The Dales and Beyond

Game Master littlehewy

I was also thinking...with this traumatic encounter perhaps Jack might now be afraid of tight, dark places...perhaps needing a Wisdom roll to voluntarily enter such a place again!! Just a thought for a little character building.

Yeah cool :) Don't feel the need to impose a strict penalty on yourself, but if you want to choose to roll Wis in similar situations, go ahead. Also, magical healing tends to cure things without a trace, but you're not up to full hp, and if you wanted to keep some cool scars you can do that too - or not, completely up to you.

Take inspiration for the dream post, Nilelane. Great stuff.

Thanks! First time in a while I've had a chance to do more than a short blurb post, and was missing her.

I hear you. I'm running two, playing in four, and the ones I'm playing always take a back seat to the ones I'm running, so they sometimes (lately often) get short shrift if I'm busy. Short posts are effective in keeping in touch with a game in between more substantial offerings though :)

That was an awesome post Nilelane!!!
As for the inspiration usage, i think its only logical really. No one should die without expending all options open to them.

You may be way ahead of me here, but get ready to level up to 3rd, you're only an encounter or three away from that :)

Sooner than later I hope.

I agree with the others, Nilelane, great post.

Inspiration was fine.

Definitely ready for some 2nd level spells. Hopefully can find the supplies for copying other new spells and conjuring a new familiar as well.

As we've reached the 1,000 post mark, I'm going to give you all a little XP boost - 60 each, taking you to a total of 790, 110 away from 3rd level. Great job sticking with the game so far, folks!

Sorry if my posting gets spotty over the next month, I'm in the final throes of my master's thesis, and it's getting hectic. My pbp priority will be this and the other game I'm running, so don't fear it's going to die or grind to a halt, but there may be days here and there where I don't get on the site.

Also, little treat for y'all, with the XP for bypassing the trap successfully (plus a little bonus) you're all at 900 XP, which means 3rd level :) Given that you just rested, I'm happy for you all to apply that straight away. Nilelane, you get two free spells of any level in your book for free, and you have ink, so you can also choose those spells immediately (both 2nd level I assume) and have them memorised.

Remember, hp are roll, or half the die, the whichever is greater.

HP 3rd: 1d6 ⇒ 3

HP 3rd: 1d8 ⇒ 7
Woot!! I'll take it!!!

Kind of exhausted at the moment, but will update in a few hours with new level crunch! Thinking flaming sphere and invisibility for the new spells but open to requests. There's Rope Trick which could guarantee us safe short rest for one...

Pretty quick level for me, nothing much changes except the big 2nd level spells slots! Think I'll go ahead and snag rope trick, seems like something she would do lol.

Sry folks i had to xfer to nightshift over the weekend and last night. I have had 0 time to post.

I should be able to get updated tm morn.

Hp: 1d8 ⇒ 8
That will help a lot. Plus I get some kai points woot.

No stress on speed at the moment folks, I'm totally under the pump. I don't know why I thought doing a master's while working full time was a good idea.

Sorry guys, been super scarce at the moment. Daughter has been finishing up her art final for the year and I've been spray painting for nights, plus my new work doesn't allow Paizo through the network. booo. I'll have my level up done ASAP. Yays LVL 3!!!

HP: 1d10 ⇒ 9 can get the dice roll done in case we move on before I'm done.

Oh Gmhewy. I'm hearing you. Half way through my masters as well. Full time work and kids..... WTF was i thinking?

Sorry, just catching up :)

Ok, after reading Nilelane's post saying lvl 3 wast too much work I finished it up quickly.

9HP + 2cons bonus, 1 extra lvl 1 spell
Divine Health, sacred oath.
Sacred oath = 2 spells (bane, Hunters mark} and channel divinity.
Channel Divinity = Abjure Enemy and Vow of Enmity

3rd is a fun level for almost every class but wizard. Still, 2nd level spells are cool.

Beerg, I see after rereading your backstory that you were always going oath of vengeance - nice :) Hunter's mark is a sweet spell, don't forget that it lasts for an hour, and you can keep selecting new targets during that time (so long as the previous target gets dropped). And it's casting time is only a bonus action, so you can cast, move, and attack.

HP: 1d12 ⇒ 9 +2 con

Kraz is going Path of the Beserker

Sweet. And nice hp roll :)

I’m glad you two are up front. Lol tons of hps.

Hi folks, I know it's the weekend, and so posting might not be high on the agenda, but let's get back in the swing of it during this week. You're all now 3rd level, which is where things start to get fun :)

What did we decide on things like take 10, take 20 etc? There are repercussions for lock picking. Allowing take 20 basically says that if your bonus plus 20 beats the lock DC, you'll be able to pick it given enough time. The other option is that you get one shot, and if you fail, the lock's just too tough for you (if we go that way, I'll do the old 2e thing and let you try again when you go up a level). Which way do you all prefer it? The Pathfinder take 20 way, or the 2e way? Obviously as you're the lock picker of the group your opinion is important Jack, but this decision could flow on to affect other types of checks as well.

