Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7799625" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Ok, I was just trying to understand why you would rule that the PC can only try one method.  I was hoping you would comment on what, for you, were the relevant differences between the locked door and the possibly poisoned tea.Perhaps the devil is in the details of the situation or, maybe, process of play.  In your earlier post you alluded to a player "making checks of some kind until they succeed" as the problematic situation you were trying to avoid.  As long as the player is just describing what their PC is doing, and those actions are plausible in the fiction, then it doesn't seem like the DM should rule auto-failure solely because the PC's goal is the same for subsequent actions as for the first.  So what is it that would cause you to rule that the PC only gets one attempt?  I can think of a couple things, but I don't know which, if any, correspond to the problematic situation you are envisioning.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If players are calling for checks instead of declaring actions, then, yes, I can see there might be a problem because you may not be able to tell whether they are in fact thinking of their PC doing different things or if they are just spamming mechanics.  That problem does not arise if players do not call/ask for checks.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the player's declared action is indistinguishable from the goal, as in, "I attempt to detect whether the tea is poisoned" and more specificity is not required, then, yeah, I'd agree that DM and player will have to settle on one check.   Unfortunately, the matter of specificity is likely to open the player skill vs. character skill can of worms, so, as I see it, there's no right answer to whether "I attempt to detect whether the tea is poisoned" is specific enough as a general matter.  Personally, at my table, I'd probably push gently for a bit more specificity since there are at least tropes to play to, even if a toxicologist would tell you you are doing it wrong.</li> </ul>In retrospect, I guess the situation as described in the OP is a bit of a mix: the player declares an action in one case, and then asks for a check, and the DM responds by supplying the action.  I guess if you interpret the request for a Medicine check as asking for a second check on the smell action, then it would be redundant.  Apparently, there is an understanding at the OP's table that that is not what is meant.  (Personally, I'd have asked for clarification from the player about what the PC was doing rather than assuming it was a second check on the smell action or supplying an action myself.)Anyway, does any of this clarify the thrust of my question?</blockquote>

Verification