Good idea! I'd reward it. Giving bonuses for quick thinking tricks like that encourages all the players to think outside the square.
Seems sensible ruling to me as well.
A +2 to the rogue's attempt seems fair. My first inclination was to give him an extra round, as he's trying to gain a head start... but that may be too much.
Yes, +2 is an edge, but one that can be easily overcome by one good or bad dice roll, and may not even figure. Good decision, I'd say.
They complain because they didn't have the idea (and/or the ability to carry it on) and didn't get the bonus.
If they were on the other side, they'd see it as absolutely fair (game-wise). As it is.
Good ruling! I agree with the prior posters. A +2 is a great reward for a clever skill use, and it isn't as if you gave a full-round head start. Don't berate the other players, but praise the rogue for creativity. It may lead to more clever play in the future. That is my two copper.
Thats honestly a brillant move he should be rewarded in some way so a +2 is legit.
I'm gonna go with Astral Wanderer's "cause they didn't think of it" explanation. :)
I think what you did was fair but he could have also used it for a diversion. If He had made the stealth roll at the normal -10 I would have given him the a full round. After that the other players would need to roll a perception roll to notice he already started.
You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
With some good roll he could be at the top of the crow's nest before the other players realize he is gone.
Hi guys :)
I have a small problem with my players and a rule interpretation. We are playing the 1st tome of Skull and Shackles and just started out.
** spoiler omitted **
Are my players right? Would you accept this use of the bluff skill? I've tried to explain it's almost the same situation as feint (which many GM's let players use against other players). The only difference is, it's outside of combat.
Bravo. I say good job GMing! That is the perfect reward for this kind of creativity. (Personally, I would have gone for disable device on another character's belt buckle, so his pants falls down and he trips, but what the hell.)
Seriously, there are several ways to adjudicate this. I might not call it 'feint' as others have pointed out that has a specific meaning.
Usually when I do something like this I assign a downside to using the skill. For example, in this case I might impose a penalty if other characters beat his roll. While he's trying to bluff the others, another character could take off instead because he realized what was going on.
Also don't let this happen repeatedly. Creativity should be rewarded. Trying the stunt once is great. Trying to use it all the time is just as boring. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Are they serious on argument 1? I mean, this is what a GM DOES... he decides about the stuff that is not written in the rules. Anything that is not explicitly covered by the RAW is supposed to be forbidden or what? If they stick to that attitude, send them back to their computers and let them play limited-option-klick-on-stuff-games.
I'd be happy if people were creative like that more often, no matter if I'm the GM or a plyer.
Anything that is not explicitly covered by the RAW is supposed to be forbidden or what? If they stick to that attitude, send them back to their computers and let them play limited-option-klick-on-stuff-games.
QFT.
If the rule book explicitly says you can't then I could see a claim that it isn't RAW. The advantage of a human GM is they can make judgment calls when there are no rules-as-written. We know you can use bluff to create a diversion to hide (it's RAW) is it a far stretch to use it to create a diversion for some other purpose.
I will say I generally frown on players using skills against other players. Much in the same way I don't let players tell other player how to play their characters.
In this case the reward so minor (+2 circumstance bonus to one check) and the result more humorous than deadly, I would have laughed it off. I might have argued (half in jest) as a player that I should get a bonus to my sense motive because "Hey! Look over there." is the oldest trick in the book.
So did the witch with the Dancing Lights argue about RAW? Using it to distract isn't RAW. Got hypocrisy?
I don't know exactly what the witch had his familiar do but, I would immediately nip in the bud any attacks from one player against another. No good will come of it.