[OOC] Heart of Darkness (Part II)

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Would you like to delete the post in the OOC and relocate it over here? That might be needlessly tidy of me, but the only reason I didn't quote it was because I assumed it would be deleted.

Not sure if you're politely instructing or just asking my preference, but I moved it. (: I didn't earlier because I thought it would just make things messier.

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

Not sure if you're politely instructing or just asking my preference, but I moved it. (: I didn't earlier because I thought it would just make things messier.

Hmm, choose the one that makes me look less controlling and more favorable.

Originally Posted by secretID

It is an interesting question whether Jimmy would have noticed, during the travels, this detail of the others' vision. It never occurred to me, and I'm very impressed that you kept this detail in mind. (He probably would regularly bump into this issue with Tink, whose "Devil's Sight" differs from Jimmy's.) This makes the exchange with Boanagh very interesting. Thanks for keeping me from banging my head against this wall further.

I wanted to add to this, saying that in my GM notes Jimmy has been using his Devil's Sight for ca. 5 days, so I would vaguer it hasn't come up with Tink yet. Normal darkvision is really usually good enough to not lead to any misconceptions, and it really is such a detailed difference that I assumed Jimmy and Loch hadn't talked about it.

Secondly, I'm not sure if I highlighted it enough but it is pretty curious that Loch is suggesting he possesses a similar sight to Jimmy's. It is the reason however why I figured that he would catch on by now, and otherwise I might have been forced to continue keeping Boanagh in the dark, pun intended.

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Secondly, I'm not sure if I highlighted it enough but it is pretty curious that Loch is suggesting he possesses a similar sight to Jimmy's. It is the reason however why I figured that he would catch on by now, and otherwise I might have been forced to continue keeping Boanagh in the dark, pun intended.

Sure, I get that that's strange. Jimmy would understand that too; he had normal darkvision before the Devil's Sight. Maybe he'll ask about that around a campfire sometime, but he has bigger concerns right now.

What if Jimmy wants to try to cast a spell on Glynn without starting a fight? Personally, I would generally say that that's somehow understood to be an attack, so as to provoke an initiative roll. But what if he tries to pretend that he's casting something else. E.g., what if he announces that he's going to cast some non-threatening spell, but instead casts Suggestion on her?

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

What if Jimmy wants to try to cast a spell on Glynn without starting a fight? Personally, I would generally say that that's somehow understood to be an attack, so as to provoke an initiative roll. But what if he tries to pretend that he's casting something else. E.g., what if he announces that he's going to cast some non-threatening spell, but instead casts Suggestion on her?

It's generally possible to cast magic without getting into a fight or rolling initiative, but of course it would entirely depend on the circumstances. As you have said, whether we'll have to resolve actions within high tension would depend on whether any of the NPCs perceive Jimmy's actions as an attack. If they do and they have a reasonable time window to interfere, we'll have a case for initiative on our hands. Most generally, whether the NPCs will perceive Jimmy's spellcasting as an attack will depend on the circumstances in which he is casting a spell and possibly whether they have the ability to discern which spell Jimmy begins to cast. About masking one spell as another, I think we should look at the pair of spells and how they compare to each other. Even for anybody that has no capacity to cast magic, the difference in complexity might make it difficult to mask a Suggestion spell as a Light spell, but I think there would be a general opportunity for deception.

@edit:
Let me know what Jimmy would like to attempt and then we can figure out together how to resolve that kind of precision work in PbP.

[secretID]

When Tink was up near the trap - what I'll call it now - did he see an easy way to trigger it himself, e.g. by cutting or burning something quickly? It seems like there's a release mechanism operable by one person alone, so maybe Tink can just cut that rope a little closer to the trap? The idea is for Tink to fly in and up, release what's inside, and escape (or die) while the party stays ready in the tunnel.

[Mindsiege]

For the sake of knowing a way to effectively sabotage the trap, Tink would have required a bit more investigation than he has put into it. I was keeping track of the narration and his focus appeared to be elsewhere. The best I can tell you is that what you posed might be correct and that the trap is very likely operated by ropes. There were quite a few of them though and Tink only glanced at them while he was more occupied with the captives and their tent instead.

[secretID]

I have an idea that involves questions of LoS, Presidigtation, and flammability. The idea is to send Tink to a spot directly under the trap, carrying oil-soaked cloth (say, a shirt or blanket), with Jimmy in a position for LoS on Tink but not Glynn. Jimmy lights the cloth with Prestidigitation, and Tink carries it up to try to light the tarp trap.

Tink is fireproof, so he can hold it there indefinitely, but that might not be the best way to light it, depending on the design. (Obviously he might soon become a target that way, too.) If there's enough of a gap that he can toss a Molotov cocktail into it, that would be preferred.

