Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7799246" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I'm sure there's more than 2 separate things going on here.  But I'll settle for two as it sounds much better <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=";)" />Maybe not as much when you understand the context that in previous discussions I've suggested approaches before that were shot down due to not being specific enough.I think the following are the basic game states to do with actions and goals:You succeed at your goal and face no setbackYou succeed at your goal and face a setbackYou fail at your goal and face no additional setbackYou fail at your goal and face an additional setbackIf checks can only determine whether you succeed or fail at your goal then there is no success with a setback . It can't exist.  I firmly believe success with a setback is a great tool.  I bring this up because it seems to me that your criticism also applies the same to it.That said, I don't believe it's a valid criticism for what I'm describing.  Why?  Because while the check is there to resolve uncertainty, we only need to resolve "meaningful uncertainty".  I think there's 2 tests that must be met before something is considered to be "meaningful uncertainty".  The uncertainity must rise to a sufficient level - so something like a 1/1,000,000 chance of something happening isn't meaningful.  The uncertainty must also be of that nature that it's fun to resolve or important or interesting to the scene or story.  This will always be a subjective call based on what you are looking to provide in the play experience and what your players expect to gain from it.  For example, some tables may find it totally uninteresting and unimportant to roll to see if you can help your ally up the stairs after being drunk.  Others may have a great deal off fun in that scenario.  If they do then it's meaningful uncertainity.  If they don't then it is not.I think that's the way around your criticism, but if for some reason you think it isn't, can you explain how that same criticism doesn't apply to success with a setback and if it doesn't how it gets around it?As used on this forum by many posters it's much more than a description style for players to communicate with the DM.  It encompasses that as well as an adjudication approach.Thank you.Sure, it may not be stated that it's the only way to do it, so I can't really argue that RAW forbids this thing.  What I can say is that it doesn't actively encourage it and a cursory read through of the PHB can easily lead to the belief that stealth is handled by comparing to passive perception in most every situation.So if it leaves open the possibility for more then that's great!  It should have actively encouraged handling stealth that way except in a 1v1 pc vs npc situation because as we have seen in this thread, there's still many handling stealth without the understanding of how to set DC's for it - and so they base it almost entirely off the passive perception value.  (and some even use multiple rolls to resolve the situation... ick!)</blockquote>

Verification