Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deleteaccount" data-source="post: 5803311" data-attributes="member: 20296">_Why_ is it unappealing? It's not sweeping the problem under the table but adopting the GM advice many games offer these days. It's basically 'either set the stakes or say yes'. You shouldn't even have to roll if there's nothing at stake; they're offering that advice as standard M.O. If there's something at stake, you may not necessarily roll to see if you break the door (task resolution) but to see if you break the door in time before the guards arrive (conflict/scene resolution). It's within both of their ability to break the wooden door but the fighter has an advantage from his high strength.No. You roll against the enemies' passive Notice, you don't roll both. I think 4E explicitly gave this advice.I also heavily disagree with the part saying wizards and fighters would be close in martial skill (or whatever). My house rules are very similar to what 5e is supposed to become and, after several years of play, fighters still dominate melee and physical activity despite a very low power curve and seemingly small differences in modifiers.You and your DM tell what happens and can reflect the heroic nature of the characters in your fiction. Instead of failing in a task/intent (opening a door, hiding from guards), you can describe complications in your fiction. You can be badass and fail.</blockquote>