Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="p_johnston" data-source="post: 8744246" data-attributes="member: 7016849">so first off really like this rule for saves. Sounds like a good change there.In regards to ability/skill checks I'm not a fan of this rule despite the fact that (near as I can remember) I pretty much already play this way. If someone roles a one they fail/something bad happens. If they role a 20 they succeed/something good happens. I think my main problem is that this feels kinda like it's taking away some of the DM ability to say what success is.Let me explain. Currently if a PC asks to do something that will be impossible for them, so long as it's not blatantly insane to try, I will let them roll. If they happen to get a 20 they won't succeed at what they stated they wanted but they will get something useful. Want to try know the secret true name of a demon lord with a +0 to religion? Sure roll. A 20 won't get you the name but it will get you a clue. Want to try and talk the king into naming you his heir with a -1 charisma? Sure roll. A 20 won't get you the crown but will make the king like you. Etc.I let my players roll when they ask because they like rolling dice. I give them something cool on a 20 even if they fail because 20's feel like they should be rewarded. but with this rule It feels like I'm obligated to say NO to a lot more rolls then I otherwise would because if I let them roll on the impossible thing then the expectation on a 20 is that they get what they asked for.P.S. Also I will say that if your only ever letting players roll if they have at least modifiers to make the DC on a 20 then it just seems to me that your changing the point at which you say no instead of actually have a different style of play. In fact if that's the expected style of DMing then this rule is... frankly pointless.</blockquote>

Verification