Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6727948" data-attributes="member: 1210">Yes, that is exactly right.Not at all. You don't know whether you have successfully used Stealth to hide until someone either reacts to you or doesn't- and even then, they might spot you and not reveal that they did so. Conversely, if you think someone's hidden, you might not know whether you failed to spot them using a Perception check or whether they really aren't there at all. There are countless examples; trying to research something using Arcana and it doesn't succeed? Maybe you failed, or maybe it's simply not possible to research.That's entirely different. The weaponsmith can be sure, because the weaponsmith can test his work. You can see the results. You're comparing that to something where there are no results to see if A. you fail, or B. there's nothing to see.That's correct. I find the concept that a rogue could be absolutely sure to be really weird, especially because, in the history of D&D, it has always been assumed that this kind of thing is kept from the pcs- at least, in my experience. And it was explicitly called out that way frequently throughout D&D's history. For example, from the closest older edition PH at hand:Emphasis mine. Since you don't play like this and I do, you'll have to take my word that you're totally wrong on this one.That's a rather silly assertion. Of course he knows that he's proficient. He just doesn't know whether he was successful.It depends on the circumstances. If they are in combat and a goblin ducks and uses the Hide action, the player gets to roll, because he knows there is something there. If he's searching for secret doors, I'll usually roll. No it doesn't. It just makes the rogue stay immersed in the game world, because- just like Indiana Jones didn't know if he missed a trap when he missed a trap- the rogue is never 100% sure. I assure you, since I have a great deal (decades) of experience doing this- it doesn't ruin the rogue, the game, traps, trapfinding or anything else. They really aren't. I'm one of those DMs who lets the BBEG die without acting to a single save-or-die effect if the BBEG fails that save. Now, I'll agree that the ability of the rogue to be certain about whether there is a trap is nerfed compared to the playstyle you are used to, but I would say rather that your approach is very soft and makes things too easy for the rogue. It's all a matter of perspective.Not at all. The comparison is between out-of-character knowledge ("I rolled a 3, that won't detect anything") and out-of-character knowledge ("I'm searching the table leg" *thinks: because I know there's a scroll tube inside it*). It is the same thing. Here we are in (almost) complete agreement- the only difference being that I would rephrase your second sentence to "But it is a tradition that causes all kind of problems for those of a certain playstyle."As I've said, I am not much of a fudger. I think the last thing I fudged- about last Christmas- was a wandering encounter check. It was late, we were winding down, the dice said "nasty encounter"- I said, nah, it's too late, we're too close to winding down and too many of us have work in the morning. I don't recall fudging an attack roll or save since.... hm... probably the middle of the 4e days. Though, obviouslyI have found that most fudge-heavy DMs are also much more story-focused than I am (I'm very much setting/sandbox focused). I think they have to work harder to earn that trust, but players who are story-focused players appreciate the fudging if it keeps the story on track. I think. I know that most players I have played with expect the DM to fudge from time to time and don't seem to mind, but I also know that once someone has played in my game for a while, they tend to really appreciate the fact that I (generally) don't. There are no free victories or gimmes, but they also don't get screwed because "it makes the game more fun" (which I agree is generally the motivation for a DM to fudge). I want the story of the game to emerge from the game, I don't want the game to emerge from the story.</blockquote>

Verification