Saradoc-the-Ancient's page

In the "Adventure Background" introductions in the mods, some or even much of it could prove perfect in response to a player's Knowledge History/Etc. Check at the start of a new campaign -- about the local area, past history of a "curse" or key historical figures etc. I've seen other layout ideas similar to this, such as in RotRL when the text references back to the Adventure Background. But what about this:

From a Creative Direction standpoint, running a vertical shaded bar in the margin with "KNOWLEDGE HISTORY DC 20" etc. in a margin-based rectangle that is flush or offset from the justified text. It would only appear where knowledge could safely be shared. It would help the DM save time in prepping and assist in communicating with players who either request the check, or with DMs who want to divulge that knowledge.

Just a humble suggestion which has probably already been done before a million times and I am sure I will be quickly humbled by someone who knows far better than I. :)

If your question is, "Was the GM appropriate in telling me 'You can't do that' before I rolled?" then the answer is "No, he should let you roll."

If your question is, "Was it possible for my character to do this thing with his stats?" then the answer is also "No."

Boom, exactly. Thanks. My GM is amazing, actually. Tremendously talented but the challenge is on me - I think since I've been DMing for so long (25 years) it will test all of us to have me in the game that we are in. That's outside of this particular situation but undeniably interlinked. It is hard for me to step back from the DM mentality (I'm of the pro-player school, enabling players a lot of freedom to create, expand upon etc. the existing character concepts). But from a basic rules standpoint as well, I would never tell a player "No" - I would say, "Well, let's see," and then I would give a chance. There's always a chance in my mind. That's where I disagree. I always give at the very least a 1% chance. Because it rewards the player for conceiving something interesting like a paladin who is religious and wants to chip away a symbol to show his church. And for me a DC 25 is more than enough. But I missed it with a 22, so then I as DM in roles reversed would roll percentage dice. If it came up 99-100. He's got it anyhow. "Amazingly, you pull something that should not even be possible off!"

Well, he was basically correct that you can't do it. The DC was up to him to decide, and it was apparently higher than 22. Even on your nat 20, you still couldn't hit the DC. So yes, he probably should have just let you roll to begin with, but he was correct in saying that "you can't do it", because, without buffs or training, you couldn't do it. If a nat 20 is a fail, you're just not capable of doing it.

Not surrrrrre you are quite getting it. It's the approach and the fact that D&D is suspension of disbelief.

Saradoc-the-Ancient wrote:

My DM did an auto-fail rule on me for using a hammer and iron spike to chip around an icon/symbol of a god that was on a stone wall. I am a crafter/forger who works an anvil every day, and he said that since I'm not a mason there's ZERO chance that I could chip the stone wall carefully to remove the piece of stone that is bearing the icon.

Any thoughts? It created a lot of tension at the table when I thought it was simply silly that I couldn't chip the stone surface off an he basically ruled that I would need a "different" tool and that I would "need to be a mason" to be able to do this.

Thanks!

I'm gonna side with your GM on this one. Just because you think it's natural that proficiency with forge tools should carry over to stonework doesn't meant it is either A) true, or B) natural in your GM's opinion.

The GM didn't buy your argument that your skill was "close enough". Argument made, he apparently listened before shooting it down, it should be over for you.

For what it's worth, if I were your GM I'd probably have said the same thing on the grounds of believing (through my experience in metalshop in junior high and the one time I demolished and rebuilt a brick wall) that the two skillsets are different enough to not be substituteable. I *might* have allowed a +2 bonus for masterwork tools that could carry over sufficiently to masonry duties, but I totally wouldn't have given you your skill ranks or other bonuses for blacksmithing (or whatever your forge-based craft or profession skill was).

All that said, there's also the possibility of context. You said it was some holy symbol. Maybe he simply fiated your failure, and that's the vibe you've caught? It'd be awkward and clunky Gm-craft to come up with excuses to prevent you from bringing the icon out because he simply didn't want you to, but perhaps there are campaign reasons in play that mess with his plot if you're able to warn people that God X has worshippers in play.

l that said, there's also the possibility of context. You said it was some holy symbol.

EXACTLY. Context. Not sure if everyone here understands that what Im' saying is in D&D/Pathfinder a core tenant is "Go ahead and roll, let's see." I roll. He makes a check, even if it's fiated behind the screen, he says to me "Sorry, couldn't do it." He said to me immediately after I suggested the idea, "You can't do it."

Just not right- not in the spirit of the game. And thank all of you- one of you above gave the DC 15 with 3 checks. I would have done the same but made it DC 20. BUt at least you use the skills and rules and let the player do it.

Saradoc-the-Ancient wrote:

" and then told me to make a masonry check which untrained (although I hit an anvil every day with a hammer) I rolled a 22 totally. And he said instantly, "You fail."

Keep in mind that anvil work and masonry have virtually nothing in common.

Would a man who works an anvil every day have a better chance at chipping at stone than a bookish illusionist?

You were trying to remove the facade of a stone face without damaging it? That does indeed sound very very difficult. How did you intend to carve away the stone behind the icon without damaging it?

Honestly, I don't know how one would accomplish this IRL. It would probably take several hours to carve the stone precisely enough that you wouldn't be shattering it.

Still, he should have allowed you to make an untrained Craft (masonry) check (I'd peg the DC around 20 or 25, but that's just a guess) to give it a try. I'd say it takes 1d4 hours, and if you failed, the icon would be destroyed.

Thank you! Now, what I said to him was that I have a Craft Arms and Armor profession, not Masonry, so with an Intelligence of 14 I have a +2 and untrained I rolled a DC 22. What caused me to get so upset with the ruling was that he ruled "you won't be able to succeed" or other sentences like "you can't do that" and then told me to make a masonry check which untrained (although I hit an anvil every day with a hammer) I rolled a 22 totally. And he said instantly, "You fail."

My DM did an auto-fail rule on me for using a hammer and iron spike to chip around an icon/symbol of a god that was on a stone wall. I am a crafter/forger who works an anvil every day, and he said that since I'm not a mason there's ZERO chance that I could chip the stone wall carefully to remove the piece of stone that is bearing the icon.

Any thoughts? It created a lot of tension at the table when I thought it was simply silly that I couldn't chip the stone surface off an he basically ruled that I would need a "different" tool and that I would "need to be a mason" to be able to do this.

Thanks!

Sorry, I am sure this has been extensively talked about, but I rarely get online anymore, however I run 5 PF campaigns and one includes my high level D&D group that is still playing characters from 1st edition and are now level 33. I run it based on the Epic Level Handbook.

I love this Mythic thing, but it sounds like it's an alternate system that can run at lower levels. Nothing is mentioned about it being "good for running your 20th level plus characters"...

Can I have some opinions on if this is supposed to be an alternate to Epic? Or if not, any advice on how I can adapt it to Epic?

Thanks!

Hey Sean, yeah I stressed a little over that, in terms of italics; I hope that wouldn't be a deciding factor. Also, it seems to me that - from scratch - on a varied item, item pricing isn't a perfect science so in the pricing of my "varied" item, it seemed there was a tad-bit of a grey area that made the cost a bit high. My hope is that the item is about 90%+ there and that the creativity of the item will be what is judged.

Regardless, it certainly is fun to be a part of this!

Thank you Lady!

Are the items posted for everyone to see or are they just reviewed in private prior to Jan 24?