NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7591998" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Yeah, I considered the multiple paths thing. Just, most of the "foreshadowing" people talk about is done by showing signs of the trap being triggered before. Always makes me wonder how they square that with places where the trap wouldn't have been triggered yet. Also, because I enjoy puzzle solving, I'm curious how that trap with the portcullis and the barrels works. I'm assuming that the portcullis being triggered breaks the barrels and unleashes the poison (though how they can tell poison gas from a distance...) but isn't that a really easy trap to get past? Hit the barrels from a distance and wait for the poison to dissipate or settle. Heck, might even be able to use it against the trap designer by pushing the poison further past the portcullis. It seems too simple, so am I missing something or is that one supposed to be an easy one? Like I said, no problem. I was just wondering if it was some kind of ENworld system glitch.Or if I was secretly Oofta and didn't know it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I'm not seeing how this is all consistent. In both cases there was no reasonable chance of failure but one is an ability check, because being an ability check is how there is no reasonable chance at failure. You cannot fail if your lowest possible roll beats the DC, therefore there is no reasonable chance of failure, therefore you do not roll. But it is an ability check. It has to be, otherwise there is a reasonable chance of failure and a roll must be made. And why does it matter if I make up phantom DCs? If I know the bard has been eager to use their disguise kit, so I figure disguising themselves to get into the castle is a reasonable course of action they may choose to take in next weeks game, why can I not decide what the DC is likely to be ahead of time? I have created an obstacle, assigned a DC to a possible action the player's might take, but that doesn't mean anything about how the actual event will unfold. Maybe they will act like I suspect and I'll be prepared, maybe they'll pull out the Award for Valor they got from a prominent Knight I totally forgot they had in their inventory and be allowed to walk right in. DCs can exist seperate from the actions of the players, in a space of potential plans and actions. Heck, we already have a second example from the book. It is a DC 20 strength check, a barbarian has an ability that says their lowest result for a strength check is their strength score. With a 20 strength, they cannot fail, and even if they did fail the consequences of failing to break manacles are generally status quo, but the ability only works if they make a strength check. Not every check corresponds to a d20 roll. I don't want to comment on your experience, but at that sort of table I would be terrified to try something my character is bad at. If my warlock got tossed in a cell, with his +0 strength and no proficiency in athletics, I'd never try and break the door to get out. Maybe by magical means, but I'd want to know what bonus I got before trying to roll. Because, if I fail to break down the door, my situation gets worse. Even if I try and break off a bed leg to get a bar to leverage advantage, the DC is likely at least a 15 and with a +0 I need to roll 15 or better. The odds are really bad. And failure hurts my chances of getting out even more. I'd be much better served pretending to be sick and angling for a performance or deception check, which gets me a +4 or +7 to the roll.However, at a game where failure does not automatically mean things get worse, I might try athletics. It is certainly a faster solution, and maybe I see speed as of the essence. IF I fail, well they'll know I tried to escape but it doesn't necessarily mean things get worse. All I see from a style of play where failure is punished more harshly every time, is a style of play that disincentives risk. The low charisma characters won't try to talk their way out, because they have a bad chance at that if it comes to a roll. And if you say "I hear you want to persuade the guard to let you go by talking about your achievements for the city, but he's not convinced your deeds outweigh the damages you've done. It'll be a DC 15 charisma persuasion check, and if you fail you might get slapped with a huge fine instead of simply tossed in jail" Then as a player who sees -1 charisma on his sheet, I'm going to try and backpedal. I've got only a 25% chance of making that roll. 75% chance of making things worse, no way, I'll let the bard take over. No reason for me to risk making that roll. Alternatively, I've had quite a few times in my games where a player will pipe up trying to convince an NPC of something, or trying to look for a clue, despite having no mechanical skill. Because they don't fear failure. That doesn't mean there are no consequences ever, sometimes failure hurts, but the consequences are in line with what they attempted, and they are not guaranteed to make things worse by trying. But, this creates a problem from my perspective as I discussed above. If ability checks only exist when a roll happens, and rolls only happen when their is a reasonable chance of failure, then what do abilities that change the result of a roll to eliminate that reasonable chance of failure do? A high level barbarian does not have a reasonable chance of failure to break standard manacles, but that is only because they have an ability which dictates the result of that ability check. No chance of failure, no roll, no ability check, then the ability which removed the chance of failure does not activate. If the game definitions of "Ability check" are stringent enough that they are only this one thing which involves a D20 roll.... then how is this consistent? And if their are ability checks which do not require a roll... then the statement I said a few hundred posts ago was correct, despite people telling me it was not. As I understand the positions of those I'm discussing with, a check needs to have direct consequences on the narrative. Finding out the shopkeeper is lying was not interesting, supposedly because the adventure was not about whether or not they were lying but what they were lying about. By that same logic, being spotted by the scout is not interesting. Being spotted does not have a direct consequence, and some of the consequences that could arise are easily canceled out by players. At, while the stakes for being spotted by an enemy scout are immediately obvious, the stakes for this merchant break-in are not. It could be high stakes involved (and likely is since we are investigating it as part of the adventure) so failing to know that could have just as dire consequences going forward. That's why I'm confused, a single obstacle is rarely interesting. Whether the goblin scout sees you or not is not interesting, how the players react to the goblin scout darting out of hiding to warn the cave of your approach is interesting. Whether of not the merchant is lying isn't interesting, but the consequences of not realizing he's working with the bad guys can be interesting. A fair point. Some people would argue that using 4e logic is wrong since 5e's rules are not 4e's rules (for example, they could say 5e never requires an ability check to be called), but I can see that being a fine resolution to the dissonance being created by the people I'm discussing this with. Okay, this makes some sense. I think this is a confusion of speakers thing. Some people have been claiming they would not give definitive answers to an insight check because IRL you can't tell if someone is lying. I think that is only a portion of the people discussing the shopkeeper though, which is what is causing the confusion here.</blockquote>

Verification