[secretID]

A few other questions:
1) Re the rope Glynn ordered the darkling to man, how quickly could Jimmy expect Tink to cut through it, or maybe burn through it as described above? He could use his tail (d4+3), or maybe a carried dagger.
2) How would Jimmy refer to the council that met at the big camp. Would "the elders" be clear?
3) What's a "toad song," referred to here? Is that German idiom? A darkling one? (:

[Mindsiege]

1. If you're worried about the flammability of the tarp, you can give me a Nature check. You can take advantage from Loch, but no others have the prerequisites for this check.
2. To toss a molotov onto the tarp, Tink will have to do so after flying deeper into the cavern. I also would need Jimmy to have a flask to contribute.
3. The rope only has 2 HP and an AC of 10. If you wrap a burning cloth around it, you can expect it to burn through fairly quickly.
4. The elders is a proper term.
5. It's not a german idiom, at least I don't think so. You can assume that it's a reference to the sounds a choir of toads would make which can be quite the discordant melody.

Would you count setting stuff aflame as an attack by the rules?

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

If you're worried about the flammability of the tarp, you can give me a Nature check. You can take advantage from Loch, but no others have the prerequisites for this check.

Sorry; I'm actually hoping for flammability - really, I'm assuming some flammability, but wondering about the feasibility of quickly igniting it by touching a flaming, oil-soaked cloth to it.

Dice Nature with Guidance and ADV:

2d20+2kh1	(4, 7 (keeping 7) )+2			Total = 9
1d4t	3	Running Total = 12

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

To toss a molotov onto the tarp, Tink will have to do so after flying deeper into the cavern. I also would need Jimmy to have a flask to contribute.

I.e., he has to fly to the other side of the hammock? Did you ever tell me the height of the cavern? I know it's less than 30'...

By "flask," you just mean a regular flask of oil?

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

The rope only has 2 HP and an AC of 10. If you wrap a burning cloth around it, you can expect it to burn through fairly quickly.

And what about with his tail, or a dagger? (He'll be awfully alarming, coming in as a little fireball.)

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Would you count setting stuff aflame as an attack by the rules?

Not in this case; I would almost certainly call cutting or burning the rope an action, but not an attack. I know it technically has AC, but I think most would treat severing a rope as an automatic success, though probably more time consuming than a simple item interaction.

Are you wondering for purposes of what a familiar can do? I think that's just a straight rules prohibition, like, say, the rule about casting two spells in a turn. IMO the point is just to limit the power of a familiar in combat. Personally, I would allow certain "attacks" - like an owl familiar pecking at a door - outside of combat.

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

Sorry; I'm actually hoping for flammability - really, I'm assuming some flammability, but wondering about the feasibility of quickly igniting it by touching a flaming, oil-soaked cloth to it.

That was a surprisingly weak roll, but thanks to Loch's help and with Guidance, Jimmy ascertains that the tarp should be fairly flammable. You're good on that account.

Please mention that the conversation happened in your next IC post, even if that doesn't end up becoming the plan.

Originally Posted by secretID

I.e., he has to fly to the other side of the hammock? Did you ever tell me the height of the cavern? I know it's less than 30'...

I did. I think it was 25' in the entrance area, but I'd have to consult my notes again. Let's go with this for now.

Originally Posted by secretID

By "flask," you just mean a regular flask of oil?

Yeah. Actually, we should probably do some kind of knowledge check if Jimmy even knows how to build a Molotov (or even what it is), and then check if he has all the supplies to make it. Do you want to go down that route?

Originally Posted by secretID

And what about with his tail, or a dagger? (He'll be awfully alarming, coming in as a little fireball.)

For the sake of tail and dagger, its AC is 10 and its HP 2. There's nothing holding you back from attempting an attack roll.

Originally Posted by secretID

Not in this case; I would almost certainly call cutting or burning the rope an action, but not an attack. I know it technically has AC, but I think most would treat severing a rope as an automatic success, though probably more time consuming than a simple item interaction.

Well, the issue though is that time consumption is the matter. If Tink takes his time with it, the darklings might interfere after all. I think for the purposes of sabotaging the trap on a time crunch, I should certainly put some challenge to it.

Originally Posted by secretID

Are you wondering for purposes of what a familiar can do? I think that's just a straight rules prohibition, like, say, the rule about casting two spells in a turn. IMO the point is just to limit the power of a familiar in combat. Personally, I would allow certain "attacks" - like an owl familiar pecking at a door - outside of combat.

That's not the issue in this case, because a chainlock is allowed to forgo their attack action in order to allow their familiar to attack instead. Though I suppose that even then, this could become an issue in the action economy depending on how things shake out.

