OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Group A
jennaver
Royal Guard
Royal Guard
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: USA

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by jennaver » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:34 pm

OUT OF CHARACTER
Great question - fantastic fiction fodder for the DM would be my guess - I am old school too - having done most of my gaming in the 80's - A roll of 1 or a NNNNNNATUAL!!!! 20 is an opportunity for an amazing feat or F...U. to occur - both of which make for great storytelling.

 

Image Sable, Female Half elven Bard
Image Sheen, Male Pixie Sorcerer

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:42 pm

patransom wrote:I have no issue with this decision. As long as I know what the house rule is, I'm happy to play by it.

My only question is how it is handled in the opposed roll case (e.g., spot vs hide). If I get a natural 20 on my hide check and the goblin gets a natural 20 on his spot check, who wins?
This rule defaults in favor of the PC. It also only applies to Learned Skills, not Ability Checks. A 5% chance of doing something spectacular when you are totally untrained in it is too generous of a possibility in my opinion--a 1 or 20 in these cases may lead to an extra comment just for fun, but nothing that actually affects the players in any real way-(like Kev scratching his ear on the wall.)

User avatar
Duniagdra
Divine Rank 21
Divine Rank 21
Posts: 6868
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Newark, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by Duniagdra » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:22 pm

kabkal wrote:Actually, it was a 6+1 = 1. I wish I had a +6 :-)
OUT OF CHARACTER
I do like the idea of 1s being bad so I am good with a scratched ear

 

I'm confused by your demonstration of your roll, 6+1=1. Which form of math is this? You did mean =7, right? Or did I miss something? But still, you didn't get a one, so you shouldn't have done anything to reflect a failure, though you may have rolled low enough that it be 5 or even 10 below the possible DC mark.
Image Marcus Tilsworth - Human Sorcerer
Image Ulyuk Bok - Elan Gestalt
Image Tryzscatzmel Ry - Gnome Alchemist
Image Image
Image

User avatar
Duniagdra
Divine Rank 21
Divine Rank 21
Posts: 6868
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Newark, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by Duniagdra » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:53 pm

cave_lion wrote:Well--you are free to your opinion as always Jim. I happen to disagree. Here is a counter argument, not for your benefit, since you have made it clear you are not open to discussion, but for the rest of the players.

First let me say, in my opinion, DND is not and was never meant to be realistic in many aspects. It is a high fantasy game designed to entertain and be fun.

A DC30 could, for instance, be a lock that is extremely complex for a 1st level character. I could go into 5 scenario's off the top of my head how this PC could successfully open this lock. It may be as a DM I would actually prefer for a player to be able to open that lock (even though the chance of it happening is slim to none)--so with a roll of 20 I get to say "Desna has guided your hand and the lock is now open". How cool is that? Or, if as a DM, there is a reason that I don't really want the lock opened and that 5% chance of rolling a 20 was made--I could just say that one of the tumblers has fallen into place and you are certain that there are two more you will need to move for a total success. This aspect has no relevance for control in the game--since as a DM, I can bend the story as I need to, to make sure that the players are entertained and the story is entertaining. Entertaining does not mean the player always get what he wants--quite the contrary. But it does mean that at the end of the day a story has been told that held interest and made each player want to keep taking one more step. Sometimes the best story is how that 1st level character hit that fluke gust of wind and made the 25' leap of faith across the cliff, thereby saving his life and more importantly, the life of the small child in his arms... Was it insane to take that chance? Yes of course--but if it was the only alternative, how sweet if it actually succeeds!
Any lock can be bypasses with an attack roll. It's just a matter of getting past the hardness and hp of the lock or door or whatever. A PC would in fact be able to tell if a lock is beyond his skill by looking at it, just as a pc could tell that tumbling past four enemies is near to impossible without getting hit, because the player knows the bonuses he has for such skills. So yes, a PC could look at something and say, "this is beyond my ability" and move on to what he knows he could do better at.
cave_lion wrote:
duni wrote:The reason a DC is set beyond the scope a PC could hit, is because it's not meant to succeed.
Well, if that is the case why bother? Do you still let a PC do a skill check on these high DC's when you know it is impossible for them to succeed? What is the point in that? Is it realistic for a PC to look at a lock and say--oh this is far to difficult for me to pick let's move on? Of course not--you try the lock and learn from your failure--thereby going up in skill level over time. And in an extremely rare case--you actually do something (maybe something you have no idea what it is) that opens that lock. This is simply a mirror of real life, and one example of how a student becomes a Master in any Craft or Profession.
Being as a pc does not know the actual DC, there's no reason he should not try. I never said a PC shouldn't try. If a DC is 25 and none of my players have anything above a +4 for that task, I don't tell them they can never succeed, I let them try, and they see they did not succeed. In fact, in Runelords, there was a knowledge check to identify one of the creatures they faced. The DC was 35. The highest bonus to the given skill was +8 I think. I still let them try.

