Macbeth
First Post
If the character with the best attack bonus fails to hit a monster, do you let him try again? Do you let characters with lower bonuses try to hit the monster? Why is this different?
It's different because combat is a constantly shifting collection of moving parts. Since I tend to run with letting it ride until circumstances change, the circumstances in combat are, pretty much by definition, constantly changing, so you can always roll again in the next round.
If unlimited rerolls are allowed without consequence, it's like always taking 20, just with way more dice rolling. If I can keep trying to open the jar (which contains a jinn, of course) just by taking more time and rolling again, why don't we just skip all the rolling? If the amount of time is important, why not just make one roll and have that create consequences?
Expanding that out a bit more: I try opening the jar, fail, and get to keep rolling. Each roll takes time, so eventually there are consequences. Still, I sit at the table, rolling a dozen times before enough time has passed for the bad guys to find me. So, I rolled a dozen times, but there were only two possible consequences: I get it open, or I run out of time.
Now, with letting the roll ride, I roll once. If I succeed, I can get it open. If I fail, I can't, and the consequences can happen NOW. Instead of sitting around rolling for a few minutes, we make one roll and get to the interesting parts: what's inside, or what happens when I run out of time.
It's not a matter of player or GM benefit either: consider making a Stealth roll as opposed to opening the jar. If we don't let a Stealth roll ride (until circumstances change) the GM can just ask for rolls until you fail. If we don't let the Strength check ride, the player can just roll until they succeed.