hoooo boy, I hope this turns out good >.<
I'll post soon! Sorry!
stupid cold, I'm so wrecked!
sorry, work... holidays... and preparing for campaign has eaten up a lot of my focus this week x_X
lol nice one
Oof, sorry for my absence. I'll make sure to be more timely going forward >.<
yay grellik!
Aww, my good writer bogshark boys. <3
I like how we just deepened the history of the sharks some. How Grellik's mask came about, the source of Cavell's angst, tying in some stuff with the Unicorn of the moores, and developing Caira just a bit more. I imagine Caira feeling like a person is going to be important sooner or later.
Gee, I wonder why? :D
a couploe of things I've been meaning to bring up. looking at the first pages again to get a fresh picture of Mornak, I noticed there is a fence that is supposed to reside in Yartar: Grimgar. Am I reading that wrong, or should we totally find him so we have more manpower?
Also, given how long we have known each other, would it be reasonable that we would have taught each other some of our languages? Given the rules for learning languages, it basically just takes time learning, right?
Yes, you would expect Grimgar to be in town. Correct about learning languages. Same with tool proficiencies. They cost 250 downtime days and a gold for each day.
I might wave the money rule for having a bogshark teach the language, but since we started at level 1 not enough downtime has been collected since being PCs to get one. After this adventure i might just grant 250 downtime days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8
you mean this goblin song?
@Grey: understood
@Trissae. If that's how you picture Grellik, then sure :D
Triss will be jealous of your eyeshadow
Well, you can't all be as fabulous as the Bugbear King ;P
You'll have to add,"making drow bards cry" to your dm credentials Grey lol
I know your game. It's just to lure the DM into a false sense of superiority, and then BAM! The Drow bard will take her revenge.
Merry Christmas you filthy animals!
Merry Christmas! Everyone may roll a d100 and somehow find or are given the appropriate trinket this Mornak's eve/following morning. Feel free to describe how you came by it.
If you roll the trinket you started with, you may keep the double or reroll.
a quick clarification please DM:
there isn't an "extended rest" in the book, just short and long. If you intend it to be a long rest, one of the advantages of it is regains all lost hp and spent HD (up to half).
judging by the tip off that you said "not 100%" I'll assume you mean we don't heal to full, but I'm also not sure what other things we don't get back (full spell slots? etc.) to 100% either.
just making sure because I spell like crazy!
Oh s#%%. Yeah, I must have got my lexicon messed up.
Take a long rest.
The "not healed to 100%" is reserved for people who spent more than 2HD, and therefor aren't fully recovered in the HD department. You DO heal to full HP, but HD is part of your general well-being.
So long as your spells are Long-Rest-Recoverable (Which I'm nearly positive they are), those are all recovered as well.
Also, the term is "N Tel Quess", you racist elf.
::popcorn::
happy new year!
working on some more bogshark 101 stuff, this time triss's family history!
I'd suggest copy pasting your posts into a notepad document (or similar) and keeping it on hand. I've been doing that after losing a few posts myself
I got the costume descriptions up in my profile if you want to check them out.
nice detail, i like
Added a recent errata to our campaign info tab. Let me know if you see me make a ruling that doesn't make sense in context of this errata.
who/what we waitin on
In case people haven't heard, 5E has an OGL now (though I don't know the exact details), which is awesome for creators, and means that people can put up an SRD Its in the early stages now, but once it gets rolling it promises to be a great resource when away from book or if one wises to reference a rule.
I wises for a reference or book all the time! XD
Hey, its hard to type with thee giant assed hands! :D
okay Grey I could use some clerification/discussion/ideas GMing stuff. Adrien/Grell definitely add in, you guys have great insight so it'll help a ton.
This scenario has brought up something (to me) something that has been digging at my brain since a recent interaction when I was DMing for Grey.
