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="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7595939">Yes, exactly.  If they stack up creates there is (or might be) no check at all.  I thought you were opposed to the player finding alternate solutions to obstacles?  This entire time we've been talking about doing things like stacking crates to solve problems.  That is, coming up with solutions that maybe the DM hadn't considered.  Not adding colorful adverbs to the act of climbing, which is how you keep describing it.First of all, don't extrapolate to combat too far.  Although there are some illustrative analogies, that pillar is sufficiently different that I think most of us run it differently.At the same time, there is still a useful analogy: when playing with beginners it can be exactly like you describe.  "I want to stab the orc with my dagger."  "Ok, roll the d20...no, the big one.  You'll need an 11 or better to hit."Now, I realize one of the things you value is system mastery, and players who understand the rules well enough that the DM doesn't have to do this. And, again, that's where the two camps differ. I like to emphasize how beginners play, because in some ways that's how I like to see experts play: describe what they want to do, not the rules they want to invoke.  YMMV.Yeah, I'll agree with this, sorta. Not "exact opposite" but "different".  As I said above in this post, and a previous post, the combat pillar is so much different/richer mechanically that it is run differently, even if the underlying philosophy applies.Also note that those rules passages that iserith keeps quoting...the ones you hate...refer specifically to ability checks, not all d20 rolls.  So, yes, attack rolls and saving throws work differently.Logically false, even ignoring the sweeping hyperbole.  I/we tried to use combat as an analogy to help you gain a better understanding of goal-and-approach, and you have taken the imperfection of the analogy as evidence that we are contradicting ourselves.Sometimes I think you are determined to not understand.Yup, we understand that.  You don't seem to understand what we're doing, though.  I suppose it doesn't really matter, because you don't seem interested in understanding, but having our approach mocked and ridiculed and mischaracterized leads us to want to make it understood.  I apologize if I have in turn mocked your approach, but sometimes it's hard to just take the punches without hitting back.</blockquote>

Verification