Either way, I think that I'm willing to say that clipping a chord can be done as a Use Object interaction in this case. This however won't change that for it to succeed under time pressure I'll need Tink to beat that AC. I'll say either dagger or burning rag will come down to an improvised weapon for Tink. I'll give him advantage on the attack roll if he uses the flaming rag and I don't mind for this purpose to also give it finesse.

@edit:
As an aside though, does this ruling mean from your perspective that a bard with a torch gets to burn down a library without ever breaking their Invisibility spell? I'm a bit worried about that implication...

@2nd edit:
If you want to use Tink's stinger to clip the chord, I'll count that as an attack after all. I don't think that's a Use Object action.

[Mindsiege]

Maybe just a brief consideration, but Boanagh is very worried about escalation. While he is probably easily overruled by anything which Jimmy proposes, Boanagh will still plead to make exposing Glynn your focus. The rest of the sylvans don't seem to care either way.

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Yeah. Actually, we should probably do some kind of knowledge check if Jimmy even knows how to build a Molotov (or even what it is), and then check if he has all the supplies to make it. Do you want to go down that route?

To know how to stick a rag in a bottle? (: I think I'm going a different way anyway.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

As an aside though, does this ruling mean from your perspective that a bard with a torch gets to burn down a library without ever breaking their Invisibility spell? I'm a bit worried about that implication...

Sure. (I'm not sure if the bard class was supposed to be relevant.) The character could also poison a cistern, or wrap a coffin containing a sleeping vampire in chains and drag it into a river. For many activities, I would require an actual action, not just a free item interaction.

I think the RAW and RAI on Invisibility and Attack are very clear, and it also doesn't look like an oversight. I think Attack is very clear, with objects being the only fuzzy aspect IMO. Objects have AC, but can sometimes be broken with STR checks. The problem here is a basic flaw from the origin of D&D: AC is a very bad mechanic IMO, because it consists of both the ability to avoid damage and the ability to resist meaningful damage. I prefer systems that separate out evasion, durability, and toughness (survivability? - hp, basically). E.g., I dislike it that you can't automatically hit an unconscious target. Anyway, I wouldn't call anything not requiring an attack roll an Attack.

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

To know how to stick a rag in a bottle? (: I think I'm going a different way anyway.

I don't know why, but I have never heard great recountings of Molotov cocktails in any other historical or fantasy stories. Seems like there's some kind of hindrance there. But if you don't even want Jimmy to do it, I'm glad that I won't have to put in the research.

Originally Posted by secretID

Sure. (I'm not sure if the bard class was supposed to be relevant.) The character could also poison a cistern, or wrap a coffin containing a sleeping vampire in chains and drag it into a river. For many activities, I would require an actual action, not just a free item interaction.

I think the RAW and RAI on Invisibility and Attack are very clear, and it also doesn't look like an oversight. I think Attack is very clear, with objects being the only fuzzy aspect IMO. Objects have AC, but can sometimes be broken with STR checks. The problem here is a basic flaw from the origin of D&D: AC is a very bad mechanic IMO, because it consists of both the ability to avoid damage and the ability to resist meaningful damage. I prefer systems that separate out evasion, durability, and toughness (survivability? - hp, basically). E.g., I dislike it that you can't automatically hit an unconscious target. Anyway, I wouldn't call anything not requiring an attack roll an Attack.

No sorry, the bard class is irrelevant to that concern. Somehow I'm just stuck with the image of some drunken bard wanting to burn down a library without wanting to get caught. That's been in my head ever since I thought about the limits of Prestidigitation and Druidcraft.

About free item interaction vs. Use Object, I just edited my above two posts before you posted to clarify a few things. Maybe give them a brief reread in case I created confusion.

Leaving the examples aside which obviously don't fall under attacking, let's get back to setting things on fire. I'm kind of hung up about that. Attack rolls in 5e aren't a unique mechanic, they can also happen in some situations where no attack has been made. Basically, attack rolls are any contest against AC. If you wanted to set fire to a wooden wall with a torch, if it's happening in high tension I could imagine requiring the player to break the wooden wall's AC, even if it's neither an Attack action, nor narratively an attack. To boot, there are plenty of cases across the game where succeeding in touching a creature is resolved via an attack roll (keep this in mind if it ever becomes relevant for Heart Sight). Please don't mistake this as an argument for anything. I'm just stating it to illustrate how there's an interplay between narrative, mechanics, and the intent of the character, and how intricate alternations of those three are considered attacks or not in various similar situations.

