Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7591646" data-attributes="member: 6779196">DI don’t think “listen” is particularly precise. It’s about as vague as one can be while still technically stating at thing your character is doing.It’s not my primary concern either, it is one benefit among many of the technique. The main reason I do it that way is to keep the game focused on the narrative. Ok... I’ve lost the thread of this part of the conversation.No, all skill checks need to be rolled because rolling a d20 and adding an ability modifier (and potentially a proficiency bonus) and trying to beat a target number is the definition of a skill check. If you’re not rolling, then a skill check is not what you’re doing.If we want to get pedantic, a Rogue with Reliable Talent still rolls the die, they just change the result to (10 + Ability + Prof) If the die comes up less than 10.I have no idea what you’re talking about.No one got upset at the assumption that a skill check might be called for. A few of us answered the question, saying “I wouldn’t call for a check at all, so no DC,” and then a couple of people got <s>upset that we said that</s> had some honest questions about why we choose to run the game that way. In answer to which the rules were quoted, and... well, here we are.”Obviously I wouldn’t put mustard on my hot dog, but if for some buzzard reason we decided to put mustard on them anyway, I would put Dijon on mine.”Who cares what kind of mustard we would use “if” we put mustard on our fries, if we all agree we don’t want to do that?!You kinda did, though. Again, you claim you wouldn’t call for a roll in that situation, but you are advocating hard for the proper way to narrate the failure “if someone did, for some reason.” If a roll shouldn’t be called for, than all ways to narrate the failure are improper, because it is not proper for the action to fail in the first place.-.-Not exactly. My problem was with the way of narrating the failure you claimed was better. It wasn’t better, it was flawed for exactly the same reasons that the ruling in the example was flawed - namely, that arriving at it would still have required calling for a roll in a situation where the outcome was not uncertain. It was no better a call, it was just a more flowery way of making the same bad call.</blockquote>

Verification