Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 6549888" data-attributes="member: 40176">To me, it's the intent of the &quot;Success at a cost&quot; option, which is encapsulated in the very first line of its description. Success at a cost is intended as an olive branch, a means by which the DM can mitigate the agony of that one bad die roll at the most crucial of moments by allowing the player to pull some degree of success out of that failure.Your example contains none of these elements. It isn't a crucial encounter, there is nothing particularly agonising about failing to hit a random orc in the first round of combat, the DM is not 'allowing' anything but instead mandating it, and far from turning failure into success this ruling may in practice turn a minor setback into a disaster for the character in question.Thus, you have implemented some form of the mechanics of the rule, but you've gone almost diametrically against the spirit of that rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MarkB, post: 6549888, member: 40176"] To me, it's the intent of the "Success at a cost" option, which is encapsulated in the very first line of its description. Success at a cost is intended as an olive branch, a means by which the DM can mitigate the agony of that one bad die roll at the most crucial of moments by allowing the player to pull some degree of success out of that failure. Your example contains none of these elements. It isn't a crucial encounter, there is nothing particularly agonising about failing to hit a random orc in the first round of combat, the DM is not 'allowing' anything but instead mandating it, and far from turning failure into success this ruling may in practice turn a minor setback into a disaster for the character in question. Thus, you have implemented some form of the mechanics of the rule, but you've gone almost diametrically against the spirit of that rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification