Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7297439" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Yeah, I read as much as I could of this behemoth of a thread, and then gave up. What I don’t understand is, what is gained by the consistency you describe? Different situations call for different things, surely? Why ignore it when it is obvious to all what skill is involved? “I’m going to examine the device”, in a game where that type of examination is always Investigation, doesn’t need to go through the whole formal process. If the DM tends to use different skills depending on what is being examined, then the process is more understandable. Those are different circumstances that call for different approaches. All too often, the insistence on the process, as the OP described, comes across very much as a DM attitude of needing to remind the players “who’s boss” at the table, rather than having any actual benefit to the game. As for 2, seems like you could just then adjudicate using their roll, or tell them, “no roll needed using that method”, or “actually that will be a thrown weapon attack to secure the hook, so add your attack mod instead of athletics, and then roll athletics to use the rope to get across. Advantage if you have proficiency with climber’s kit and use it to secure yourself to the rope.” Or whatever. I just don’t see how here is any benefit to ignoring the check, in that regard, rather than asking what exactly they’re doing, and going from there. I get 1, though, I suppose. I haven’t been derailed by it, but I know that different people who are prone to distraction have wildly different things that easily distract us.</blockquote>

Verification