|
Am I, as a DM, allowed to change the result of a roll so that a player doesn't die? Yes Is it good or at least acceptable practice to change the result of a roll so that the story keeps moving in a nice direction? Yes Is it valid to criticize the game for making me have to do that? Also yes I'm even willing to grant that D&D 5th Edition isn't a "poo poo game" specifically just because I have to occasionally fudge rolls. Notwithstanding that I sometimes end up having to fudge rolls because of my own DM'ing mistakes, it's hardly a problem that's limited to just this iteration of the game or even this game series specifically, and 5th Edition has more specific and glaring flaws than that. But the point stands that if the system tells you that following this, that and that other step should produce a certain result, but then you still have to end up fudging the roll despite all the tools and empowerment that you have as a DM before the calling for the roll (or calling for the roll at all!), it feels awkward.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Then you're completely misunderstanding what everyone here is saying. No one is saying Next is poo poo because the DMG says 'but really you can throw poo poo out'. They're saying it's poo poo because the stuff that is covered by the rules breaks down, often badly. No one is actually saying that, lots of people are saying that they play in groups when it is never needed. I'm saying if "never needed" is your benchmark then you have different expectation to what the DnD books specifically tell you. If you're saying you don't mind it occasionally happening but you feel it happens too much in 5th ed then fine, I don't know how your games are run and what's happened, I haven't come across it personally but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. This all stemmed from literally from someone saying their DM was meta gaming the group using monsters and someone blaming the rules that this was allowed to occur. My argument was that since the DM can do anything they want anyway you can't blame the rules, which spiralled into "yes you can write creatures that can't be abused", which I still don't think you can, and "it's the rules fault BECAUSE the DM is allowed to do what they want". I still don't think it's possible to write rules for a zombie that HAS to be played as a zombie would, and the examples given I gave counter examples of how if I was "playing to win" I could use the monsters other than players would expect them to behave, which no one responded to. I also don't think a game system is poo poo because occasionally the DM had to fudge things, particularly when the rules specifically tell the DM to do this. Those are the points I'm making and yet I get morons telling me I think players from other, clearly superior systems, get arrested for not playing RAW. A few points some people have raised have been interesting, but too many people are just making poo poo up and putting words into my mouth, or they just clearly have different things they want from a game so we will have to agree to disagree. Either way, I feel there's probably not much point in me discussing either of the two points listed above any further.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
So let's go play some baseball 2.0, a new system I just invented. A small piece of the left field wall is inside third base! That means line drives can bounce off it and come back. And if somebody hits it over that part, that's obviously too cheap to be a home run so we just fudge it and re-throw the pitch. That's just being reasonable. Having that be a home run would obviously make the game worse, we can all agree. No it's not a poo poo game. We still have fun and nobody minds too much when we have to fudge a pitch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I still don't think it's possible to write rules for a zombie that HAS to be played as a zombie would, and the examples given I gave counter examples of how if I was "playing to win" I could use the monsters other than players would expect them to behave, which no one responded to. Well, let's focus on this, then. First, there exists at least one gaming system where the examples you listed work, but also aren't actually punishing. In this game system, if you play your Kobolds like you play your Orcs, the Kobolds will be extremely ineffective and will die. In fact, your best method of playing them is the way they are described in the fiction. Edit: it is also possible for a game system to provide players with the means to punish unreasonable play by the monsters. If the zombies have slow movement but make silly pincer maneuvers, they are killed easily by focusing on one side, since the other side is very slow and can be held off well by a defender. Kobolds can pretend to be Orcs if they want, but players can get AOE attacks that make kobolds die quickly if they don't use their shifting abilities regularly. Stuff like that. But let's address the first part as well. pre:Zombie Medium undead, neutral evil ----- AC 8, Speed 10 ft., Hit Points 30 some more stats here ----- Undead Fortitude: On a successful DC 15 Con save, a dying zombie drops to 1 hit point instead. Mindless: Unless controlled by external, magical means, zombies are mindless. Zombies must spend any available actions to charge towards the closest living creature in sight and attack it. ----- Slam: Melee Attack, +3, reach 5ft, 1d6+1 bludgeoning damage IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
