Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9239992" data-attributes="member: 2525">You're only supposed to roll if there is a meaningful chance of failure. If you're guaranteed to succeed provided you spend a minute doing it out of combat, then you don't roll and can just do it. But your system of rolling until you get a 20 means there is no chance to fail. You're reinstated the prior rules systems Take-20 rule. Which I don't think is unreasonable, but it's not a 5e rule in the books.When does one lock pick attempt end and another begin, given the nature of picking a lock? For me, the player doesn't know the DC. They just know if they succeed or fail. And if they fail, that's the point where the PC is thinking that lock is beyond their skills at the moment, unless they get some other kind of boost. It's why they stop, and defines the attempt ending.Now if you have a +17, I'd be fine giving you a passive skill check to succeed on a DC 20 without even a roll. I don't think DMs use passive skills for skills outside perception, insight and investigation enough. If a player has a bonus to a skill check so high that a roll of a 10 would be such that they'd easily pass the challenge, it's not a challenge and just let them succeed.But we're talking about locks which are at the very edge of your luck. Where you need to roll higher than a 10 to succeed, maybe even a 20. If you need to roll a 20 to succeed and you don't, it's both incredibly boring to let one player just keep rolling until they get a 20, and doesn't fit the system which only calls for a roll to begin with because you had a meaningful chance of failure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 9239992, member: 2525"] You're only supposed to roll if there is a meaningful chance of failure. If you're guaranteed to succeed provided you spend a minute doing it out of combat, then you don't roll and can just do it. But your system of rolling until you get a 20 means there is no chance to fail. You're reinstated the prior rules systems Take-20 rule. Which I don't think is unreasonable, but it's not a 5e rule in the books. When does one lock pick attempt end and another begin, given the nature of picking a lock? For me, the player doesn't know the DC. They just know if they succeed or fail. And if they fail, that's the point where the PC is thinking that lock is beyond their skills at the moment, unless they get some other kind of boost. It's why they stop, and defines the attempt ending. Now if you have a +17, I'd be fine giving you a passive skill check to succeed on a DC 20 without even a roll. I don't think DMs use passive skills for skills outside perception, insight and investigation enough. If a player has a bonus to a skill check so high that a roll of a 10 would be such that they'd easily pass the challenge, it's not a challenge and just let them succeed. But we're talking about locks which are at the very edge of your luck. Where you need to roll higher than a 10 to succeed, maybe even a 20. If you need to roll a 20 to succeed and you don't, it's both incredibly boring to let one player just keep rolling until they get a 20, and doesn't fit the system which only calls for a roll to begin with because you had a meaningful chance of failure. [/QUOTE]

Verification