So basically when is, or what conditions, are appropriate to substitute one skill roll for another. Some clarification:
Recently Grey's character Braeus got into a scuffle with an aggressive npc. It came to a head when Brae mentioned something to the effect of "don't do that, you'll get people killed" (or something to that effect, feel free to clarify Grey). Anyway at the time I just narrated through it and it escalated to combat. Since then though I've sorta obsessed over how I handled it, I have a tendancy to focus on what I consider failures at DMing in hopes to improve, and I wondered if I shouldn't have called for a roll... and this is where the true meat and potatoes of my 5e conundrum starts;
should I have called for an intimidate roll? he was sort of threatening the npc with an act of violence.
Maybe a persuasion check, he wasn't really trying to scare the NPC so much as saying "hey you don't want to do this, and this is why"
Could Grey even intimidate the npc? or would the npc have just taken it as a plea anyway?
I don't know, I don't know a satisfactory answer. This comes up again with this last scene:
Triss is trying to pretend to be a passerby and nonchalant, mostly to fool the, maybe not even attentive, guards. Well, she's trying to fool them yeah, so deceive? but she's pretending to be something, acting like something and acting is performance.... so is she a good actor or a good liar? Can an actor be good without lying? are all good liars good actors? Crap! my brain.
by the way I totally should have rolled the persuasion check but I got so hung up on what the appropriate roll was for everything else (I was also pretty tired) that I just threw my hands up to the whole thing. It only is really a problem with the social skills, they all sorta double dip in a way. A good used car salesmen might be good because he's persuasive, deceiving, or coercive... and the truth is really its all three to some extent.
Luckily we have this playground to hash stuff out, on the fly like what happened when I was DMing live there isn't a chance to like think about these types of situations. Plus talking with you guys is always enlightening, so hey tell me what you think cuz I'm always at odds with myself on this stuff.
So Grey, sorry x2 lol. Here: Have some Batmetal (>^_^)>
aww, no comment :(
I guess text wall wasn't the proper way to handle this x_X
Oh, sorry. I checked this from my phone at some point, clearing the notification, and forgot to come back at home.
----------
from the PHB, using abilities page 178
"Deception. Your Charisma (Deception) check
determines whether you can convincingly hide the
truth, either verbally or through your actions. This
deception can encompass everything from misleading
others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical
situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a
merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself
off in a disguise, dull someone’s suspicions with false
assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling
a blatant lie."
"Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check
determines how well you can delight an audience with
music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of
entertainment."
For these skills, anyway, it's pretty clear. Though the uses of these skills sound fairly similar when you think of them a certain way, their intentions are clear. If you are specifically misleading a person in any way, it is deception. If you are doing a performance for entertainment reasons, it is performance. You using a disguise isn't the same as wearing a costume for people who you aren't actually trying to fool.
Some people are amazing actors, but don't have the ability to lie worth a damn. Some people are amazing liars, but cannot work a crowd in a play-hall. Deception takes someone willing and practiced with tricking others, misleading them, picking language and setting your facial expressions in ways that are believable, even when pretending to be another person.
Performing is about being entertainingly exaggerated sometimes, not realistically. Performance is knowing how to play a musical instrument, or sing, or act. You know how to stand with regards to the audience, you know your lines, and how to project your dialog clearly and faux-passionately so it is readable to people. It's about reading the audience and knowing when to flourish a bit.
Performance is about audience-craft. Deception is about people-craft. In both you're manipulating people, but for completely different reasons, and in fundamentally different ways.
----------
As for Braeous, I'd have probably at least prompted a roll since it seemed ambiguous what I was going for. "Are you trying to scare him, or reason with him?" In that example, I was trying to reason with him. Kind of like a "You don't just send people out to 'attack strangers' and expect them to not defend themselves, are you kidding?" But I have no issue with how things played out. Knowing what the player wants is an important step when trying to arbitrate a tense action, especially with how difficult it is to convey a character you aren't used to playing at a table.