We all agree that the statements: A.) The DM can change or overrule anything if he wants to and B.) The DM will have to sometimes lie to or cheat his players to keep the game from disintegrating - are not the same, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
So, uh, does anyone have any good rules for unfucking the terrible skill/proficiency system so far? I've basically only just cracked open the book and it's the first huge, glaring "oh God no didn't Star Wars Saga Edition teach everyone this was a bad idea"-thing I've spotted. The way they're doing it in 5e, compared to 2e and 3e(I never played 4e, so no clue there), seems to really make characters way more same-ish. Two characters of a given class or race are far more likely to be "proficient" with the exact same skills and to have the exact same bonus with those skills, unless I am completely misunderstanding the rules. And I'm not really sure what to do about it besides either sucking it up and dealing with the bad system or tearing it out completely and replacing it with something homebrewed. Also, on "random rolls" and "narrative," I'd argue that if you want a completely predictable experience that can't be changed, you should read a book, watch a movie or play the Cthulhutech premade metaplot adventures. The point of playing an RPG, at least a well-made one, is that the story is fluid and can be influenced by the players, rather than their just being around to add colourful dialogue to the GM's fanfic. If a random roll fucks up your narrative, you should look carefully at the result, is it something clearly unfun for everyone, like all of the PC's burning up in an instant? Then you fudge it. Is it something simply unexpected, like the players managing to stop the Evil Overlord from getting away the first time he shows up to monologue at them and twirl his moustache? Then roll with it, make poo poo up, improvise. A game where all the players can influence is the "details," how many orcs die or what spell they use to defeat the evil neckbearded wizard in the woods, seems really meaningless to me as a GM, and I hope my players would feel the same way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:So, uh, does anyone have any good rules for unfucking the terrible skill/proficiency system so far? I've basically only just cracked open the book and it's the first huge, glaring "oh God no didn't Star Wars Saga Edition teach everyone this was a bad idea"-thing I've spotted. The way they're doing it in 5e, compared to 2e and 3e(I never played 4e, so no clue there), seems to really make characters way more same-ish. Two characters of a given class or race are far more likely to be "proficient" with the exact same skills and to have the exact same bonus with those skills, unless I am completely misunderstanding the rules. An easy fix is to go with backgrounds from 13th Age rather than skills. Any time a background applies, add your proficiency bonus. Here are some examples from the 13th Age rulebook: acrobat, alchemist, animal trainer, architect, aristocratic noble, assassin, chef, con-woman, goblin exterminator, hunted outlaw, knight errant, magecraft, priest, refugee, scout, shepherd, soldier, spy, temple acolyte, thief, torturer, transformed animal, traveling martial arts pupil, tribal healer, tunnel scout, wandering minstrel, warrior poet. PurpleXVI posted:Also, on "random rolls" and "narrative," I'd argue that if you want a completely predictable experience that can't be changed, you should read a book, watch a movie or play the Cthulhutech premade metaplot adventures. Yes, but fortunately no one has been saying otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:So, uh, does anyone have any good rules for unfucking the terrible skill/proficiency system so far? I've basically only just cracked open the book and it's the first huge, glaring "oh God no didn't Star Wars Saga Edition teach everyone this was a bad idea"-thing I've spotted. The way they're doing it in 5e, compared to 2e and 3e(I never played 4e, so no clue there), seems to really make characters way more same-ish. Two characters of a given class or race are far more likely to be "proficient" with the exact same skills and to have the exact same bonus with those skills, unless I am completely misunderstanding the rules. Yeah, up until ASI's kick in, mods are ranging from -1 to +3, and prof is static, so their isn't going to be much variance, just depends where you put your high mods and your profs (duh) Basically, this just makes any class with Expertise (Rogue, Bard... that one Cleric domain, I think?) feel super special awesome. This is the 5e take on "the 3 pillars"; the people who get "good at skills" as their pillar are REALLY good in ways that other classes mathematically can't be. Also, there's Guidance  As for a fix, is it that much of a problem? I mean, it's the same d20+mods, binary pass/fail bullshit that D&D has had since 3.5; were you expecting something dramatically different? Like, 3.5-style skill points, or...?