Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9745807" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Well, I did note that those rules come into play assuming success and failure are both reasonable possibilities (I’d also add that there should be meaningful stakes for success vs failure but opinions on that matter are more varied). If either success or failure is not possible, or even just not reasonably likely, then there should be no need to rely on the rules to determine the outcome, because there is only one reasonably plausible outcome.I think this is at least theoretically true of both “skilled play” and of play where the intent is primarily to challenge the character. A DM who is trying to encourage the “skilled play” style may have a higher threshold for what constitutes a reasonable chance of success and failure, leading to success or failure without need for a roll to happen more often. But both playstyles do at least theoretically allow for success and failure without a roll.That’s certainly accurate of some “skilled play” proponents. Though I consider myself a “skilled play” proponent, and I don’t share this view of skills or feats. That’s because in my view, skills and feats only come into play when and if the DM determines that the character’s statistics are needed to resolve the action. They are, in effect, insurance against failure in cases where failure is possible but not guaranteed.</blockquote>