Ellena Garvaneel |
Ah, I was relying on DnD Beyond too, I'll paste them soon. I'm very OK with some extra fun!
GM Spazmodeus |
Talliree Yndercook |
I can move about and see all of the things.
Tried to see if I could export the sheet, but that didn't help. I'll be working on it tonight.
Talliree Yndercook |
Okay, stats have been added.
It had been a wild and crazy day when the crew finally got a chance to relax at The Haggard Ale, a cozy tavern in the less affluent districts of Waterdeep. The job finished, they talk and split the loot up over a round of drinks while a couple of gnomes play a badly tuned rendition of "The Open Lord's Daughter" that some of the other patrons drunkenly sing along too.
just setting the scene. Figured this happened before the game started.
"We never speak of what happened in that one room with the fat woman, agreed," Talliree says while staring through her tankard of ale at something only she can see. "I'm going to have nightmares about that for weeks."
Near where her tankard sits between her hands, Mr. Whiskers, the mouse that rides around on Talliree, nibbles on a bread crust and drinks from a thimble filled with a few drops of wine. It's not entirely clear where the food and drink came from.
Ellena Garvaneel |
Ellena is focused on building a card castle, a simple practice in focus and deftness. "I threw away those clothes, no magic would ever get the smell out. A shame, too, I loved that shade of blue."
Mitchell Cloudkeep |
Map looks good. Everything works for me as well.
Hi guys,
Made a copy of wicked_raygun's hideout map...could you test and make sure you can see it?
Talliree Yndercook |
"You could've tried scrubbing with soap and water. That's what I had to do," Talliree grumbles. "Enough of that! What about the haul? Did we get anything good?"
Talliree Yndercook |
No concerns here. This has been fun. I would like to know if Talliree found what she was looking for, but like you said, it's been a little busy. :)
Ellena Garvaneel |
No concerns, it's going very nicely! I Know I haven't been the most active, I'm in the middle of some crazy days. In a couple of weeks the situation should stabilize for a while.
Mitchell Cloudkeep |
Just an FYI a little bit about Mitchell's patron Diety, which your characters would probably have been bored to death about as he prattles quite a bit... so if you're planning on dispensing with any treasure or coin around him it would be easier to do so discreetly :-). He will be Concerned that the loot was distributed without the church's oversight, but most likely convinced that the theft is par for the course for this area... and that he must be more prudent going forward to look after ill gotten goods.
Waukeen:
Vibrant and vivacious, Waukeen (wah-keen) is a relatively young, hardworking deity who loves wealth not for itself but for what can be done and acquired with it. She enjoys bargaining and the hustle and bustle of the marketplace. She rules over deals done above and below the table--legitimate as well as black market commerce.
Talliree Yndercook |
So, I've been thinking that I need to change Talli's flaw. She trusts Tania and wants her to have a good opinion about her, which is something that just kinda happened. This doesn't fit with the flaw I have now, which is Talliree doesn't really trust anyone.
GM Spazmodeus |
Hey guys,
DW had a good question about trap finding, disabling etc. so thought I'd clarify.
His question was prompted by my request for him to use Perception to find traps and Investigation to figure out how to deal with it.
The relevant passage from the DMG states:
A trap's description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing. If the adventurers detect a trap before triggering it, they might be able to disarm it, either permanently or long enough to move past it. You might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check for a character to deduce what needs to be done, followed by a Dexterity check using thieves' tools to perform the necessary sabotage.
So a simple trap , like a deadfall type, might only need a Perception check to see it, then an Investigation to figure out how to disable. But a clever poison needle trap, would need a final Dex check with thieve's tools to deal with.
This approach mirrors my past inclination for verisimilitude when it came to traps and tricks. It will require an extra few posts to figure out, but I'm can life with that.
Al
Spazmodeus |
One nice way I found it describes online was to think of Perception as your survival sense, using your eyes and ears to detect dangers or things of interest. But , Investigation is like Sherlock Holmes walking into a room, looking about and noting all the subtle clues that would reveal the murderer.
Talliree Yndercook |
That's pretty much how I was thinking of it. If you're just taking a look, it's perception, but if you're studying it, it's investigation.
I like the idea for the traps. I'm going to steal it for my campaign when the party has to go exploring some old wizard's redoubt.
Tania Teg |
One nice way I found it describes online was to think of Perception as your survival sense, using your eyes and ears to detect dangers or things of interest. But , Investigation is like Sherlock Holmes walking into a room, looking about and noting all the subtle clues that would reveal the murderer.
Thanks, that's a helpful way of distinguishing them for me.
Ellena Garvaneel |
Sorry, I'm having a couple of ultra busy days and the last time I managed to check I was not up. In any case, you are more than welcome to bot me if you need to keep things running.
Also, I don't know if it's your cup of tea, but most games I'm in do group initiative to keep things smooth across multiple timezones.
Talliree Yndercook |
Generally, you have blocks of players post as they are able and take their actions in post order. At least, that's the way I've seen it mos commonly done. I've also seen the GM resolve the actions in initiative order, but allow the players to post as they are able to.
A common method is to roll initiative for the party and allied NPCs as normal, then roll for each group of like enemies, so if you have a mage, some sneaks, and some thugs, you roll for the mage, then once for the sneaks and once for the thugs. The mage acts as normal, the sneaks act on the same initiative, and the thugs act on the same initiative. NPCs act before or after the enemies closest to their initiative, then players act when they post within their block.
Maybe I'd do better with an example.
So, we have 6 PC's with 1 NPC ally facing off against a goblin chief, a goblin shaman, two goblin warchanters, and six goblin fighters. You roll for initiative.
PC1: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (5) + 5 = 10
PC2: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (12) + 3 = 15
PC3: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (6) + 2 = 8
PC4: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (6) + 1 = 7
PC5: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (12) + 1 = 13
PC6: 1d20 ⇒ 20
NPC-Friendly: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (4) + 1 = 5
Gobbo Chief: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (16) + 3 = 19
Gobbo Shaman: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (13) + 1 = 14
Gobbo Warchanters: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (4) + 3 = 7
Gobbo Fighters: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (11) + 2 = 13
Initiative order:
PC6
Gobbo Chief
PC2
Gobbo Shaman
Gobbo Fighters
PC5
PC1
PC3
Gobbo Warchanters
PC4
NPC-Friendly
PC6 goes first, followed by the Gobbo Chief. PC2 goes, then the Shaman and the Fighters. PC5, PC1, and PC3 all go in the order they post since they are together in a block. The Gobbo Warchanters go, then PC6 and PC4 both go in the order they post since they are in a block with the allied NPC. The allied NPC goes before the Gobbo Chief goes again and then you go from there. As enemies are put down, the blocks merge until everyone is in a single block.
I hope this makes sense.
GM Spazmodeus |
OK. That's actually the way I was going to approach initiative with bunches of the same :)
As for botting, I'll give at least 24 hrs until I do so, and will try to get your character to do something useful.
RL happens, we get busy, so I'll try to balance keeping the game moving with giving you a chance to post.
GM Spazmodeus |
In the spirit of my last post which was specifically about posting while in combat, this is about general posting.
I've been internally debating the best way to keep the game moving without denying the player's agency in participating in decisions , role playing etc.
Perhaps, because I'm enjoying myself so much with this, I'm wanting to push things forward, but keep myself from doing so ,just in case someone else wants to chime in.
I'm sure this conundrum confronts all GMs on this board.
Any suggestions?
Talliree Yndercook |
I've seen the rule of two work. When two players agree on a course of action, the GM proceeds along that course. It generally works well in checklist situations where the PCs have to go to X, Y. and Z or in sandbox type situations where party-wide analysis paralysis can set in. In general. I'd use it in cases where the party can't decide or are talking in circles. If the party is having a good in-character discussion, let 'em and move things when a consensus has been reached or when things seem to be bogging down.
That's my two cents as a GM anyway.
Another option is to impose a 48-hour rule when things have slowed down. Give the player's 48 hours to weigh in and then go with what the consensus seems to be at that point.
In this case, I'd wait since it's the weekend and no one's even reacted to my last post. Once we get people chiming in, then we can see how things develop. Again, this is just my two cents, and I've been known to have some bad pennies. :P
GM Spazmodeus |
I've seen the rule of two work. When two players agree on a course of action, the GM proceeds along that course. It generally works well in checklist situations where the PCs have to go to X, Y. and Z or in sandbox type situations where party-wide analysis paralysis can set in. In general. I'd use it in cases where the party can't decide or are talking in circles. If the party is having a good in-character discussion, let 'em and move things when a consensus has been reached or when things seem to be bogging down.
That's my two cents as a GM anyway.
Another option is to impose a 48-hour rule when things have slowed down. Give the player's 48 hours to weigh in and then go with what the consensus seems to be at that point.
In this case, I'd wait since it's the weekend and no one's even reacted to my last post. Once we get people chiming in, then we can see how things develop. Again, this is just my two cents, and I've been known to have some bad pennies. :P
I like it. :)
Ellena Garvaneel |
The only objection I have about the Rule of Two is that maybe it should be suspended for more important decision, until we all have had time to weigh in: I live in Central European Time and I don't usually check the forums on the weekend, so I can often wake up to made decisions.
In any case, I don't want to be holding up the game, so if the choice is the left or right tunnel and I'm asleep, choose ahead, but if it's more important and plot-relevant I'd appreciate a moment to catch up.
Tania Teg |
The only objection I have about the Rule of Two is that maybe it should be suspended for more important decision, until we all have had time to weigh in: I live in Central European Time and I don't usually check the forums on the weekend, so I can often wake up to made decisions.
In any case, I don't want to be holding up the game, so if the choice is the left or right tunnel and I'm asleep, choose ahead, but if it's more important and plot-relevant I'd appreciate a moment to catch up.
That’s a very good point.
Talliree Yndercook |
Yeah, that is a good point. I was thinking that it'd be more for when things are bogged down and no one's actively posting. I think anything important enough for everyone to need to decide is going to have a fair bit of discussion around it.