Maybe it would be possible to intimidate the orc, but at a higher check, or with disadvantage, yet persuasion/deception would be lower? I remember reading in some editions, setting NPCs less likely to respond to threats, then wishful thinking, for example.
sorry, I was intending to comment, but when I went to post in the gameplay I completely forgot. But I echo everything that Grey said, aside from the scenario specific bits, since I wasn't there :D
:: nod nod ::
useful insight. I'd checked out some online stuff too, as well as reviewed the DMG and found some useful info there too.
One example that came up that I liked was where you had 3 people performing but using 3 different core stats: A juggler, a singer, and a strong man. (you can make the stat + perform check observations there)
I saw a lot of people basically agree that even though skills tend to belong to a stat category (I read that as scat rereading it like 3 times) they weren't always bound by it. (i.e. the strength to intimidation we use, or like using dex for a dance performance)
I'm still a bit personally on the fence about alternative uses for the skills themselves though, only because of the character intent vs. recipient expectation conflict (a passionate plea from the character could be construed as a threat for instance)
by the way I get that it's our (gm's) responsibilities to hash this out based on our intuition but I find talking it out here helps. Super thanks for participating by the way.
I also sorta brought it up (and our IRL game stuff) because we have these fantasically creative people playing with us and I find that I'm sometimes easily swayed by thoughtful arguments for a particular action lol
Oh also if you're interested I found the examples of stat uses in the DMG on page 236(ish).
I think conveying your intent is part of the success/failure. A failed persuasion attempt might very well have failed because they perceived it as a threat, for example.
Are we using modified mount rules? Normally mounts are their own character that are controlled modally either directly (they are controlled and only have move, dash, dodge, and disengage) or independent which they get their own initiative and actions. Either way controlling the mount doesn't consume actions of the rider (generally)
so adrien in theory could ride up in the horse, dismount (eats half move) then take the rest of his movement.
also another side note, it doesn't state that riding without a saddle confers disadvantage (saddles page 155 instead merely confer advantage when trying to stay mounted in combat)
A military saddle confers that advantage. It appears they failed to describe the other ones. The way I've read it and ruled it (both now and the last time you guys were riding without a saddle) are that military saddles give advantage, riding saddles are normal, exotic saddles are for strange (not standard creature) mounts, and pack saddles are, well, pack saddles, normal but with packs.
They say nothing that I've seen about riding WITHOUT a saddle, so I think it fair that it is for disadvantage while trying to remain mounted, which seems reasonable.
Quoted, page 198 phb
C o n t r o l l i n g a M o u n t
While you're mounted, you have two options. You
can either control the mount or allow it to act
independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons,
act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained
to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and
similar creatures are assumed to have such training.
The initiative o f a controlled mount changes to match
yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and
it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and
Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on
the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the
initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on
the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts
as it w ishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack
and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against
your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity
attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you
or the mount.
Horses aren't intelligent creatures, they act as they are told to. This means they don't have their independent init orders, and instead act when, and using the player uses actions for them to act.
...
...
Actually, rereading, it does seem to imply that all of these things are the horses. I might be biased toward memories of 4e mechanics.
So, yeah, that's fair I think. I'm pretty stead-fast on my saddle rules until someone can demonstrate a fair argument or rules that makes me think that unsaddled riding shouldn't be at a penalty when trying to stay on, but I'm fine with horse movements being augmented supplements to the player's turn without actually using their movement/action. At least until I find an errata that goes into detail with mounted rules.
saddle rules sound fair to me. bare back riding is significantly harder than using a saddle, and its fair to extrapolate that doing so confers disadvantage
Also, don't ride bare back. Use protection. ;P
I think the saddle stuff sounds fair too, I just didn't see the effects of bareback riding mentioned in the mounted combat section so I checked over at equipment to see what was mentioned there.
Just a heads up:
You guys rock. That is all.
Brutal Adrien!
Thanks much! :D
Did you know that that was almost exactly what Grellik was going to ask of him? Either way, nice :D
(And a belated thanks for the kind words, Triss)
sorry guys, I'll post again soon. Got called into work sunday and haven't gotten much sleep over the week/weekend
It's cool. Rest up.