Now, while an ability like Heart Sight should naturally not count for the sake of breaking Invisibility (as it lacks the intent to harm/attack), I'm still not convinced about the torch example. If my player tells me "no, I'm not attacking that guard with a torch, I'm just holding it in my hand and flying closer to him until it touches and hurts him, that's not an attack", you know that's not going to fly with me. Maybe we really are back in that awkward territory where DnD makes terrible differences between creatures and objects. But still, I think the rules for Invisibility are intended to disallow certain types of activities under its guise. Since they are so closely related, I feel pretty compelled to say that attacking and demolishing falls under the same aggressive intent of a character and should both break Invisibility.

Similarly, you won't find me arguing if you pour your poison vial into a well while invisible. But once you fly above an enemy and pour your contact poison onto them, is that still a Use Object action in your book? The difference for me is that I wouldn't count pouring poison into a well as demolishing, but pouring it onto a creature is clearly an attack. As for the case with the torch and the library, I would easily say that simply putting the torch into a bookshelf and allowing it to become visible as it torches the place won't break Invisibility. But I think there's a pretty fine line in regards to how much destruction you should allow your characters to accomplish before they break invisibility, and I'm inclined to say any sort of interaction that targets an entity's HP counts, even if we forgo the attack roll and say that the attack trivially succeeds. But please, do expand my perspective with yours. This area of the rules seems pretty murky.

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

@2nd edit:
If you want to use Tink's stinger to clip the chord, I'll count that as an attack after all. I don't think that's a Use Object action.

So I'm seeing:
1) tail - normal attack;
2) dagger/knife - object interaction, with with attack/damage rolls necessary, improvised finesse weapon;
3) flaming rag - object interaction, with attack/damage rolls necessary, improvised finesse weapon, with ADV.

Please let me know if I have that wrong. I assume that you'll decide at the time whether his attacking the rope will trigger initiative. Hm - maybe I shouldn't assume that - will it automatically trigger it?

I assume that were he to sit on the rope, pour oil on it, and light that, it would not require a hit roll, but please let me know.

Do we know that Tink can access the interior of the hammock from the other side, or do we just not know that he can't? I know Glynn warned him off of that earlier. I assume you're fine with him pouring oil onto/into it and then lighting it, assuming no one interrupts that. Hm - or would you consider that an attack, given the rest of the discussion?

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Attack rolls in 5e aren't a unique mechanic, they can also happen in some situations where no attack has been made.

They can? Like what situation? The PHB says "if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." I searched it, and found no reference to "attack roll" for something other than an attack.

I don't see how that's relevant to setting a building aflame, though, because what you're talking about there is the opposite - no attack roll but nonetheless an attack.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I could imagine requiring the player to break the wooden wall's AC, even if it's neither an Attack action, nor narratively an attack.

I guess? Obviously torch vs. wall is simply a question of time, not aggressiveness. But if it's not an Attack, it still doesn't break invisibility.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

To boot, there are plenty of cases across the game where succeeding in touching a creature is resolved via an attack roll (keep this in mind if it ever becomes relevant for Heart Sight).

An attack roll for a touch that isn't an Attack? - like what (in the rules)? Personally, if someone were trying, e.g., to touch an unwilling target with a harmless feather, I would just call it an ability contest.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm still not convinced about the torch example. If my player tells me "no, I'm not attacking that guard with a torch, I'm just holding it in my hand and flying closer to him until it touches and hurts him, that's not an attack"

That's completely different. We were talking about igniting books, not people.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Maybe we really are back in that awkward territory where DnD makes terrible differences between creatures and objects.

I think the rules flaw is the one I reviewed - AC is just a bad mechanic. A boulder and a housefly (or an ogre and a book) should not defend against attacks in the same way.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

But still, I think the rules for Invisibility are intended to disallow certain types of activities under its guise.

Yes; they're called Attacks and Spells. If they wanted to include these other things, they would have said that doing damage breaks invisibility.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

But I think there's a pretty fine line in regards to how much destruction you should allow your characters to accomplish before they break invisibility

It's a pretty clear line for me; I don't see anything about degree of destruction.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Since they are so closely related, I feel pretty compelled to say that attacking and demolishing falls under the same aggressive intent of a character and should both break Invisibility.

Yeah...this seems well into ogre shoving territory; I won't be staying long. (: I'll just take your rulings as they become relevant.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm inclined to say any sort of interaction that targets an entity's HP counts, even if we forgo the attack roll and say that the attack trivially succeeds.

I'm not sure how you're using "entity." For me, targeting a creature's HP counts, but not an object's. If any reduction of an object's HP is an attack, then cutting a string is, as is lighting a candle. The invisible bard could not ignite a match, much less a library.

Pouring a slow-acting poison a person is an interesting question. Or just something really infectious? But the main question for me will be the resistance of the target, not the degree of destruction. I'd be far more likely to call the feather strike an attack than I would be to call the library burning one.