And why would it be so absurd to you that a PC would look at a lock and say, "this is beyond my ability"? If a PC knows what he's capable of overcoming and not, then yes, it's purely reasonable he'd say so and rather move on to something he feels he has a better shot at in stead of wasting time on something he feels he'd fail at. There's nothing wrong in that, and I'm surprised you imply this something impossible to happen.
cave_lion wrote:I have always played, as have many of the people I've played with, critical success' and failures on skill checks in DND and other role playing games. We have done it since the game began in the late 70's. So it is certainly a viable game rule... No more nor less important than any other rule a DM may choose to use.
I'm confused. I thought skills weren't introduced to D&D until 3rd edition? I know for certain they were not in 1st, and pretty positive they were not in 2nd. What games were you playing, since I only recall them in 3rd and 3.5?
cave_lion wrote:For me--it introduces an element of luck that I find very enjoyable, both as a player and as a DM.
That's fine. I'm not arguing that.

It's your game, you'll do what you wish. I've never played crits on skills as DM or player because the rules say that skills are not effected by crits. What has effected rolls is if the player made a roll that below or above the DC by a certain increment, but never anything from a nat 1 or 20. In skills, the natural roll still gains the bonus and that becomes the effected roll, not the natural roll.
Image Marcus Tilsworth - Human Sorcerer
Image Ulyuk Bok - Elan Gestalt
Image Tryzscatzmel Ry - Gnome Alchemist
Image Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:49 am

Duniagdra wrote:
cave_lion wrote:I have always played, as have many of the people I've played with, critical success' and failures on skill checks in DND and other role playing games. We have done it since the game began in the late 70's. So it is certainly a viable game rule... No more nor less important than any other rule a DM may choose to use.
I'm confused. I thought skills weren't introduced to D&D until 3rd edition? I know for certain they were not in 1st, and pretty positive they were not in 2nd. What games were you playing, since I only recall them in 3rd and 3.5?
No duni--skills have been around since the beginning pretty much--they started out being called proficiencies I think (non-weapon proficiencies.) They were maybe optional in 1E--maybe not even official--but they were around for those experimenting with the rules (which was encouraged and developed from day 1.) I didn't play 2E much--but they were there too in some way... I don't know how much of what we did was "official." But then as now--the only real official thing is what the DM says ultimately. A good DM, in my opinion, tries to balance the rules so they are productive to the purpose of the game--which is to have fun with good company.
Duniagdra wrote:
cave_lion wrote:For me--it introduces an element of luck that I find very enjoyable, both as a player and as a DM.
That's fine. I'm not arguing that.
It's your game, you'll do what you wish. I've never played crits on skills as DM or player because the rules say that skills are not effected by crits. What has effected rolls is if the player made a roll that below or above the DC by a certain increment, but never anything from a nat 1 or 20. In skills, the natural roll still gains the bonus and that becomes the effected roll, not the natural roll.
The rules may say these things--but I am pretty sure there is an optional rule in 3.5 called Critical Success/Failure that replicates, to a degree the attack and saving throw crits (reroll 20's and 1's and if repeated it is a critical.) To me--this option makes it such a rare thing there is no point--I prefer to allow the crit on the one roll and then modify the failure or success level based on DC and the game situation on a case by case basis. It encourages role play in my opinion. I have actually been debating modifying the other crits as well in this game--have never liked the double roll rule. I would bet a search on the net would pull up multiple critical success alternate options for skills.

Your problem duni, (if I had to say you had one) is defined by your statement "the rules say that skills are not effected by crits." Classic stance of what we used to call "rule Nazis" (apologies for the politically incorrect term.) You see--the rules don't say anything but what the DM SAYS they say--that is how the game was designed and how it has evolved--that is why Pathfinder is such a success (it has allowed people to play with the rules and modify them based on how fun they make game play.) People like you are maybe more about playing with power--trying to usurp power by using the "rule" trump constantly--arguing to wear people down--making people uncomfortable by your constant negative attitude. It all gets rather old for us happy people just looking to enjoy the game with a few friends...

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:54 am

Page 34 of DMG 3.5 has the optional critical success/failure rule...

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:42 am

shai-hulud wrote:An interesting variant from Unearthed Arcana is, if you roll a natural 1 or a natural 20, you count the roll as a -20 or a +20 and roll again. You keep rolling until you no longer roll a 1 or a 20. This way, a character who is particularly exceptional at something might be able to recover from a natural 1 if his modifier is high enough. I tried this variant in one campaign. One player rolled three natural ones in a row, then a two. His final result was negative forty something. I don't remember what the roll was, but essentially the result was bad enough that it set off a chain reaction that was about to cause a Total Party Kill (TPK). Then, the most ironic thing happened. One character who worshiped a god of luck attempted to Use Magic Device on a ring of his deity. He had been maxing out UMD, so with 15 ranks, +6 charisma, and a +10 item of UMD, he made the roll. He got three natural twenties in a row followed by a 9. With a 100 for his roll (yes, a perfect hundred), I had everyone around the table roll a D%. Each 100 would be granted a wish (I figured, I'd give them a chance to get out of it). Two players (including the one who had just rolled the 100 on the d20) rolled 100. I gave them two wishes!
ha--how fun is that... Bet that story has been told more than once.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Low Light Vision

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:20 am

It is my understanding that the Low Light miss chance applies to everyone with normal and Low Light Light Vision. The difference comes in the distance that the penalty can be applied (as opposed to the greater penalty for attacking in darkness.)

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:37 am

greg_BSCIS wrote:I read the rules and it it states that we see normally like full daylight so to me that means that no penalties apply since no penalties apply in full daylight.

Low-Light Vision (PF - pg 564)

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so
sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal
in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster
with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the
tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a
moonlit night as well as they can during the day.


To me, the above moonlight statement is currently recreated in the low light areas of this room. Low-light vision works better than today's night vision gear and you can see pretty well with some of today's gear. It sounds like it works more like a house cat's night vision which is much more advance than any of our night vision technology.
That's pretty clear, and no reason to change it Greg--I never made it past the first sentence I guess... I apologize. So no penalty for characters with Low Light Vision up to the Darkness category (which falls at 2x the range of any normal Low Light range.)

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:02 am

shai wrote:Well, I dunno if Pathfinder has changed the rules, but the general description of the Low-Light Ability in 3.5 worked just as Greg is interpreting. Essentially, consider the breakdown with 30' bright light for normal vision:
  • Normal vision:
  • Bright light: Up to 30'
  • Shadowy illumination: 30'-60'
  • Darkness: 60'+

    Low-Light Vision (LLV):
  • Bright light: Up to 60' (30x2)
  • Shadowy illumination: 60'-120' (60x2)
  • Darkness: 120'+
Again, this is just how it worked for 3.5. I've not really read enough of the discussion in Pathfinder to see if they changed it, and if you have an interesting variant rule, sounds good to me :D
Thanks for posting that summary shai--no changes--I just was unclear on how it actually worked. The vision thing is one thing that has changed so many times over the years I don't have any good reference for it--but your summary looks good--I was surprised that (I thought) the rules had changed so much in a limiting way for Elves, etc. But it was just that I was wrong :)

User avatar
Duniagdra
Divine Rank 21
Divine Rank 21
Posts: 6868
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Newark, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by Duniagdra » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:13 am

Yes, I do remember now something along the lines of proficiencies, though it's very vague. I'd have to go to my storage in PA to look in those books and it's just not worth the cost of gas :( , but yes, I do kind of recall something about that.

