Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Changing Expertise, Adding Double Proficiency
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7601842" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>The tool which lets you decide something is impossible is just that you can set the DC to an impossible value, but then you're adding a rule that makes <em>any</em> impossibility achievable on a 20. You could add an extra rule, that says a 20 won't succeed on otherwise-impossible checks when you arbitrarily say so, but that's <em>very</em> sloppy from a design standpoint. The rules should be clear for the player at the table.</p><p></p><p>I'm just saying, you could avoid complications by getting rid of that line. Give them Advantage, and the chance of them failing after they roll a 20 is very low, because they've already rolled at least a 25. The exception -where the DC is higher than 25, but lower than where you would arbitrarily decide it's impossible - is not worth writing an entire rule to address.</p><p></p><p>The problem here is with the DM, and their misplaced frustration. So, the rogue always succeeds on their Stealth checks. Why get all bent out of shape about that? If anything, that makes the DM's job easier, since it's easier for them to predict what's going to happen.</p><p></p><p>There are already several rules in the book which place limits on Stealth, particularly in regards to combat. It doesn't break anything if the rogue <em>always</em> succeeds at sneaking behind guards out of combat, when there's plenty of cover to hide behind. It's still impossible for them to hide when there is no cover.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7601842, member: 6775031"] The tool which lets you decide something is impossible is just that you can set the DC to an impossible value, but then you're adding a rule that makes [I]any[/I] impossibility achievable on a 20. You could add an extra rule, that says a 20 won't succeed on otherwise-impossible checks when you arbitrarily say so, but that's [I]very[/I] sloppy from a design standpoint. The rules should be clear for the player at the table. I'm just saying, you could avoid complications by getting rid of that line. Give them Advantage, and the chance of them failing after they roll a 20 is very low, because they've already rolled at least a 25. The exception -where the DC is higher than 25, but lower than where you would arbitrarily decide it's impossible - is not worth writing an entire rule to address. The problem here is with the DM, and their misplaced frustration. So, the rogue always succeeds on their Stealth checks. Why get all bent out of shape about that? If anything, that makes the DM's job easier, since it's easier for them to predict what's going to happen. There are already several rules in the book which place limits on Stealth, particularly in regards to combat. It doesn't break anything if the rogue [I]always[/I] succeeds at sneaking behind guards out of combat, when there's plenty of cover to hide behind. It's still impossible for them to hide when there is no cover. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Changing Expertise, Adding Double Proficiency
Top