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Plus you get half your skill profs from background anyway, so this is pretty much the most skill-diverse D&D ever in relation to class/race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:As for a fix, is it that much of a problem? I mean, it's the same d20+mods, binary pass/fail bullshit that D&D has had since 3.5; were you expecting something dramatically different? Like, 3.5-style skill points, or...? Maybe my reaction was a bit more vitriolic than it ought to have been, I was already grouchy over the poor organization of the book. But it just bugs me, the execution of skills in 2e and 3.x weren't perfect, but at least they felt like they gave the players a bit more agency, and characters a bit more variation. The whole can do/can't do thing, as said, reminds me poorly of Star Wars: Saga Edition, a system whose main issue was that any two characters of the same race/class combo were going to be mechanically almost identical. Of course it's less of an issue in 5e as there are more actual classes to play with but, still. It's the sort of thing I feel is a pretty bad oversight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:the execution of skills in 2e and 3.x weren't perfect, but at least they felt like they gave the players a bit more agency, PurpleXVI posted:and characters a bit more variation. [...]any two characters of the same race/class combo were going to be mechanically almost identical. And the problem here is Ability Scores. No, seriously. The ability scores you need are so hard-coded into your class, that it pigeonholes what skills your class can be great at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:So, uh, does anyone have any good rules for unfucking the terrible skill/proficiency system so far? I've basically only just cracked open the book and it's the first huge, glaring "oh God no didn't Star Wars Saga Edition teach everyone this was a bad idea"-thing I've spotted. The way they're doing it in 5e, compared to 2e and 3e(I never played 4e, so no clue there), seems to really make characters way more same-ish. Two characters of a given class or race are far more likely to be "proficient" with the exact same skills and to have the exact same bonus with those skills, unless I am completely misunderstanding the rules. Would it mess up 5e too bad to just replace the skill system with 13th Age backgrounds? I've been tempted to just do that for any d20 based system I run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Would it mess up 5e too bad to just replace the skill system with 13th Age backgrounds? I've been tempted to just do that for any d20 based system I run. IME mucking with D&D skill systems, you're better off doing a wholesale replacement like that than you are trying to surgically alter certain parts. So yeah, my advice is go for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:The difference is the DnD and other RPGs I mentioned literally say in the rules "Remember the DM can overrule any and all of this whenever they want" So we agree that a game with functioning rules that DID say that would be superior to 5th edition D&D in every way? Cool: 4th edition DM Guide, page 33: "Explain that the character can try anything the player can imagine, and it's up to you [the DM] to determine whether it works." Problem solved, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Or hey, how about page 189, which is an entire page about houseruling, when to do it, how to get the most out of your house rules, and some examples. "The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Yeah dude I've spent the evening actually playing the game an enjoying it with my friends in a pub. I've already explained that some people clearly want different things from their games than me (which is fine but we obviously just won't agree), and others keep trying to twist what I say and generally post bullshit (you're the latter by the way). I'm being serious when I said I don't think there's anything to be gained from discussing it anymore, so I won't. If it makes you feel better just imagine you won the argument on the internet and now you don't need to bring it up anymore, good job!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
http://www.somethingawful.com/news/internet-argument-lose/quote:Post lots and lots of words about something trivial. quote:Point out that everyone else posting is a giant nerd because they are posting on the internet. quote:Tell everyone you are arguing with how little you care about the argument. quote:When finally leaving the argument, make sure to inform them you will be partaking in some sort of basic social function.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Yeah well done, you won. Now let's stop discussing it as no one else gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah well done, you won. Now let's stop discussing it as no one else gives a poo poo. I was hoping for more stories about how you went to a real life pub. Did it have beer in there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I was hoping for more stories about how you went to a real life pub. Did it have beer in there? Shut up you stupid internet nerd, no one gives a poo poo about an argument skateboards out doing mad tricks on his way to a cool party