I'll remember to keep my opinions to myself in the future.
Image Marcus Tilsworth - Human Sorcerer
Image Ulyuk Bok - Elan Gestalt
Image Tryzscatzmel Ry - Gnome Alchemist
Image Image
Image

User avatar
patransom
EPIC Contributor
EPIC Contributor
Posts: 5869
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Arlington, Virginia

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by patransom » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:15 am

PFCRB pp 172-173 has the answer you're looking for. It's the same as what shai posted: characters with LLV double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light.
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:43 am

Duniagdra wrote:Yes, I do remember now something along the lines of proficiencies, though it's very vague. I'd have to go to my storage in PA to look in those books and it's just not worth the cost of gas :( , but yes, I do kind of recall something about that.
I've been digging deep trying to remember how it all used to work in 1E as we played it. I'm thinking if you had a proficiency it was assumed you could do all "normal" tasks with that proficiency with no checks/rolls. And if you tried to do something extraordinary you then would roll against your point level. So if you had 15 points in something you had to roll (hi or low your choice--most did high) that 15% to do it. And depending on the DM if you did 95-100 or 98-100 that was a crit success and the opposite was a crit failure. There were fewer points to spend if I remember--you really had to pick just a few skills to focus on. The thief skills were similar but different--can't remember how that worked any more--I know many of those skills you could not get unless you were a Thief (now Rogue.) Many of those alternate rules we played with back then are what turned into 2E and 3E. For some reason I guess the skill crits didn't make the cut as an "official" rule. duni would probably say that's because they suck :) Given that you have never even heard of playing that way--maybe there are regional differences and the choices to incorporate things were made based on what more people did? I am pretty sure we got the idea from Dragon magazine back in the day...
Duniagdra wrote:I'll remember to keep my opinions to myself in the future.
I enjoy playing the game with you duni--and have no problem at all if you have an opinion different from mine. But sometimes your presentation of an argument is just extraordinarily....mean? I don't know--sorry if I offended you--but the rules are meant to be monkeyed with--that has always been part of the game, so when you come out with this "duni is god/you are an idiot/this is the way of things/that is the rule" stance it is really off-putting...

User avatar
Duniagdra
Divine Rank 21
Divine Rank 21
Posts: 6868
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Newark, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by Duniagdra » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:01 pm

cave_lion wrote:I've been digging deep trying to remember how it all used to work in 1E as we played it. I'm thinking if you had a proficiency it was assumed you could do all "normal" tasks with that proficiency with no checks/rolls. And if you tried to do something extraordinary you then would roll against your point level. So if you had 15 points in something you had to roll (hi or low your choice--most did high) that 15% to do it. And depending on the DM if you did 95-100 or 98-100 that was a crit success and the opposite was a crit failure. There were fewer points to spend if I remember--you really had to pick just a few skills to focus on. The thief skills were similar but different--can't remember how that worked any more--I know many of those skills you could not get unless you were a Thief (now Rogue.) Many of those alternate rules we played with back then are what turned into 2E and 3E. For some reason I guess the skill crits didn't make the cut as an "official" rule. duni would probably say that's because they suck :) Given that you have never even heard of playing that way--maybe there are regional differences and the choices to incorporate things were made based on what more people did? I am pretty sure we got the idea from Dragon magazine back in the day...
As I said, I only vaguely remember something about this, but the cost of fuel is too much to warrant the trip to storage.
cave_lion wrote:I enjoy playing the game with you duni--and have no problem at all if you have an opinion different from mine. But sometimes your presentation of an argument is just extraordinarily....mean? I don't know--sorry if I offended you--but the rules are meant to be monkeyed with--that has always been part of the game, so when you come out with this "duni is god/you are an idiot/this is the way of things/that is the rule" stance it is really off-putting...
Nothing I ever post is intended as mean or personal unless I say so. I generally react to what I read. I can only type what I know and think. I've learned long ago to remember, and still try to remember, not to take what's written as anything more than written, a grain of salt goes a long way. It's up to you to interpret it. I appreciate that recognition, but please don't praise me too often and I never call anyone an idiot, just wrong.
Image Marcus Tilsworth - Human Sorcerer
Image Ulyuk Bok - Elan Gestalt
Image Tryzscatzmel Ry - Gnome Alchemist
Image Image
Image

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: wiki

Post by cave_lion » Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:33 pm

I split out my portion of the wiki into three pages: Bonus Action Point Log; Dungeon Defaults; and Rule Clarifications

Assume ceilings are 20' high unless otherwise noted.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:52 am

scarymike23 wrote:
cave_lion wrote:
OUT OF CHARACTER
You may not be aware--there is an added ability to the "heal" skill, which allows you to actually heal minor amounts of damage. At 1st level it is just one point--but hey--that is 1/3 of your damage :) You just need to use your healing kit for the repairs and then roll a DC20 skill check...

 

OUT OF CHARACTER
I am aware. But it takes 1 hour. I assume we don't want to wait an hour before proceeding. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll see if I can hit the d20 dc.

