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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7248349" data-attributes="member: 996">Maybe it's just the 'easy' that's misleading you?  Setting the DC comes after you determine whether the outcome is in doubt, otherwise you just narrate what happens.  If a task is something that a trained, modestly talented individual shouldn't fail anywhere near 20% of the time, if it's closer to 5% or less, then don't call for the check. Nod.  That's BA.  That peasant's arrow can hit a dragon now and then, too.  Things are just compressed a bit.  That's one good reason to simply not call for a check, much of the time. That's still after an ability check has been called for, and it's not a player declaring a skill use, it's a player declaring an action, then asking if a proficiency can be applied.And, it /is/ in the DMG, the DM can follow that advice, or not.   YES!  Exactly that.  The numbers do not dictate to the DM.  The DM chooses to use the numbers as he sees fit. In 3.5, you could know for a fact that your diplomancer's check was high enough to make anyone his friend, every time.  In 5e, you cannot. Of course, no one's infallible, but DMs have a veneer of infallibility because their rulings are it.  If you narrate success, the player succeeded, you might be 'wrong' but it's what happened.  The world treats your fallibility as if you were infallible......or something like that...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification