Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6317737" data-attributes="member: 6688277">What about signing on the game for <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">playing a certain archetype</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">adhering to the motivations/laws of a certain deity (being played by the GM)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">that at time certain deity and character might not fully agree</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">that in instances where conflict might arise with ones deity, powers may be temporarily stripped</li> </ul>What if the player signed on the game knowing all that full well? The situation arose out of character choices in game, as in it was not pre-framed like the Vecna scenario and how does it appear that the player rejected it?   I think that would depend on his roleplaying actions and the roleplaying style of the group. From what was reflected, which admittedly is very little, the character didn’t do anything out of the ordinary. So did nothing special, rolled his turn attempt and failed. DM called it. Why must everything come down to action resolution mechanics (the die essentially). One can also rule in favour of not using the d20 in a certain scene and instead resolve the scene through roleplaying (choice & dialogue). I understand that certain groups might throw this into the “mother-may-I” category, but we have already established this is the style of that group already.  I mean he could have (through description) implored his deity with a resounding speech before attempting that last call of Turn Undead, he could have gotten down on his knees clutching the holy symbol at his chest, he could have walked towards the dragon attempting to turn while brandishing his sword in the other hand…etcI’m saying some DMs might be inspired to resolve an action scene, even the loss of resources, through roleplay, others might require action resolution mechanics (the d20). Neither is wrong.  One cannot say that. Based on the description by Greg K, the paladin was bland as a button – rolled his die to turn. In that instant where the rogue in the party turned to the paladin and labelled him a coward might have given the inspiration to the DM to reward him with the protection from evil. That reflects that perhaps in that group one does not require action resolution mechanics to gain or lose resources.We speak all the time of some great sessions where hardly a die was rolled - what makes this any different? My bad, I can see how that could seem absurd. I’m referring of his actions in the combat up until that point – being ineffectual. Usually the enemy goes after the person who is the most threatening to him or more often than not doing the most damage, the paladin wasn’t that person, up until then.</blockquote>

Verification