Search results

Have you met this group? :P

Disposition is far from the only consideration and those other factors mean that in identical circumstances, sometimes the person will do it and sometimes not.

It was very rarely better in 3.5 or 5e to use a spell than a skill. You could generally take 10 or 20 and just succeed at the skill check, where the spell used up a valuable spell slot. In 5e where you can pretty much just retry forever and DCs are almost always 20 or less, and casters have...

No. That's wrong. The hex had whatever was there the entire time. The DM just doesn't have the time or energy to detail out the billions of things the world would have, so leaves the vast majority of things to be determined later if needed. That doesn't make it made up for the PCs.

No. For just about every roll someone in the group will have a high stat + proficiency(often expertise) which gives them greater than 60% and all it takes is one most of the time for a party success.

Sure it does. The roll just indicates a monster is going to wander by. The facts about what the PCs are doing, paying attention to, etc. will all play into the encounter.

How was the dirt they were walking on established? Who planted the grass? What kind of tree is it over there? Did the air being breathed come from land vegetation or plankton? Inquiring minds don't want or need to know. The level of detail you are talking about is rarely necessary, and if it...

Er, they are being stealthy and sneaking up on the party. That's an in fiction reason established prior to the rolling of the dice. You don't roll the dice and then if someone is surprised, the other side must have been stealthy.

What do you mean? Player driven is player driven is player driven. The DM is in the passenger seat reacting to the player decisions. How you regard them is not how they are. There are people who regard the Earth as flat. That doesn't make them right.

The other part was stealthy and they missed their perception check. Gygax is irrelevant to the 5e rules you are talking about. Personally, I agree with Gygax and think the 5e surprise rules are deficient, but they are what we have currently. They missed the other party because the other party...

What I am saying is that if you have 10 people with similar dispositions to the tackler, not all of them will do it. The tackle is not in any way inevitable. It happened that time, but might not happen the next time even with the same person seeing a second punch.

They're surprised because the other side was trying to be stealthy and surprise them. Nothing gets retrofitted. They snuck up. You failed to see them. Surprise!

Sure, if you take it out of context and ignore all the things the players did to drive it to that point and make the decision to pick the lock. DM reaction to players driving things =/= DM driven.

You're looking at that really backwards. The vast majority of group checks are not 4 or 5 chances to fail. It's 4 or 5 chances to succeed, since all you need is one of them to succeed at most things and then they all succeed. One person finds the secret door. That's a success. One person...

I've never had that many consecutive rolls. I can't think of more than three off the top of my head, and that's rare. My players do what they can to get stuff done without needing to roll, which is as it should be. Not really. Even three rolls is rare enough that this is not a concern. And...

Of course. That's not what is being argued, though. What's being argued is that it drops to near 0, which is bupkis. There is no punishment. As I explained earlier, there's lots that players can do to reduce the number of checks. Often to 0 if they really try. In the scenario here where...

And you are wrong. My players succeed far more often than they fail. You still fail to account for things like class abilities, advantage, magic that enhances, but not bypasses(guidance), other PCs helping, what the DCs might be, and more.