Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6790154" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I'm not a fan of Fail Forward mechanics because I feel it's only necessary following poor design of the scenario.If there's something that must be done to continue, then it shouldn't hinge on a single die roll where a failed check means the adventure grinds to a halt. There are very few situations where I can think of no other alternatives.But part of why it's not an issue for me, is that I handle skill checks a little differently. First, my assumption is that if a character is capable of succeeding, then they eventually will given enough time and chances. So if you fail a skill check that is within your capabilities, it just takes you longer to succeed. If there are potential dangerous consequences (such as setting off a trap), then failure by more than 5 triggers the event.One important point is that if something is hard (DC20 or higher) you must have proficiency.Example:DC 17 lock and the PC has a +3. They'll need to roll a 14 or higher. They roll a modified 10. So the lock will take the 4 rounds to open. They don't know exactly how long, just that they didn't succeed immediately. This is much more effective if there is a time crunch.If they rolled a 9 or less, then something would happen, like they jammed the lock, broke their lock picks, etc. but as a result they can't pick the lock.When climbing, for example, they will slip, and it takes time to get back up to where they can continue.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification