Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7794793" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.&nbsp; And, no [USER=6801328]@Elfcrusher[/USER], this isn't a bad faith attempt to disprove the example.&nbsp; It's PRECISELY what I've always been talking about.&nbsp; A DC 25 check and if I fail, I take x2 damage.&nbsp; That's a total suckers bet.&nbsp; Why on earth would I even try it?&nbsp; At best, my character (outside of rogues) will have a +10 on the check, meaning that I'll fail 3 out of 4 tries.&nbsp; Netting me double damage three times as often.&nbsp; The DC 15 Damage Reduction one is better, although, again, assuming +10, I'm failing 1 in 3 and being incapacitated for a round is pretty punitive considering I'm still taking damage.&nbsp; And the DC 10 one, unless I'm auto successing it, is still not even close to worth the try.&nbsp; Like I've been saying all the way along, most DM's are incapable of creating skill rolls where the risk:reward is worth it.&nbsp; If you are giving me 1 in 4 odds of success, then whatever I'm doing should be at least three times better than what I can automatically do.&nbsp; If you're then tacking on a huge penalty for failure, then I need several times MORE benefit.&nbsp; When you gamble at a casino, you don't lose extra money when you lose,&nbsp; you only lose your bet.&nbsp; Why am I losing more HP or more actions for failing a check?&nbsp; So, yeah, if this is how people calculate odds on skill checks, I can totally see why you'd never want to roll.&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; It's almost never a good idea to roll if the DM is going to punish you for rolling.&nbsp; And, this is exactly what this is.&nbsp; Add to that more than a few posters here patting [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] on the back for his great DM call.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />&nbsp; This isn't a great DM call.&nbsp; This is a suckers bet all the way around.Compare to the 4e skill of acrobatics - roll your check, reduce your damage by that amount.&nbsp; Done.&nbsp; THAT'S how you calculate risk/reward.&nbsp; But for virtually the entire history of the game, DM's have interpreted &quot;risk of failure&quot; to mean &quot;punished for failure&quot;.&nbsp; Depends.&nbsp; I just had a session in the Ghosts of Saltmarsh game we're playing.&nbsp; A character got blown off the ship by a Gust of Wind spell and landed in the water.&nbsp; Pretty calm water, so, DC 5 swim check.&nbsp; Unfortunately, character dump statted Strength, had no skill in athletics and wound up spending a couple of rounds floundering until someone fished him out.&nbsp; For any character without proficiency, DC 5 is about a 15-20% fail chance (sometimes more).&nbsp; Blowing off these low level skill checks is a bad idea I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7794793, member: 22779"] See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. And, no [USER=6801328]@Elfcrusher[/USER], this isn't a bad faith attempt to disprove the example. It's PRECISELY what I've always been talking about. A DC 25 check and if I fail, I take x2 damage. That's a total suckers bet. Why on earth would I even try it? At best, my character (outside of rogues) will have a +10 on the check, meaning that I'll fail 3 out of 4 tries. Netting me double damage three times as often. The DC 15 Damage Reduction one is better, although, again, assuming +10, I'm failing 1 in 3 and being incapacitated for a round is pretty punitive considering I'm still taking damage. And the DC 10 one, unless I'm auto successing it, is still not even close to worth the try. Like I've been saying all the way along, most DM's are incapable of creating skill rolls where the risk:reward is worth it. If you are giving me 1 in 4 odds of success, then whatever I'm doing should be at least three times better than what I can automatically do. If you're then tacking on a huge penalty for failure, then I need several times MORE benefit. When you gamble at a casino, you don't lose extra money when you lose, you only lose your bet. Why am I losing more HP or more actions for failing a check? So, yeah, if this is how people calculate odds on skill checks, I can totally see why you'd never want to roll. Of course not. It's almost never a good idea to roll if the DM is going to punish you for rolling. And, this is exactly what this is. Add to that more than a few posters here patting [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] on the back for his great DM call. :erm: This isn't a great DM call. This is a suckers bet all the way around. Compare to the 4e skill of acrobatics - roll your check, reduce your damage by that amount. Done. THAT'S how you calculate risk/reward. But for virtually the entire history of the game, DM's have interpreted "risk of failure" to mean "punished for failure". Depends. I just had a session in the Ghosts of Saltmarsh game we're playing. A character got blown off the ship by a Gust of Wind spell and landed in the water. Pretty calm water, so, DC 5 swim check. Unfortunately, character dump statted Strength, had no skill in athletics and wound up spending a couple of rounds floundering until someone fished him out. For any character without proficiency, DC 5 is about a 15-20% fail chance (sometimes more). Blowing off these low level skill checks is a bad idea I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification