Search results

Then what would it look like? A concrete actual example?

The snippet you game me on fail forward did not contradict the web site I quoted. As I said, barring actual examples of what you mean my only option is to look up examples. That, and you are not the only one who uses the terminology and I don't care how someone defined it 20 years ago.

What have I misrepresented? You keep making accusations, you don't clarify and you don't provide any examples that better represent what you feel is correct. I do not care what you do in your game and I have no way of knowing what it is you do because you won't say. Instead my only options...

If I have a situation where a single roll (or even a handful) would guarantee the character's death I'll let the player know ahead of time*. After that it's up to them what they do. *There are exceptions to every rule, including this one of course.

I've attempted to do these calculations before - except in my case it was a portable hole. I house ruled that the people survived for far longer than the spell says because it's just dumb. Of course, not the only dumb things they say, I just wish they had done a quick search and found...

You skipped the scene where the DM described the difficult climb up thousand foot cliff and clarified that they don't limit falling damage. The paladin's player then decided they would climb the cliff instead of summoning a flying mount because they didn't want to "waste" their 4th level spell...

Other games of course have different goals of play but I don't want to play those games and I'm just talking about my personal preference. For the games I play the only "stake" at play when trying to open a lock is whether you can open the lock. If you can't you'll have to give up on achieving...

Who said the house is likely to have a cook? Is the cook in kitchen 24 hours a day? Who needs a chef at 2 AM? The point is that if the character had succeeded on their check the cook would not have been there they were invented after the fact because of a failure. How does what work? If...

If the character hadn't failed to pick a lock there would have been no screaming chef. The only reason the chef exists in the fiction is because of a failed check. If that's not clear enough there's nothing else I can say.

I understand that it's still not as powerful as the 2014 rule. I just think it would be silly to back up 5 feet but still not provoke so they could then disengage without being attacked.

I'd consider a house rule for sentinel and change the "within 5 feet" to "within reach of a melee weapon or unarmed attack" but I'd do that in session 0. Seems more RAI to me.

They've been quite clear on what they meant. The only way to not have any difference would have been to not make any change.

Multiple people have stated that if the players do not have full knowledge of the situation they can't possibly make an informed decision and it's bad GMing. I disagree, I want mystery and discovery when I play. Even when it comes back to bite me on the posterior.

One more note on fail forward - some people do define or use it differently than an immediate cost because we can't have common definitions. That would be just too easy! An example I found from https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/408-failing-forward-losing-without-ending-the-campaign would be okay...

The examples here an in the blog post I quoted made it clear that the dead friend and the screaming cook did not exist before the roll failed. It was not presented as a ticking clock scenario, because of a failure something "interesting" is created on the fly by the DM. In my games the house...

The recommendation is to use the new version of a rule if it's been overridden so I don't see what the issue is (other than just trashing the authors). On the other hand I don't see an issue with it either - if you and your players prefer the old rule, use it. I'm okay with the new rule...

Another note - if you're referring to the rules from BW you should say so, many games take ideas from The Forge but put different spins on them. Also ... there are more than 10,000 posts on this silly thread. I don't remember every single one.

My ruling would be that it's very likely to spill and make a mess in a bag of holding, because it's just a big container full of junk. A handy haversack is more organized and each item is treated as a unique object so it probably wouldn't spill, although I've never had to make a ruling on it...

So they're actually bigger? :eek: P.S. yes, I know the size is just a tad exaggerated but if we're talking about consequences in an RPG things are always larger than life aren't they?

I appreciate the Gary helped commercialize a game I've enjoyed but the guy said a whole lot of things I disagree with.