NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5612254" data-attributes="member: 8835">In the Lich example (a case of NPC deception): the creator of it mentioned the PCs doing a Knowledge check to identify the phylactery.JS goes on about how that skill wouldn't reveal the answer.In all of these discussions, is each of us NOT taking the time to verify the intent of the writer, and instead sticking to an interpretation of what they said?The author could have meant "made appropriate checks to find the phylactery".  But because he said a skill name, JC seems to have taken him literally.  Which then shapes his response.the premise that each success should move me forward should still be valid.  Each hit on an enemy reduces his HP, making him closer to dead (my apparent goal).  Obviously, when my goal is misguided (wrong person to be killing), I've got a different problem.  But in the microcosm of 'killing this NPC", the sucess is still valid.  That I've got the wrong man is a different problem, which will reveal itself an encounter or two down the road.What the phylactery and gate house pose is, how does a GM fairly hide the information and fairly reveal the information.  Note, I have no specific meaning on "fair" in terms of GMing.  I suppose it means that there is a way of truly succeeding that is discernable via reasonable methods in game.Since the social skills tend to be about PCs manipulating and decieving NPCs, and the phylactery example are about an NPC manipulating and decieving PCs, they are relevant in arbitration similarities.With the gatehouse, the PCs make some gather info checks to inform them of the security conditions, opportunities and vulnerabilities.  Apparently they rolled low.  they also dickered around, so the GM made the situation more complicated.  The net effect was, they never should have gone for the guard.With the phylactery, the lich made a fake.  That's a forgery.  Phylactery's are known to be a hidden item because of their vulnerability.  So the PCs are going to be inspecting EVERY item they find.  So once the correct skills/spellss to use are identified, they roll.  Their might find no phylactery, find the fake and fall for it or not, find the real one.JC's counter to the scenario seemed to imply they find the fake, and don't realize they are carrying the real one.  It assumes a certain search order through the loot and that they STOP when they misidentify the fake.  And that they don't do further tests (because the example didn't say).Do you make your party roll these skill checks per item, or for the entire pile?If you make them roll for the entire pile (as in searching the entire pile for the 1 expected phylactery), then failure means they find NO phylactery, or they fall for the fake phylactery.  Success means they identify the fake as fake, and MIGHT find the real one (if the roll is high enough).Its possible, just using 1 die roll can arbitrate the whole mess.  Or the GM could make the party roll per item (despite that for 10 items, 8 rolls are meaningless).Another way to look at the gatehouse, was that if it was combat, and combats take an average of 6 rounds per.  There would be a whole lot of dice rolling to kill your way into the castle.  It takes a few checks for Climb to go over the wall.  A few checks for stealth to sneak in.I suspect then, that requiring a few checks to social your way in would count as fair play.  Though it is fair to assume the Gather Info and Disguise checks to assist in this con count towards that # of die rolls required expectation.</blockquote>

Verification