I doubt there’s an official answer to this, so this is more of question on preferences, I guess. When an effect says that you can’t reduce the value of the sickened condition below 1, do you tell the player that ahead of time? Or would they have to spend an action to retch before realizing it’s not going away?
I’m leaning towards telling them, since they’re already stuck with sickened and losing an action automatically just to find that out seems punitive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that is absolutely a matter of preference of the players.
Some players would rather have the realism of not knowing things that they haven't learned in-character.
Other players would rather not get surprised and end up wasting actions.
I generally don't like sharing exactly what an ability does with a player, but it seems kind of punishing to have them assume that using an action stops it, as that's a very gamey thing in the first place. Like, if I was feeling sick I wouldn't necessarily think taking a second to wretch would instantly make me feel and fight better.
Combining those thoughts I probably wouldn't tell them until they try to take the action, but I wouldn't make it cost an action to do. It would be more of an internal thing where the character realizes this isn't going to help before doing it.
I'm thinking the GM could describe it in such a way that the PC (and hence the player) realizes how deeply ingrained the sickness is. So in most cases Sickness 1 would be like something you need to clear out (and feel you can), then 2 would feel deeper (especially since it's often combined w/ another effect). Meanwhile inescapable 1 would maybe feel like it courses throughout one's body and isn't a bile that one could swallow or spit. It's resonating at a deeper level.
Dunno, but that might suit both play styles. I know I have players that listen to my cues and others who think of it as flavor...and therefore struggle (which has led to the funny situation that often newbies do better in my games than experienced players (the best of course being veterans that can immerse)).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt there’s an official answer to this, so this is more of question on preferences, I guess. When an effect says that you can’t reduce the value of the sickened condition below 1, do you tell the player that ahead of time? Or would they have to spend an action to retch before realizing it’s not going away?
I’m leaning towards telling them, since they’re already stuck with sickened and losing an action automatically just to find that out seems punitive.
Most of the time, there's a reason why you can't remove the Sickened condition, like when you are inside a toxic cloud or around a toxic creature. So the character can realize that it first have to get away from the source of toxicity before removing the sickness.
I prefer maximum transparency for things like this. My way of thinking about it is, Conditions are clearly defined for a reason, so everyone knows how they operate.
Besides, if you (the GM) keep in secret until they try to spend that action, then you as GM have to keep up with one more detail, with increasing likelihood that at some point you're going to forget at a critical moment. ("Oops, last round you shouldn't have been able to remove the Sickened condition...") If you're transparent when the condition is applied, then the players can help keep track of it. Anything that makes the GM's job easier is preferred.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer maximum transparency for things like this. My way of thinking about it is, Conditions are clearly defined for a reason, so everyone knows how they operate.
Besides, if you (the GM) keep in secret until they try to spend that action, then you as GM have to keep up with one more detail, with increasing likelihood that at some point you're going to forget at a critical moment. ("Oops, last round you shouldn't have been able to remove the Sickened condition...") If you're transparent when the condition is applied, then the players can help keep track of it. Anything that makes the GM's job easier is preferred.
You also remind me that if you don't tell your players then you have to play your monsters accordingly by having them losing actions stupidly. It can greatly change the impact of some spells if, on top of not being able to remove the Sickened condition, it also forces enemies to lose one action to realize it.