 

OUT OF CHARACTER
aah--that seems a bit much--but then I am no doctor...ok then--no 1 point for Zanice. On a related note: looks like cure minor wounds has been nixed

 

OUT OF CHARACTER
I will assume Sheen used the time spent regrouping/having lunch/etc (12 to 1) to do this for Dakar. I was thinking it was DC15--if Sheen didn't roll the DC20 I will let it slide this time...

 


cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:02 pm

Looks like LinusMundane/Ryan is missing in action. I am going to give him till tonight to respond to my PM--then will begin looking for someone to replace his character. If anyone knows him and is able to find out what is going on with him, please do so. I hate to drop him like this, but it has been a week since he has been on the forum and is not responding to requests on his status. If you do come back Ryan, and would like to continue playing this game, just let me know and we can work something out...

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:05 pm

greg_BSCIS wrote:
OUT OF CHARACTER
After I talk to Kenken and see the shadows up ahead, Taedyn casts a shield spell thinking most things in here are not friendly.

 

I just wanted to give everyone a heads up regarding a bit of my style as a DM. There will almost always be opportunities to interact with any creature--even the evil ones--and communicate in some way or other. Battle is always an option, of course, but it is one option among many others. You do not have to assume that every creature you meet is going to be a battle to the death--there will always be opportunity to strike up conversations, form alliances, and possibly even make friends along the way. I'm not suggesting that could have happened with these 3 orcs, by the way, but just keep in mind that many of the denizens of the dungeon are just living their lives like others are anywhere else--they just happen to be in the dungeon. Every creature starts out at a certain state--from friendly to hostile--and based on the PC's actions, this state can move up or down, depending on the creature and the situation. I just don't want you to feel like you have to attack every single thing you run across--if I have given that impression it is incorrect.

I also want to do a bit of a better description of the Dungeon as it stands in the time frame of the PC's. This Dungeon is much different from just a prison with the evil "damaged" ones in it. It has been broken for many many years. Most of the creatures in it have nothing to do with the original inhabitants. One of the ideas of the writers was to throw in one example of every type of creature in the SRD. And they did this--so yes--there are some really bad undead, demons, and other miscellaneous creatures who are incredibly ancient and very dangerous (and some not so dangerous too but still tainted with the element that makes them "damaged.") But in addition to this--there have been large populations of different creatures move into the Dungeon after the point it was cracked open (which was again--a really long time ago.)

I was unhappy with some of the logic that the original story had in it--so I worked out an altered story with much more history and story behind it. There is now a story that you will be able to piece together as you move through the Dungeon--what the "damaged" ones are, where they came from, why the celestials captured and trapped them in the dungeon, why they did that on Golarion, etc. This is good in two ways. First--you can have TWLD and read through the whole thing and have no idea what I am going to do in any particular place. Second, and most importantly, the campaign has become more than just a simple dungeon crawl--so it should be able to hold everyone's interest for an extended period of time as you work on figuring out what is going on.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:13 pm

Duniagdra wrote:
cave_lion wrote:I've been thinking about Monty this weekend. I hate to give the character to someone else and then have Ryan come back in a few weeks after he settles whatever has happened in his life. And thinking about it--the party would still be pretty well balanced without a 7th PC. So I am going to do a slight re-do for post 3A. Basically Monty was the last person to go through the Null Field and for whatever reason he did not come through with everyone else. I can leave him open as a hook if he does come back--and if he doesn't you will all just have to fend without him.
Customarily, players are given up to a month before being replaced. Usually between two and four weeks or a reasonable number of validations. In this case, I sometimes blurb little things in the absence of a player, unless specifically asked to cover during this absence. Without notice, I do leave the PC behind, making no comment or post of his/her actions.
Well that would be a nice custom to have written out somewhere--I was never really told of any "customs" for DM's on the forum (other than the one about how players with more games pull out to allow others with fewer games to play--which was told to me after my game had filled up and I was turning people away.) Any other customs come to mind while we are on the subject? Seems like this would be a good post to have somewhere--maybe in the Dice Room as a Sticky next to the Player's Guide to PbP's...