My thoughts again:

Take 10 is passives. There is passive everything, not just perception.

Take 20 is no roll required. For example, someone who used to be a farmer in their background just knows how to plant seeds the right way.

But fine with whatever.

Anyone play the Pathfinder 2e playtest? Lockpicking is a bit brutal in its current state. You must succeed at 3 checks for the simplest of locks. A nat 20 counts as 2 success and a nat 1 counts as 2 fails and might break your picks (sort of like death saves).

So how would you run lockpicking specifically, Nilelane? I've got +6 to Disable Device, lock DC is 20. I roll an 8, fail. Can I try again? If I can, we may as well assume I can take my time (20 turns) and succeed, essentially a take 20. Rolling is only important if time is a factor. If not... what? Can I never try again?

Take 20 is not a magic rule. It is just shorthand for, "there are no consequences for failing, you may try again, and time is not important". There may be consequences if the time it takes is important, but not otherwise. Take a DC 20 Str check to open a door. Can you retry those? If so, you'll eventually roll a 20 and succeed, unless you have a -1 Str mod. Take 20 just means we assume that in 20 rolls you get a 20.

Not arguing with anything you said Nilelane, but it doesn't really answer the issue I'm grappling with. If you can retry checks, and rolling a 20 would give you a success, take 20 just cuts out you making the 1-50 rolls that would give you that 20. So the question is, can some checks (in this case, specifically to pick locks) be retried? How do you see it?

I think if there is no danger in the task a take 20 is possible. Other than that I would say no. And I personally see no reason why you couldn't try more than once if you had the time. Unless you break your tools or something.

Okey doke, that's one vote for retries.

And just forget I spoke the words "Take 20". For some reason that phrase seems to conjure up visions of horror in 5e player's minds! This conversation is about whether we allow retries on inanimate objects like locks, stuck doors, etc.

For now, I'm leaning towards allowing retries on those things in general, letting people auto-succeed if they have enough time to sit there and give it their best shot, and also reserve the right to occasionally say, "No, you can't retry that," if I have a reason (that I may or may not share). If the majority of people don't want to allow retries, a la 2e, we can do that too.

Well, I guess its just a point of view thing, but what I meant is no roll required. If something has no consequence for failure (which would in the past come under some certain take 20 situations) don't have the player roll. Just rule what happens.

There is always at least a time consequence for attempted pick locking. Usually that matters for random encounters or at least spell duration tracking.

But in your hypothetical, with +6 mod and absolutely no consequence for failure (not even time), I would say the thief opens the lock. To figure out how much time it took, rough estimate, Id look at passive score. It would be 16 normally, but passives get +5 bonus for advantage. So a party member could help say, or maybe thief was familiar with this type of lock, whatever. Passive would then be 21 and could open it. So maybe it took 3 or 4 times as usual without any of that.

The idea of the 'Take 20' should not really be too frightening for tasks that have NO consequence if failed. For me, it is the same as re-rolling, but makes the game time for such shorter and easier, rather than rolling 18 times until you finally succeed. I have no problem with this idea for repetitive tasks with no fail consequence. I think it a quicker and neater way of showing a player completing a simple take without all the rolls

My 2cp worth anyway.

I'm confused as to why passive would be the go to mechanic for this... For starters, I imagined they were called passive checks because the DM was using them when the players weren't actively declaring it as an action, hence the term passive. But more importantly, if you can retry an action without consequence, why wouldn't the player be allowed to sit there and roll, roll, reroll, until they get their 18 or whatever they need? And if that's the case, why not just assume they'll get their number (if it's possible) after a certain amount of time?

To put it in context, Jack has +5 with thieves' tools. The DC for the dwarf's manacles is 20. Jack's highest possible roll is 25. He announces he wants to pick the lock, I say, no, you can't.

Jack: Why not? Don't I get a roll?
DM: Nope, your passive thieves' tool check is only 15. The DC's higher than that.
Jack: Come on, let me have a roll! That's half the fun!
DM: Okaaay, you can roll.
Jack: Hmm, 18. That do it?
DM: Nope, sorry, lower than the DC.
Jack: Can I try again?
DM: Sure, I don't see why not.

Jack rolls like crap 15 more times in a row. He eventually rolls a 15, scraping a 20 with his +5. We've just had a heap of rolls on something Jack could do, given enough time. Or, we haven't let him even make a roll; we just told him that because he can't do it if he rolls a 10, he can't do it at all.

