Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7105435" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Well, in regard to the possibility of illusionism (in the fork in the road sense), that would depend on the GM's intentions. You'd have to actually attempt it, I think. Some GMs might never use the technique in any game system. That doesn't really prove it can't be done. Just that it wasn't attempted.In terms of the stories, I could step through the description step-by-step and it would work just fine in D&D. There's nothing that I see that isn't similar to things that have happened in my campaigns.I do have a question, though: At a couple of points you mention that "mechanically you were thinking" such-and-such. I try to tweak my rules so the players think as the characters in the world, not take actions based on what they might gain or lose in the mechanics. To put it a different way, I try to ensure the benefits and drawbacks of a mechanical rule matches that in the game world. Do you find that the actions in the game are more driven by the rules, or supported by the rules? Or is that more because you're trying to explain what happened?For example: "I declared a couple of checks - an homestead-wise check..." Because in my campaign it would just be, "I want to examine the homesteads a little closer to see if I can determine why they were abandoned." Depending on the circumstance, I would either give an answer (because their passive Perception and/or Investigation are sufficient), or ask for an Investigation check. One of the rules of thumb I like is that players should never declare skills, they should declare actions. I will ask for a skill check if it's needed.For example, in my campaign this:Would play out more like this:First, I don't know how a failed scavenging check (to find something - or an investigation check) would result in an orc raiding party infiltrating the homestead before you or your companions noticed. This is the sort of disconnect that I think bothers a lot of people with the Story Now approach. Why not a Stealth check vs. Passive Perception (perhaps with disadvantage since you're focused on something else)? This would have been your surprise check. I get that it's very similar - you were so focused on what you were doing that you failed to notice them. But if your character is one that has a high perception and a low investigation, it could be a sore point.So Aramina panicked (obviously not surprised) (not sure a check is needed here, just role-playing) and you command her to make for the horse. Many players would object to the actions of another PC taking even this little bit of control of their character (or is she an NPC)? If it's a PC, it would be up to them to decide if they follow your command. If it is an NPC, then it would have been a Persuasion check if it was necessary (as I said, I use passive skills frequently, so this would probably initially be addressed with a passive check since you're probably not intending to use your action to do it).I don't use initiative in my combat, instead I'd consider the positioning of the orcs and your character, along with the actions you're taking to determine what's happening when. In this case, the orcs were in closing range already (within about 90 feet in my campaign), Aramina noticed them and wasn't surprised. You were, so they got the jump on you. Getting to the horses and untying the knot would take longer than the orcs reaching Aramina (particularly since you were surprised), but the orcs weren't rushing to the attack either (at least it didn't sound like it), giving you time to get between them. So Aramina turns to head toward the horse, but the orcs intervene, block her path and begin to surround her. Not sure how many times you've tied a horse to a post, but I wouldn't expect you to need to make a check to untie it. However, if you asked or indicated that you wanted to untie the horse first I would either determine that the orcs were faster that you moving over to the horse and untying it, or we'd make a reaction check (essentially an opposed initiative check) to see who would resolve their action first.Since you could determine that the orcs would get to Aramina before you could untie the horse, you rush over to protect her instead. Combat ensues. I do have armor damage in my campaign, and without going through an actual combat, I couldn't tell you if the armor was damaged or not, but we'll agree it was.So to write it with a better flow:You were so intent on digging through the rubble you didn't notice the orcs (failed surprise check) until Aramina reacted in a panic. As they close with weapons drawn, you yell to Aramina to get to the horses. Hoping you can get them untied to make a quick escape you start to move toward them ("can I untie the horses before Aramina is attacked?"), but the orcs got too much of a jump on you and are spreading out to surround Aramina ("You doubt it, they're too close." "OK, I'll move to protect Aramina instead."). So instead you move between her and as many of the orcs as you can, and the battle begins!I use a lot of passive checks, so your untrained Heraldry check wouldn't have required a roll, either you know it or you don't. "The elf notices the brief perplexed look on your face as you fail to recognize his herald."</blockquote>

Verification