Ok. So anyway...I am still not happy with my decision regarding Monty. I don't want to leave him behind. So I am going to NPC him until Ryan comes back. Disregard my last post here for Monty--he is in the dungeon now--and I will be playing him conservatively (mostly just providing support/doing Bardic Performance and staying out of direct battle.) Jennaver is going to take over Dafenia for now.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Knowledge Checks to Identify Monsters

Post by cave_lion » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:51 pm

Regarding Knowledge Checks to Identify Monsters, I found here a house rule I want to try out. All the players really need to worry about is what check to make based on type of monster:

* Arcana (constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
* Dungeoneering (aberrations, oozes)
* Local (humanoids)
* Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin)
* Religion (undead)
* The planes (outsiders, elementals)

You make the knowledge check and I will determine everything else--but it will be based on the linked house rule. Basically I will determine for each monster a Rarity rating and a Prominence rating which will be used to modify the DC and also to determine the information available to the player based on their roll.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:17 am

cave_lion wrote: I think you are metagaming a bit here (making assumptions based on how orcs have been in other games you've played). On Golarion (Pathfinder Bestiary) orcs actually have "common" as a second language in their description.
If I was metagaming then I would have known they spoke common too... ;) Besides wouldn't a sorcerer have knowledge of Orcs which seem to be one of the most plentiful monster in DnD and PF? But to be safe, sure I can roll for Knowledge. Although, it will be a human's perception of Orcs and not a scientific one since I only have knowledge in history. History is a combination of true events and perceptions. Or it could be Taedyn's perception of Orcs too?
One aspect of metagaming is looking at rules a character does not have access to (in which case you would have known that orcs commonly speak common). Another is using the knowledge a player has gained from their play in prior campaigns, as if that knowledge is their character's knowledge. Here is a link that details many of the ways metagaming can happen for those interested in all the possible traps. Not a big deal--happens to all of us. This has actually been helpful since it has gotten me thinking about how to handle these kinds of knowledge checks.

I did post info in the OOC thread (and the wiki) about these checks. In this case an orc is both "very common" and "well known". The knowledge check could be based on either "Knowledge, local" or "Knowledge, nature". If you don't have either of these you just do the ability check based on your knowledge-based ability (Intelligence usually.) The orc has a DC5 given its status--which for Taedyn means he automatically knows pretty much everything about the average orc and their potential. You can open the Bestiary and read whatever you want-and after the knowledge check I will post a basic description right out of the Bestiary for players to read. But--there is always the chance you will roll the 1 on your check--which would lead to a certain amount of mis-information. Taedyn's response with the orc speaking common is a great example of how this mis-information could play out in the case of a common/well known creature. In that case the bad info would be something relatively minor that would affect role play but not necessarily endanger anyone. And someone else could add their knowledge check in to make sure this kind of error could be discussed and dealt with in the party. After you are successful with a knowledge check on a simple creature like an orc, I will not ever ask for another check for this particular type of monster, unless there are other factors going on that would modify the base role. In the instance of the orcs--I would allow another check to determine that you were dealing with 1 barbarian and 2 fighters of probably lower levels based on this particular encounter. Of course in a case where a battle happens almost instantly, there is really no time to do this effectively--but you could do the check after the battle to learn more if you chose to.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: OOC Comments/Questions/Rule Clarifications (A)

Post by cave_lion » Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:13 pm

greg_BSCIS wrote:Does this extend to weapons and everything else? I don't want to be a pain, I want to do it correctly, but should we roll for everything to prevent metagaming?

I mean how would someone be able to tell between a catapult, a scorpion, and a trebuchet? Or the difference between a broadsword, or great sword, or a long sword?

I mean what does my character know especially since he was living with a sorcerer for a while?
This doesn't apply to weapons use, since they have their own system set up for that. As a PC though if you are trying to determine something specific regarding the difference between a catapult/scorpion/trebuchet then yes--I would expect a knowledge check to determine that. This is the only way to place things in terms of the character (and somewhat eliminate the metagaming thing.) But in this example--would anyone really need to tell the difference between these three things? Most common people would not differentiate between types of catapults or swords--they would just say sword or catapult. This falls under very common items which do not require any checks to know. Now if you want to use one of these things--again there is already a system in place for that regarding weapons. Knowing the difference between three fairly similar items for some specific application would require a check depending on what you were trying to do. Walk out on the street and see how many people know what a scorpion or trebuchet are by name only. Not many will--though most will know the word catapult. And visually--many people would call all three of these things catapult if they saw one on the street (maybe not the scorpion--many people would call that a crossbow I would guess.) Granted these things are not common anymore--but they serve as an example. In many cases I may just gloss over (or allow a metagaming situation) and assume a character knows the difference between even unusual items if the person playing the character does--just to save time--especially if it is not a matter of life or death and if the character has the appropriate Knowledge skill to make a learned check if they needed to (or, as in the case of Taedyn a high intelligence).

