Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9540450" data-attributes="member: 71699">I like that example. An implication I'm proposing be considered of the RAW thatThe DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure.
Is that success, being not &quot;meaningful failure&quot;, ought not to result in meaningful failure. I think your example is more about scope of effect. While that appears clear for entering a new location, it's less clear when it's about the behaviour that is itself what the player is targeting with the skill. A nearer analogue would need to focus on the climb itself.Say a GM described a wall festooned with shards of glass to deter climbers: can players declare an action to climb avoiding the glass? Similarly then, can players declare an action to cow the demon sufficiently well that resentful or not it won't undermine them?To my reading the RAW puts it explicitly on the table for GM to say -- the damage can't be avoided / the demon can't be cowed.... but more empowering play could be to apply an appropriate DC and put damage / mutiny on the side of consequences. (Perhaps also making use of the fail by 1 or 2 / fail by 5+ rules )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9540450, member: 71699"] I like that example. An implication I'm proposing be considered of the RAW that [INDENT]The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure.[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] Is that success, being not "meaningful failure", ought not to result in meaningful failure. I think your example is more about scope of effect. While that appears clear for entering a new location, it's less clear when it's about the behaviour that is itself what the player is targeting with the skill. A nearer analogue would need to focus on the climb itself. Say a GM described a wall festooned with shards of glass to deter climbers: can players declare an action to climb [I]avoiding [/I]the glass? Similarly then, can players declare an action to cow the demon sufficiently well that resentful or not it won't undermine them? To my reading the RAW puts it explicitly on the table for GM to say -- the damage can't be avoided / the demon can't be cowed.... but more empowering play could be to apply an appropriate DC and put damage / mutiny on the side of [I]consequences[/I]. (Perhaps also making use of the fail by 1 or 2 / fail by 5+ rules ) [/QUOTE]

Verification