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah well done, you won. Now let's stop discussing it as no one else gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Please stop. This has been going on for days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Well, sorry about that. Didn't know it was going to start a shitstorm. Moving on, I have a pretty cool group of people that I'm starting up a campaign with. So far we've just been moving through the 5E starter box module but they are completely running it sideways. (In a good way.) They were supposed to retrieve a box of weapons from a cavern with goblins but the goblins stole it and got away before they could retrieve it. Now they are in the city of the merchants that they were supposed to retrieve the goods for. Instead of owning up to the merchants and saying that they didn't get the goods, they are planning a heist to steal some goods from another town and package them up as if they were the goods they were sent to retrieve. In the meantime, they are going to set up a local organized crime group, the Redbrands, for the heist. Their plan is to ambush a couple Redbrands and steal their cloaks, then make it a point to be seen while fleeing the heist site. Pretty cool, right? Completely different than what the module suggests players do. My question is that they have been talking about what to do next and they seem to really want to do Rise of Tiamat. Has anyone played it? Is it worth running for a group that likes doing off walls situations like the above? I like what they are doing but it seems like it might be a waste of time to start up a module if the players obviously like thinking out of the box so much that suggested paths or storylines from it are going to be completely unrealistic by the time we get there. Any thoughts? How do you run a premade module with a group that likes coming up with clever ways to circumvent the narration or completely subvert it? Anyone have a similar group with some suggestions on how to set up a campaign that they would enjoy? I was thinking of some sort of jailbreak or large scale heist sandbox to come up with that they might like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:My question is that they have been talking about what to do next and they seem to really want to do Rise of Tiamat. Has anyone played it? Is it worth running for a group that likes doing off walls situations like the above? I like what they are doing but it seems like it might be a waste of time to start up a module if the players obviously like thinking out of the box so much that suggested paths or storylines from it are going to be completely unrealistic by the time we get there. Any thoughts? How do you run a premade module with a group that likes coming up with clever ways to circumvent the narration or completely subvert it? Anyone have a similar group with some suggestions on how to set up a campaign that they would enjoy? I was thinking of some sort of jailbreak or large scale heist sandbox to come up with that they might like. If you know the ways that they like to subvert the narratives - if you know how they like to play their characters - it can be fairly easy to set up situations the way you want them by changing the starting conditions. Like, in the case of your players (I don't know anything about Rise of Tiamat), if they get a thrill out of double-crossing the people that hired them, you could start a module with them hired by the antagonists and give them plenty of opportunities to set up a double cross, which could involve meeting the original NPC's they'd encounter if they had gone in the default way. Edit: A lot of it is going to depend on the specific module. Starting out by looking at the transitions and coming up with a few different scenarios based on what your players might do will help a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:So, uh, does anyone have any good rules for unfucking the terrible skill/proficiency system so far? I've basically only just cracked open the book and it's the first huge, glaring "oh God no didn't Star Wars Saga Edition teach everyone this was a bad idea"-thing I've spotted. The way they're doing it in 5e, compared to 2e and 3e(I never played 4e, so no clue there), seems to really make characters way more same-ish. Two characters of a given class or race are far more likely to be "proficient" with the exact same skills and to have the exact same bonus with those skills, unless I am completely misunderstanding the rules. Simple fix: decouple stats from skills. If someone wants to do an Athletics + CHA check, as long as they can describe it, let them do it. Somewhat more free-form fix: throw out the idea of a background giving you 2 proficiencies and simply let it be a descriptor. If you're "The Last Prince of a Dying Line" then you can apply your proficiency to a bunch of checks linked to your nobility, or your wealth, or your determination to save your people, etc. I would not recommend importing 13th Age's system entirely, but the concept is similar - your proficiency might apply to this Sleight of Hand + CON check, but not the other one, depending on the circumstances Experimental subjective fix: make the character's background matter in determining the quality