably wait patiently for his chance to say “told you so”. If I can, I’ll block Neil’s LoS as I move. That would probably be my first percausion when keeping any situation from getting…out of hand.

I'm game for you blocking my LoS. Let's see where this takes us. Either way, it'll make for a good story.

That's all fine...but.

You said you needed one day, and took two. Ore already posted, and he is disinclined to acquiesce. And his opinion carries just as much weight as anyone else's.

Sorry chummer. How about we play this through, and next time try dialogue?

That's all fine...but.

You said you needed one day, and took two. Ore already posted, and he is disinclined to acquiesce. And his opinion carries just as much weight as anyone else's.

Sorry chummer. How about we play this through, and next time try dialogue?

Keeping the campaign on track is obviously priority one. If GM thinks something will throw us off course, or if other players feel like their actions are being undercut; my actions can always be amended to maintain homeostasis.

We've always played pretty fast and loose with any kind of deadline, and I definitely took that for granted here. It's completely understandable if things moved too far ahead without me. If the group wants to move on, and/or if DM doesn't want to retcon actions; that's all fine.

That said; I do think we may be walking into some Tuskan Raider stuff here. And I would plead for patience and indulgence in regards to my attempt at de-escalation.

So, I interpreted GM's statement to mean these dudes are bad and we should feel okay about this. This whole module is based on clearing out evil things from this cave system.

DND alignments being what they are, you're supposed to feel okay about killing evil things. That's like, a central tenant, no? I get not wanting to kill Innocents, but I don't think these are them? That sort of "maybe it's not their fault" stuff sounds more like Neutral to me.

Regardless, if Neil & Aterro are stopped, I'll not take my action either, as it was based on the having re-engaged.

I agree, Ore.

If this game moved faster, I think patience would be more ample. However, we know the DM is greatly burdened as things are. Seeing as, even if it was successful, it would probably lead to at least a couple back-and-forths between all the NPCs and one PC, that might induce a long delay.

Also, I was sympathetic to Anakin there. It seems reasonable. WWI was started over a single death.

Been thinking about this some. Since orcs are defacto evil here (barring PCs, it seems), then Neil would he bothered by the line of sight. I'll post him getting annoyed by it. Seems like hos world view more closely matches the game world than a world where there's more moral grey.

Sweet lord above, *I* will never take pronouns for granted again. *They* are the best. Don't *you* guys agree.

Seriously. That post was a chore.

I hope you guys srsly haven't waited on me. If I'm missing a post, feel free to just bot me, or skip me and let me take two actions next round. Sometimes I'll read a post, and -think- that I posted, and just forget about it. So move on and I'll take it as a lesson learned. =)

Err, sorry Theo, that is not how that spell works.

It creates physical objects (the examples given are chair, footprints, and a chest), not "darkness", and the spell specifically calls out that it doesn't create sensory effects.

There was a sage advice where Crawford answered a similar question about denying sight with a fog cloud.
fog cloud sage advice (scroll down a bit)

Err, sorry Theo, that is not how that spell works.

It creates physical objects (the examples given are chair, footprints, and a chest), not "darkness", and the spell specifically calls out that it doesn't create sensory effects.

There was a sage advice where Crawford answered a similar question about denying sight with a fog cloud.
fog cloud sage advice (scroll down a bit)

The answer linked there doesn't say it can't deny visibility. It states it's meant to create objects, not atmospheric effects. You technically block vision anytime you create an illusion. You can't see the floor under an illusory lion's paw.

I could change the vague sphere into a circular curtain - like in a hospital - of black satin sheets. That way he isn't in the illusion, his vision is just being blocked by it.

As for the not creating sensory effects bit. I'm obviously not taking control of his senses, nor am I trying to. I'm trying to convince him that's what I have done.

Either way, to grant any effect of that nature, would make it, de facto, an at-will Blindness spell, which is a 2nd lvl spell.

Good try, bonus points for effort.

I'd give the target a save, possibly with disadvantage based on the RP leading up to it.

@Neil, the orc would only need to 'manipulate an object' which isn't an action, to count as 'physically interacting' with the spell, which gets the orc and anyone who sees this interaction an auto-disbelief. The save in the spell description is if you investigate.

Sticking your hand in bravely earns you a free disbelief. This is why it's a good spell to use to cover a trap; if people don't explicitly investigate, they get caught up in it!

edit: Source: this came up in a home game last week and resulted in a LOT of reading

I thoroughly believe you and in no way dispute what you're saying. I'm just more prone to siding on making illusions work out of nostalgia for when the illusion school was actually decent, back in 2e.

Has anyone heard from the GM? He has not posted in a while.

I'm sure he's around somewhere. Life gets busy.

Very busy. My folks are visiting this weekend, but I will try to post Monday.

No worries, have fun with the family

Hey guys. Just wanted to say I'm really enjoying the RP everyone is doing. You guys are all great to game with.

We're all agreed that we need a long rest before we go looking for more trouble, yeah?

Where's that gung-ho cleric trying to get us to tackle another orc tribe?

On a more serious note, I think we can take out that orc leader, first.

I'd vote for a short rest. Though I'm sure we'd survive the encouneter regardless.

I don't know how Ya'Bo's doing, but my spells are tapped. And I'd really like a chance to see how weak the big man finds talking when a single word rends open his psyche and binds the Ork's autonomy to my will.

Mmmrmph. Doing one encounter with low spells is one thing, because I was at full. Now that we're even lower than what we were low on before is yet even more worser.

So we're at one vote Long, one vote Short, and one vote "F@&* you I'm NEIL!"

Mmmrmph. Doing one encounter with low spells is one thing, because I was at full. Now that we're even lower than what we were low on before is yet even more worser.

So we're at one vote Long, one vote Short, and one vote "F*$% you I'm NEIL!"

To be more exact -- and not at all tedious /s -- I'm more voting "rest" as opposed to "no rest". I should have said, "at least a short rest" if I was so concerned about clarity.

I'm down for a short rest.

I have two 1st level spell slots left and with a short rest I can gain one more.
So my vote is short rest

I am going to be at a con until Monday and will likely be unable to post. Please bot me as necessary or, if you are in my game, be patient and I will pick up on Monday evening or Tuesday morning.

Hey all. Sorry for the low/lack of posts. I've been rolling over in my mind how Ore would respond the Theo's impass, and given the background in philosophy and justice I set up for him, I've decided he come down on the 'maybe the humans aren't necessarily the good guys' side. Sorry it took so long!

If you don't mind my spending HD at the short rest...

Short Rest HD: 1d8 + 1 ⇒ (4) + 1 = 5
Short Rest HD: 1d8 + 1 ⇒ (5) + 1 = 6

...that'll get me to full, if that's okay. Sorry I forgot to mention it. But I didn't want to be venturing further on only 5 hp

I think we're still waiting on people from the 1st round, no?