A Leap over Boiling Lava onto a Flying Wyvern

1. Roll for a DC of X to land solidly on the wyvern's back. If you fail, you can roll for a DC Y to grab onto something and just hang on. If you fail the second check, you fall into the lava and are gone.

2. Roll for a DC of X to land solidly on the wyvern's back. If you fail by no more than Y you grab onto something and just hang on. If you fail by more than Y, you fall into the lava and are gone.

If the first example is not acceptable, is the second option acceptable?
Either one is acceptable to me, as is one roll for all the marbles, provided that it's laid out for me as such when I make the attempt.

What I personally find unacceptable is making the attempt, failing, and then being told, "Well, go ahead one more time, and this one really counts!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The Shaman said:
What I personally find unacceptable is making the attempt, failing, and then being told, "Well, go ahead one more time, and this one really counts!"
See, I didn't get that. It didn't seem like a case of "try again." The first roll was to succeed at the heroic feat -- land on the wyvern. The second roll was to not die -- fall into the lava.

Now, had succeeding with the second roll given the PC the results of what the first was for, then I'd agree with you.

I'm the kind of Player who does not want a DM to keep my character alive when the rules/die results say he should die. But I see no problem in how this situation was handled.

Bullgrit
 

What I personally find unacceptable is making the attempt, failing, and then being told, "Well, go ahead one more time, and this one really counts!"
I'm with Bullgrit on this one - the second roll cannot create a success from failure - you're barely hanging on to the wyvern's back, rather than being able to attack it or whatever it was you were going to do anyway.

It's not a second try for the original goal, it's a first (and only) try to make your failure non-catastrophic.
 

See, I didn't get that. It didn't seem like a case of "try again." The first roll was to succeed at the heroic feat -- land on the wyvern. The second roll was to not die -- fall into the lava.
And I read this . . .
All eyes turned to the DM. He rubbed his chin, thoughtfully--cruelly? We wondered.

"It's 4E," the DM said. "Make a save to see if you grab hold of anything. Difficulty Check 15."
. . . as a referee trying to protect a player from his own choices.

Which leads me to wonder, what would the referee have ruled if the player rolled thirteen exactly?
DM: "Thirteen? Okay, you made it, but you're barely hanging on to the wyvern's scales by the tips of your fingers."
Player: "What? You said thirteen meant I succeeded!"
Would as many gamers in this thread argue in favor of "degrees of success" in this instance?
 




You can not like it without mischaracterizing it, TS.

If you want to be able to have more than a binary result (success or death) from such an attempted action, using two rolls is one way to do it.

In this case I don't believe it is the degrees of success or failure that is drawing fire. It's more a case of the degrees of failure only being brought up after the attempt failed.

If the DM had said "you will need a 13 to hit and if you fail, then you will have to check to see if you fall" then the in-game situation would be the same but the drama and tension surrounding that first roll would not be.

It sounded more like a " I like your spark" mulligan than a logical ruling in presentation.
 

In this case I don't believe it is the degrees of success or failure that is drawing fire. It's more a case of the degrees of failure only being brought up after the attempt failed.

I suspect it was thought of only after the attempt failed by 1. Whether or not the GM thought of the same rules I did (regarding near failures on some skills), only he could say. But it's what I would have thought of.
 

In this case I don't believe it is the degrees of success or failure that is drawing fire. It's more a case of the degrees of failure only being brought up after the attempt failed.

If the DM had said "you will need a 13 to hit and if you fail, then you will have to check to see if you fall" then the in-game situation would be the same but the drama and tension surrounding that first roll would not be.

It sounded more like a " I like your spark" mulligan than a logical ruling in presentation.
Would someone be so kind as to hit EW with some XP for me?
 

Remove ads

Top