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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7042832" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, so here's my spinning on this. SotC is essentially a kind of "I'm in the loop" (IE I can do the substitution, SotC is 'armed'), or "I'm laying low" in which case it isn't (Maybe there are other flavorings of these 2 states, it doesn't really matter). This is just a choice. Outside of the possibility that something comes up during an existing action sequence that triggers it, the choice doesn't seem to require a check at all. Its simply a calculation by the player. Do I want to raise my profile and gain a big advantage on some potentially important skill checks, or do I just want to slide under the radar. Obviously the GM can leverage this decision in framing, and the likely consequences are probably readily apparent to the character (and should be to the player as well).In other words this is IMHO where @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=82504" target="_blank">Garthanos</a>' idea of "you can just do it" works out great. SotC is just an ability you need Streetwise training to have, but if you have it, you just flip the switch and it changes your fictional positioning and the stakes that are in play. You might wait and choose to do it during an SC of course, but if the aim is to avoid the fictional positioning's downside, well, you might also just not have the right opportunity, because there still IS an 'in the fiction' requirement for SotC, you can't just say one moment "yeah, now I'm in the loop on stuff in this town" not unless you actually had a chance to say hang at some places, grease a few palms, get a gander at some things, etc. Yeah, in my style of game I'd have just considered that they were good for the night. Or not, and then I'd run another action scene, but it would be one way or the other. Maybe whether it was a quiet night or not would depend on some further choice the players made, like if they camp on the ship its quiet, but if they ignore the signs of head hunters and camp on land, well...Right, I'm just not sure why any check would be required in those later scenes. I'd think it would be pure narration unless one of the PCs decided not to pay or something... I guess I've just become really systematic about this over the last few years. Its a challenge, or its diceless, there's just no such thing as dice outside of conflict. I guess about the only place I might bend that is say if you're all buffing up casting rituals prior to some action, maybe you need to make some checks to see if your Phantom Steeds can fly or not, etc. I'd still really rather not do it that way (and in fact I suspect it would be better to eschew that kind of design for rituals now that I think about it).EDIT: Actually, I'll go further. The fact that 4e has a whole set of rules and ritual writeups that flat out say "If you fail the check, nothing is expended" (which is tantamount in most cases to 'try again') is plenty of indication that this sort of checking is not really something 4e should be doing.So, I hereby propose that ritual effects (at least those that create ongoing effects) should be simply measured by the character's bonus with the key skill. No actual check should be required. The ritual always works, and its effects are consistent. If you want to make it be more potent, get assistance, or create an SC that deals with making a specially potent (and perhaps dangerous) form of the ritual.</blockquote>

Verification