Or, we say that, given enough rolls, Jack will hit a 15. Given that he can just sit there and keep trying, we'll skip the meaningless rolls and let him pick it. Let's say it takes two minutes.

There's no way a PC can get help to pick a lock, by the way. As it states in the PHB, for some tasks, like threading a needle, having more than one person doesn't help. If you've ever picked a lock, it's pretty much like threading a needle in that regard. That the section gives lockpicking as an example of where you need the appropriate proficiency to help someone with a task says to me that the section was written by someone who's never picked a lock!

I guess another way to think of it is that with take 20, absolutely anyone with a non-negative dex mod could pick a DC 20 lock.

I was just using passives as a "scale". Normally its an action for a rolled attempt, or thieves do it as a bonus action.

The reason you state is indeed one reason passives were done (players not actively declaring). But there is a second reason: it represents the average result of multiple rolls.

If something can succeed and there is no consequence I don't think it should even be mentioned but casually in the narrative for fluff.

I guess another way to think of it is that with take 20, absolutely anyone with a non-negative dex mod could pick a DC 20 lock.

Yeah, I totally take your point on this one. Although to be fair, with probably less than 100 hours of practice, I can pick pretty much every lock up to a certain level of complexity (security pins, particularly nasty keyways, etc), given enough time, and I'm a solid Dex 10 irl. But still, I hear what you're saying.

The reason you state is indeed one reason passives were done (players not actively declaring). But there is a second reason: it represents the average result of multiple rolls.

Yeah, it says that in the section on passive checks', but there's only one example of it in the core books, which is simply passive Perception while exploring. I think another example could be Performance or other checks made to earn an income over a period of time - in that sense, you're getting an actual average of many rolls, each of which counts as part of the whole. But when lockpicking, failure means nothing - you only need to succeed once.

I'm kind of wary of overusing passive checks if they limit the potential of a PC that's intentionally using a skill.

If something can succeed and there is no consequence I don't think it should even be mentioned but casually in the narrative for fluff.

That's probably the answer to my question right there, hey.

I'm with Nilelane on this one. If its possible with no consequence then its a none issue. If a consequence is apparent, then a roll would be needed. If that consequence is time then perhaps they roll for x amount of time to take that passive 20? Just throwing it out there...

I was listening to some of the Drizzt books on audio recently (don't laugh, I have a long commute...they are entertaining) and I actually love the way they describe the drow infravision from the 2e days when it was like Predator heat vision.

For example the different stones in cave walls are slightly different hues, and the huge clock tower in Menzoberranzan is like a big tower they light a fire under at the same time, then drow looking at the heat pattern to know hoe much time has passed since then.

My little dancing lights trick wouldn't work back then since the orbs are without heat!

I hear you! I read Homeland when I was about 12, and those descriptions stuck with me too. I was really disappointed when infravision became darkvision. I remember my shock when I realised you could read in pitch black darkness with darkvision.

Where did you get the audio books from?

I just downloaded them, I believe they were recorded around the 2000s when 3.0 was coming out. My copy sounds like it was dubbed off of cassette tape lol.

Its the second trilogy, the one that starts with Homeland. The voice actor sounds really strange and hilarious at times, but its got a charm to it. I've not found any other ones in audio form but at the time I was only looking for the older ones.

I'll find a link later tonight, just about to head home.

Thats the one

Looking around, there are more up to date recordings on Amazon, but at the time I was about to go on a trip and didn't bother.

Apologies for the slight break in transmission, everyone. Between study, Australia's version of the Superbowl, and house guests I've very busy this weekend. Should be back to normal from now on.

Sorry gang, I'll get a map up soon. On the flip side, I'm getting heaps of my thesis written up!

Ill wait till I see the map before acting.

Yep, sorry for the delay, crappy mappy is now up! Under Current Room Map at the top of the page.

I can move and attack the ones on his side? Or are they beyond the rubble?

They're beyond the rubble. It's basically a whole action to move past the peak of the rubble, as you've just begun clearing it, then the rubble itself counts as difficult terrain. I'd allow a DC 15 Athletics check with either Str or Dex to move past the peak as just difficult terrain, doing some kind of cool slide and springing to your feet. In that case, you'd be able to reach one of the figures in one turn, but not attack it yet.

Make sense? If I've explained it poorly and it's not clear, let me know.

Edit: I've just drawn an outline of the difficult terrain area in lovely cyan. So basically if you fail your Aths check it's one action to move a square to the east, then you'd have two squares of difficult terrain to exit, then two more squares of movement after that to close on an enemy. If you make your check, you get more squares at the end, but it doesn't give you much of an advantage - you still can't get to an enemy with a single move.

I've had a different interpretation of what to do in these situations for a while but I think you are right GM. That 'you have to be able to see a square to target it' makes sense.