So maybe someone can help answer a bit of a question.
So maybe someone can help answer a bit of a question.
To some extent, a lot of the time if you prepare a contingency in advance to avoid a problem, doing so often doesn’t actually matter.
Let me explain;
If I am a Lurk, and I use a vial of silence, and proceed to fail a Prowl roll, there is going to be a consequence. It just can’t be sound-related. Which in some cases might actually be worse. Making some sound might tick up an alarm clock, but if that can’t happen because of a silence potion, the GM is tasked with coming up with some other consequence. There’s no reason it couldn’t end up being damage, instead.
There’s nothing in the rules stating that a silence potion (still an example) gives you any benefits to your roll, though a GM could certainly choose to do so, and that would be its own benefit. But that’s sort of beside the point; if you plan for a contingency in such a way that it doesn’t provide a specific roll benefit but DOES make it impossible for a specific consequence to occur, is that actually helping?
Another question I have is whether or not it makes sense for something like a vial of silence to act like a special Armor when it makes sense for it to do so. Like the Lurk’s special armor related to stealth. Is it within the bounds of the rules for a Lurk to use silence, mess up a Prowl roll, and have the GM say ‘You stumble around, but the guards can’t hear it, so the consequence is automatically resisted.’
Obviously the rules don’t want to over-emphasize planning ahead, and the items exist for largely narrative purpose, but there’s a part of me that finds it rather unsatisfying that using a special tool to be silent doesn’t actually provide you with any particular advantage, it just shifts your consequences somewhere else.
I know I’m overthinking this, and one easy response is; your group can play it however they want. But I’d love to hear someone else’s take.