If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

Oofta

Legend
I've seen how you envision your protagonist, what with the rapiers, and the tiny grasp-y gnome hands, and the *shiver* Paladin-ing.

I think you mean a BAD book or movie, right?

Hmm ... Sir McStabsalot vs the Lowlife 13 ... practically writes itself! Except of course that it would be over far, far too quickly. Nothing could stand against the glorious awesomeness of his dual rapier wielding righteous glory. One brilliant flashing of his perfect smile would reduce all evil-doers to quivering blobs begging for forgiveness. :angel:
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Whereas I would say that it's only reasonable for the chandelier to not be able to bear the weight of someone is if it's obviously not designed to hold weight or there's a structural deficiency.

If it's the former I haven't described it with enough detail and I'll warn the player. If it's the latter, I've been broadcasting the general state of the building. Whether this particular fixture is on the verge of collapse becomes a judgement call on the side of the player of whether they want to risk it.

On a related note if the player is just adding a feature to the room that's fine, I allow that on a fairly regular basis. But it's still going to follow the same rules. I hadn't thought about there being a chandelier (or any other fixture)? Fine. Who built the structure, what state is it in.

I don't coddle my players. If they want to take a risk, they take the risk. If they're in a building with obvious signs of disrepair and wood rot and they want to swing from the chandelier I shouldn't need to spell out the fact that it may not hold. It should be obvious. If I think it may not be I'll give them an appropriate check.

People do risky things all the time not knowing all possible consequences or even the chance of failure. I see no reason to change that for PCs.
That makes sense to me. Thanks for elaborating!
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I argued for a Chandelier Structural Integrity skill proficiency in the playtest, but yet again I was ignored. But at least I can point to its absence as justification to screw over the players when they try to do something cool.
 

Satyrn

First Post
I argued for a Chandelier Structural Integrity skill proficiency in the playtest, but yet again I was ignored. But at least I can point to its absence as justification to screw over the players when they try to do something cool.

When I get my time machine working, I'm gonna send you back in time to the playtest so you can argue against the roll-under skill checks of AD&D. Right after I attend every Rush concert ever.

Oh, and kill baby Hitler (but not until I attend every Rush concert ever, just in case they vanish from History)
 


5ekyu

Hero
Well, I do base my campaigns on action movie realism, not reality. But yeah, end of the day I want to be able to envision my PC as the protagonist in a good book or movie. On the other hand a simulation that realistically portrayed dying from and infected "flesh wound" a week after your combat wouldn't be fun.

Or to put it another way, having a consistent logical world that at a high level works like what I would expect to read in a novel/movie is what makes the game enjoyable for me.
I agree. My players love the consistency of my worlds as it gives them a ton to draw on for their own planning etc. A significantly less consistent one, hinders that sense of being in a living world the characters know.

But for the chandelier, I could easily see managing the results of the check into the integrity.

Failed check - gets there, grabs the outer parts which buckle and give way. Might carry you partway then drop you. Might even carry you across but break apart in the process, stopping others - or not.

Good check - grabbed strongest point and it held.
 

Oofta

Legend
You gotta go next level, man.

Real DMs don't need a justification to screw over the players; they do it because they CAN.

Isn't that the whole point of a third of the monsters in the old monster manuals? Mimics, cloakers, monster floors that eat you?

Ahh, the good old days. :devil:
 


Oofta

Legend
That's right! If the treasure chest didn't eat you, the ethereal mummy would.

Just for reference in case people haven't ever heard of a trapper

forLowkey.jpg
 

Remove ads

Top