Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7799224" data-attributes="member: 6857506">I may be misinterpreting, but it seems to me there are two separate (?) things going on here.I generally interpret the term &quot;action&quot; as connoting something more specific than &quot;approach&quot;.&nbsp; You seem to have the opposite take (&quot;action&quot; being more general than &quot;approach&quot;).&nbsp; So that's a little confusing.&nbsp; But aside from that, you seem to be saying that there should be a roll anytime there is uncertainty about the outcome of whatever the PC does as opposed to uncertainty about whether it achieves the stated goal.&nbsp; The problem that I see with that is that I am pretty sure one can always come up with something that is uncertain about the results produced by an action.&nbsp; So that doesn't seem helpful.A secondary comment is that you have positioned this as &quot;alternative&quot; to goal-and-approach.&nbsp; As has been noted several times goal-and-approach is a description of a style for players to communicate to the DM.&nbsp; You seem to be explaining an adjudication approach.&nbsp; Not the same thing.In this second part you've described in particular an approach to setting DCs.&nbsp; I think you have a really good point.&nbsp; It's something that I think I've done on an irregular basis without realizing that I was doing something different, so it's good to have it explicated.However, I don't agree that this really contradicts what the PH says about stealth because I don't think the description in the PH is intended to be limiting or comprehensive.&nbsp; The PH describes a simple procedure for simple situations; it doesn't say that procedure covers all situations.&nbsp; I understand that in other editions (and some other games) rules are assumed to be comprehensive unless otherwise stated.&nbsp; In 5e, it seems to me it is the other way around.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7799224, member: 6857506"] I may be misinterpreting, but it seems to me there are two separate (?) things going on here. I generally interpret the term "action" as connoting something more specific than "approach". You seem to have the opposite take ("action" being more general than "approach"). So that's a little confusing. But aside from that, you seem to be saying that there should be a roll anytime there is uncertainty about the outcome of whatever the PC does as opposed to uncertainty about whether it achieves the stated goal. The problem that I see with that is that I am pretty sure one can [I]always[/I] come up with [I]something [/I]that is uncertain about the results produced by an action. So that doesn't seem helpful. A secondary comment is that you have positioned this as "alternative" to goal-and-approach. As has been noted several times goal-and-approach is a description of a style for players to communicate to the DM. You seem to be explaining an adjudication approach. Not the same thing. [I][/I] In this second part you've described in particular an approach to setting DCs. I think you have a really good point. It's something that I think I've done on an irregular basis without realizing that I was doing something different, so it's good to have it explicated. However, I don't agree that this really contradicts what the PH says about stealth because I don't think the description in the PH is intended to be limiting or comprehensive. The PH describes a simple procedure for simple situations; it doesn't say that procedure covers all situations. I understand that in other editions (and some other games) rules are assumed to be comprehensive unless otherwise stated. In 5e, it seems to me it is the other way around. [/QUOTE]

Verification