As far as living with a sorcerer--that should be reflected in your Knowledge/Craft/and or Profession skills (as per the game mechanics). If it is not then you must roll a skill or ability check just like anyone else would to see if your character knows anything specific. There is not a "I lived with a sorcerer" skill so that can't be reflected in the game mechanics properly...

This is not meant to force people to do skill checks for silly common things. Everyone in most parts of the world knows what a cow is for example. You don't have to roll a knowledge check to see if you are actually trying to milk a cat. Does this mean you just know how to milk one or slaughter one? Not at all--those are skills with difficulties associated with them--so you would roll to see if you can do that properly if you ever needed to. Unless you had a profession of farmer say--which would then change milking and slaughtering to very common skills that, in general, any farmer would know how to do--or at least know how to do better than the average joe.

cave_lion
Divine Rank 1
Divine Rank 1
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: More housekeeping

Post by cave_lion » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:55 pm

Comments regarding order of posting and what to include in your posts: when not in combat/initiative mode you can assume a natural flow of events occurs based largely on the order of people posting and the actions they take--if you want to modify what happens by doing something before someone else who has already posted, just comment on that and in most cases it shouldn't be a problem. The ultimate goal is for us to create a story together that has everyone interacting in a way that makes sense and is fun to read. I will try to leave the validation posts at a place where there are obvious actions that need to occur--for instance, right now the group needs to pick where to go next and decide how to get there. If you can all anticipate any skill checks in advance that will make the story move better and avoid me having to ask for things (or wait for things) to happen. So, for instance, right now--you will be going through (at least) one of four doors--and now would be a good time to roll a trap check for wherever you want to go--which I can then integrate into the story when it gets "validated" next time. This would also apply if you want to to do Perception checks to search a room--just get in a habit of rolling that check with your post and then I can use that when I validate, rather than having to add the extra step of asking for checks and then waiting for another layer of responses. Having said this--I will assume from now on that if you don't say you are checking for traps or searching a room--you will just be opening the door and walking through a room with just a cursory glance at what is in it (DC5).

Spoilers: When I use "spoilers", I am not using them to prevent someone from reading something. I am more using them to show that something happening may not be immediately obvious to everyone. For instance, when Dafenia "whispers" to people she is actually talking telepathically to them. Technically, no one else would know what she said (so it will be in a spoiler). But actually, in most cases whoever is talking to Dafenia would report immediately what was asked, and what she replied--so I use the "spoiler" to create a pause in the action--but everyone should be reading that spoiler--otherwise any follow up actions will not make any sense to everyone else--unless a person repeats what has already been posted--which would be annoying since no one wants to read a bunch of things paraphrased constantly--especially since the validation post is already designed to paraphrase (or just copy) what has happened with everyone. So what I am saying is that everyone should be reading everything in the posts--this may not be 100% realistic, but it leads to a more entertaining experience. If there is anything that I really don't want someone to know about, I will post it with a PM. So if any of you are confused (the need to figure this out came from me realizing that jennaver has been skipping many of the "spoiler" comments because she assumed they were not for her to read)--feel free to go back and read all of the posts (including any spoilers)--as this is necessary to understand what is happening in the story. This is also why I am using the separate Dafenia/Ken-den post--to create a separation that still allows everyone to read the story. Thinking about this, it makes more sense to just use "spoilers" in the main posts for this info--so I am probably going to phase out having the separate post to handle Dafenia and Ken-den related things. I don't think the separate post adds anything of value over just using the "spoiler" technique--and using both basically leads to redundancy.

Monty and Dakar: My son has decided the PbP format is not to his liking--too much writing like English class. So he is pulling out of the game. He has found some friends his own age who are looking at playing around a table, which he would be much happier doing I think. LinusMundane is still MIA after several weeks. I have two possible replacements for these characters--so I am going to NPC them for a bit till things get sorted out. Jennaver would like Sheen to take over Dafenia (she built her character idea around light, so the Lantern Archon is a perfect match for Sheen.) I am going to let that happen for the moment and probably permanently, since I know for sure that Jennaver is committed to the game and will play Dafenia with gusto.

Post Reply

Return to “{PbP} TWLD: Group A”