Search results

i agree with this but not so much the rest of your post, HM can burn in a fire for all i care but that's besides the point. pick dragons as your favoured enemy and you get advantage on saves against breath weapons and similar AoE monster attacks, you get a special anti-flying knockdown effect...

this is why i think they ought to be putting more heft into species and background options, to mitigate those sparse first few levels with features from other parts of the character without worrying about creating powerful multiclass dips from frontloaded classes.

look at it this way, cancelling the date as a result of failing your test isn't a consequence of failing your test because you didn't get the date in the first place as a result of you taking the test. your date didn't say 'if you pass your driving test i'll go on a date with you'

because attacking the orc is actually dependent to the character's skill and is a non-fixed outcome, whereas deciphering what the runes say is different because the runes shouldn't change depending on who reads them, what they want them to say, or how skilled they are at reading them. if i hand...

many of us who are taking this stance i believe, (though i cannot be able to claim to speak for everyone,) have this opinion from the position of a player just as much as a GM, it doesn't matter what side of the table we're sitting on what matters to us is how the game is played and the fiction...

oh but it does affect what something actually is, a character can hope for something and if the dice or GM indulge, it will be that thing, their hopes can and do influence the reality they exist in.

but hope can never and has never changed what something actually is, my friend buys me a birthday present, i can hope til the cows come home for the box to contain this thing or that thing, but it's going to have diddly squat effect on what they actually got me or what the runes on the wall...

i have to at least agree with @EzekielRaiden point with this particular bit, just using the spells you already know how to cast, no matter in how many varied situations, is not experimenting with them or going to teach the wizard anything new, that's like saying if i 'experiment' cooking...

just on a personal level, i do not care about having a combat companion, i like find familiar more for the scouting and eavesdropping purposes.

i would guess that, to my knowledge of them, it's because they're often used to (at the very least attempt to) manipulate or bypass the usual gameplay mechanics to achieve a desired outcome and get the story going in the direction you want it to as a result,

you don't see how 'on a success you navigated the weak sections of the wall and reached the top, on a failure you didn't and fell' is different from 'on a success the wall was entirely solid and you climb it, on a failure it is a crumbly mess and you fall' i guess if you care about nothing but...

no, you misunderstand, i said i would never change the state of the fiction in response to a check, if the wall is solid it's solid, if it's crumbling it's crumbling but i'd never alter or decide that as a result of the climb check, the player might fall on a failure from a crumbing handhold but...

untrue, a complication is still a complication even if you have people who are skilled enough that dealing with it isn't an issue.

i realize there can be other complications, i was just trying to illustrate how deciding if the cook is there independently beforehand is different to deciding if they're there based on the results of the player's check.

and you've been told just as many times that others feel very different, that the end results are not the same, and how people feel about the end results are not the same. edit: when the state of the fiction is decided before the results of the check are known the consequences will be...

i feel like you must've been told several times over by now, please stop claiming no-one's explained it to you: the difference is that in being decided beforehand the result and state of the world is independent and in no way influenced by the outcome of the skill check.

but when the failure option presented wasn't 'the cook heard you and woke up' but 'the cook just so happened to be in the kitchen at X-AM in the morning' that's a little harder for us to swallow as the consequences of the thief's actions.

i think this is part of the issue in the conversation, common-use word meanings are getting confused with the jargon-uses.

the point is competent people 'make their own luck' by making different choices and taking different actions which have better odds of succeeding or even no chance of failure, not simply by making it generically 'more likely' that the cook isn't going to be on the other side of the door. the...

competent people who 'make their own luck' still can't control the universe