of the success. Say you're facing down a Mad Wizard who's casting an arcane ritual, and someone makes an INT+Arcana check to find out what the Wizard is trying to cast. The thing about 5E's skill system is that a Rogue that took Arcana as his Expertise skill might have a higher bonus to the check than an actual Wizard. What I propose is that even if the Rogue passes his check, he's never going to get as much information about the Mad Wizard's spell as the Wizard, simply because he's a Rogue and not a Wizard. You'd have to be careful with this though, as it can lead you down to playing favorites or treating the party unfairly if you don't check exactly by how much you're reining in the results of their checks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Simple fix: decouple stats from skills. If someone wants to do an Athletics + CHA check, as long as they can describe it, let them do it. I'd like to point out that Offical DM Chris Perkins does this all the time at PAX games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:I'd like to point out that Offical DM Chris Perkins does this all the time at PAX games. Yeah, as I recall at one point in the official playtest this was how skills worked. I'm not sure if they've tied skills explicitly to ability scores again since then. But there's a lot of approaches here that can work: the traditional example is "Roll Intimidate with Strength when you're backing up your threats with the possibility of physical violence, Charisma if you're using mostly verbal threats, hell, you could even roll with Intelligence if you describe your character cowing the target with their superior intellect," but there's a lot of space for different applications. Roll Stealth+Dexterity if you're literally trying to avoid notice through movement and hiding, Stealth+Charisma if you're trying to evade notice by blending into a crowd through inconspicuous body language and behavior, you could even do Stealth+Constitution to represent staying still while hiding under adverse conditions for a long time (for an example, blending into a cold environment to stalk the frost giants you'll be attacking by surprise, a failure representing that you've caught a cold while sitting in the snow and let out a sneeze, alerting the frost giant sentry to your presence). Then there's skill penumbras, stolen straight from Unknown Armies: in addition to representing your actual skill, skills also represent your knowledge of all things related to that skill. You might call for a Stealth+Intelligence (or Thievery+Intelligence) to identify the calling card of a famous cat burglar after their heist, Athletics+Intelligence to judge the length of a jump (effectively giving your player a way to suss out the DC of said check if you're already not in the habit of stating DC's outright). Hell, because all skills and proficiencies progress at the same level you could let the Fighter make an Intelligence or Wisdom check with their proficiency bonus (probably as a free action) to determine an enemy's weakness (like figuring out their weakest save or whether they're particularly vulnerable to certain types of attacks). As a bit of conjecture, related to the Fighter being able to figure out their enemy's weakness, I'd go back to having defenses instead of saving throws, and allowing a Fighter who's spent a bonus action to determine their enemy's weakest defense to attack that defense instead of AC. If the Fighter deduces that their opponent has a low Charisma save they'd sprinkle yo mama jokes into their attack, demoralizing them, if the enemy's got a high AC but a low Dexterity defense they'd go right for the chinks in their armor, and so on. It'd give the Fighter something interesting and unique to do within the improvisation-based framework.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:I'd like to point out that Offical DM Chris Perkins does this all the time at PAX games. It's also specifically mentioned as an optional rule in the DMG. It gives the example of making an athletics check using con instead of strength as it's a long distance to run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:My question is that they have been talking about what to do next and they seem to really want to do Rise of Tiamat. Has anyone played it? Is it worth running for a group that likes doing off walls situations like the above? I like what they are doing but it seems like it might be a waste of time to start up a module if the players obviously like thinking out of the box so much that suggested paths or storylines from it are going to be completely unrealistic by the time we get there. Any thoughts? How do you run a premade module with a group that likes coming up with clever ways to circumvent the narration or completely subvert it? Anyone have a similar group with some suggestions on how to set up a campaign that they would enjoy? I was thinking of some sort of jailbreak or large scale heist sandbox to come up with that they might like. The real killer for your group might be that the first area you start in is in the middle of being sacked by a dragon and its cult, so there's very little useful civilization around at the start of the campaign. You end up doing at least about 4 sessions worth of missions around there (we're still in the area, in what seems like it might be the final mission for the town), and the whole module seems to be about trailing behind a giant warband of cultists trying to stop them. So who knows, we might not get to non-burned out civilization for quite some time. e: You could probably tweak things if your group fights the rails harder than we do. But by default their options are pretty limited. ImpactVector fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Experimental subjective fix: make the character's background matter in determining the quality of the success. Say you're facing down a Mad Wizard who's casting an arcane ritual, and someone makes an INT+Arcana check to find out what the Wizard is trying to cast. The thing about 5E's skill system is that a Rogue that took Arcana as his Expertise skill might have a higher bonus to the check than an actual Wizard. What I propose is that even if the Rogue passes his check, he's never going to get as much information about the Mad Wizard's spell as the Wizard, simply because he's a Rogue and not a Wizard. You'd have to be careful with this though, as it can lead you down to playing favorites or treating the party unfairly if you don't check exactly by how much you're reining in the results of their checks. Careful with this one. If a player has invested one of a limited amount of character options into being good at something (especially something that requires an unusual investment of abilities), that's usually a flag that the player wants to be good at that thing, and arbitrarily blocking that thing comes across as a dick move. If you have a problem with Expertise being a floating +2 to +6 bonus in a game of flat math than fix Expertise; if you have a problem with characters not being able to do the things their concept says that they're good at then fix that instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
If a rogue has spent time reading tomes about uncommon and ancient magic, while the wizard never showed interest in the arcane beyond their own powers, I see no reason why the rogue shouldn't be the more likely to recognise an unknown spell. If the wizard is going to understand it by virtue of being a wizard, why are you even rolling? Just tell them. Skill rolls should be for obscure poo poo, the kind of thing that a suitably educated person wouldn't ordinarily know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Yeah that's useful feedback and I figured there was a strong argument against it, which is why I said to be careful with the idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
In my next session, my players have elected for a hook that's going to involve some serious underwater time, though they don't know that unless they make a CRAZY educated guess. What are my options to help them out? I don't want a crate of potions at the doorstep, but I don't want them to not be able to continue because they have no way to deal with sunken poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:In my next session, my players have elected for a hook that's going to involve some serious underwater time, though they don't know that unless they make a CRAZY educated guess. What are my options to help them out? I don't want a crate of potions at the doorstep, but I don't want them to not be able to continue because they have no way to deal with sunken poo poo. A drought? Any water based adventure results in horrible deaths and should be avoided at all costs. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Give them a few rumors about treasure hidden at the bottom of the town's well. It'll just turn out to be the accumulated cash from people using it as a wishing well, but the underwater prep the PCs use will pay off later. If they roll high, they got the rumors because it's obscure If they roll low, they got the rumors because there isn't a lot of treasure. Tunicate fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Give them a few rumors about treasure hidden at the bottom of the town's well. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
That crab submarine. On loan from the local engineers guild. Plus a couple of rings of waterbreathing they use in place of diving suits for EVA purposes. Said "loan" may not be with their knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Symbiotic worms that latch onto your back and leech nutrients from you, but oxygenate your blood in return. Scuba gear powered by the souls of dead fishmen. Massive injections of magic space heroin that just stop you needing to breathe for 24 hours, at the cost of 24 days off the end of your life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Provide a contrivance, but make it fun. You find a merfolk corpse floating face-down near the shore. He's wearing water wings (hence the floating) and if you examine his face, you'll find a snorkel tied to his mouth. It's magic and lets you breathe water as though it were air. Maybe there are more nearby? And why was he murdered?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Bodyswaps with some Triton tourists. Endless bottle of air screwed into a multi-user hookah. Goatskin air-bladders and determination. Holding their breath for a REALLY long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:11
|
|