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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5612887" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I don't like the term "author" for obvious reasons <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />At any rate, if the PCs say "I want to make sure it's real" then I'll give them all tests they'd reasonably think of, and some they wouldn't (if PC skill knowledge eclipses player knowledge). If they just ask "could this be the phylactery?" then that's what I'll give them.They want to if this could be it. I tell them which lets them know if the object could be the phylactery. That's all. I let them run their character. If they ask if there's a way to test it, or say "I'm going to test it any way I know how" or some such, then I apply a broad brush, but not before that.I agree here. Just like the Bluff check is whether or not somebody will believe you (the apparent goal). That you have the wrong bluff is a different problem. Listen, I know what you're getting at, but that's a distinct play style. It's not wrong, but neither is following the rules, and playing by them, especially if the players and GM prefer it.Well, they could still go for the guard, but being the diplomat was the wrong tactic. Saying they're runners with important information, or the like, would be much more acceptable than "we're the diplomat that's already here." Player: "Do we see a box on him?"Me: "Yes, he dropped it when the last attack took him down."Player: "I'm going to pry it open. Does it look like it could be a phylactery?"Me: "Roll your Knowledge check."Player: "31."Me: "It fits the description of what a phylactery could look like, yes."Player: "I'm going to destroy the papers, and then the box."Me: "Done."And that was that. No inspecting his gear. No looking for traps. No Detect Magic or Detect Evil. That's all it was. Just "we gather his stuff, and move back to camp with Teleport."As I said, they weren't careful. It cost them. If they had said "we look for the phylactery" then that's another matter. They singled out the box, because the NPC tipped them off to it (a lackey of the lich, turns out).I'd probably have them inspect everything separately. A blanket search would be made, but Knowledge checks and the like would all be made separately.Except that there are no rules on this. There is no expected number of successes to succeed in combat, much less in any other situation. 4e implemented the skill challenge system, but it's not in 3.5.A better lie (such as someone besides the diplomat) would have gone over better, in all likelihood.I'd assume that as well, but I don't know. I just know what my group thinks, and what I can try to piece together from these boards.I'd say the PC, in this example, for trying to go into a room full of guards.Only if the intel can be gathered. If he arbitrarily stopped it from getting leaked, I agree.By the rules, that's not how it works, really. Only the short term bluff can cause an NPC to act a specific way, and it's limited in use. I can link it again if you'd like.Depending on the circumstances, this is all very reasonable to me.I have no problem with this. I have a problem with fudging in PC favor, but if this is the reasonable response, then it's all good.Also, I see you included Hussar's "more skill check chain which the PCs will inevitably fail!" argument, which has never been advocated.Yep. Like I told Hussar, it's really no different than him dictating how the PCs succeed.To me, the PCs made a mistake by impersonating the diplomat, which they did based on failed investigation checks. Had they had that information, then they would have changed their plans. I think that speaks to the plausibility of the action in the player's eyes.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification