Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7001655" data-attributes="member: 5890">How not? If I make a one-shot device, I don't know until I trigger it whether it will work. I think it will, but it's not a guarantee. It sounds like exactly the scenario you are putting forward.80% is the number because they pre-selected that as the threshold for truth-wizardry. Some of the candidates had higher scores.Incidentally, 80% would be equivalent to having a +7 insight check if we assume that the average modifier of the liars they were tested against is +0.Funnily enough, the general population had a success rate of 54% which pretty much mirrors a +0 bonus vs an average of a +0 bonus.None of them had a 100% success rate. All this tells us is that none of the truth wizards had a modifier that was (in the case of an opposed roll) 19 points higher than their opponents. Since I can't find the raw data of the study, I can't guess what the highest modifier actually was. I think it would be reasonable to assume that given the sampling the random spread of deception bonuses would match the random spread of insight bonuses, and therefore it would be impossible for anyone to score 100%.Then there's no skill check involved at all. I don't know why you're making up a system to handle this at all.If you're talking about some intermediate point where you don't have enough time to adequately analyse the circuit, then you're talking about disadvantage or worse DCs. The character's uncertainty comes because they don't know the DC.The simple way to do that is simply to not use fixed DCs. The character rolls, the device rolls and the player has to assess his success based only on one half of the situation and then presumably cut the wire or not depending on how he feels about that. Well, actually simply not announcing the DC works too.Also in this specific scenario, you could roll the check at the point of the wire cutting, so the PC is deciding solely on how good he is at the task in question. That does leave the PC without any interesting options to mitigate the effect of a poor roll though.The only way I see this scenario as being interesting is this:1. present it.2. player makes a roll to see if he knows which wire to cut. Whether his roll is good or bad, he isn't likely to be confident in the answer unless you've done something like told him the DC up front.3. optionally the DM rolls an opposed check to add some extra uncertainty, which could cause the bomb to fail despite the player botching his roll, or cause the bomb to explode despite him doing well at it.I'm not sure how your extra rule would help here. If the PC is only just beating the DC of the device, there's already uncertainty. Heck, if your narrative is strong, he's not going to be confident that he has the device beat because he doesn't know the DC.Well, as long as they understand and don't object to the whole "being good at something makes you also worse at it sometimes".So just roll opposed checks or don't reveal the DC. All you need is a source of uncertainty.It makes investing in skills that are likely to have this issue a poor deal, and attempting to use them even more fraught than they already are. I may as well just not use the skill and assume the worst. The fact that you seem to have tarred every insight roll with this brush seems ominous.No, I'm providing some information as to why the PC is concluding what he is concluding. If the answer is literally "it's just a hunch, you have no information to base your decision on" then why is it a skill check at all? Just randomly pick the answer and tell them it's a hunch.Again, if that's the case, why does the skill apply to it at all? And why do all insight checks fall into the "just a hunch" bucket?How is this a different scenario to using disable trap on the 3 wire bomb? Or using one's skills to determine if someone is lying? Why is it impossible to get the duke's nickname wrong?</blockquote>

Verification