Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7794871" data-attributes="member: 22779">What is being risked?&nbsp; Well, if you don't roll well enough, you're going to take damage.&nbsp; Granted, you are always going to mitigate some damage, but, how much depends on the roll and your character's skill.&nbsp; How much more risk do we need?&nbsp; &nbsp; Again, pointing at combat, we don't penalize characters for missing an attack - they just miss.&nbsp; We don't have them miss, slip and fall flat on their face.&nbsp; Why not?&nbsp; What's the difference?&nbsp; &quot;If you don't like the risk/reward proposition&quot; isn't really the issue.&nbsp; It's that the risk/reward proposition is so bad that no one in their right mind would take it.&nbsp; All of those options are terrible.&nbsp; Why would anyone take that option? Let's make a wager shall we?&nbsp; Ante up 100 gp.&nbsp; If you roll a 4 on a d4, you get your 100 gp back.&nbsp; If you roll 1-3, you lose your 100gp plus you lose another 100 gp.&nbsp; Would you take that bet?&nbsp; The only time you might take the odds given is if the fall damage would outright kill you.&nbsp; Otherwise, it's pointless.&nbsp; And, any player with a basic understanding of math will very quickly realize it.&nbsp; The consequences of failure are so great that it makes the roll superfluous.So, yeah, I totally get why people feel like rolling is bad.&nbsp; Drop the DC for falling without damage to about 15 and we'll talk.&nbsp; DC 25 to avoid damage when I'm capped at a +10 check?&nbsp; I'd have to be stupid to take those odds.And, yes, falling in the water was in the middle of combat.&nbsp; Out of combat, it likely would have been less of an issue, although, if they were at sail, then it might have been worse since they would very quickly leave the PC behind with the real risk of drowning.&nbsp; So, to put it another way, you lied to the players about the consequences of their checks.&nbsp; They didn't know that they couldn't send two down at the same time because you didn't tell them what a failed check meant.&nbsp; You were in no way up front about this.&nbsp; You hid the consequences and then aha gotcha!'d them when they tried something that they would have no way of knowing.&nbsp; Since they don't know what failure means, they cannot possibly declare a different action because they don't have the information needed to do so.How does this fit into the mold of always knowing the consequences of a failure?&nbsp; How is this not an aha gotcha?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7794871, member: 22779"] What is being risked? Well, if you don't roll well enough, you're going to take damage. Granted, you are always going to mitigate some damage, but, how much depends on the roll and your character's skill. How much more risk do we need? Again, pointing at combat, we don't penalize characters for missing an attack - they just miss. We don't have them miss, slip and fall flat on their face. Why not? What's the difference? "If you don't like the risk/reward proposition" isn't really the issue. It's that the risk/reward proposition is so bad that no one in their right mind would take it. All of those options are terrible. Why would anyone take that option? Let's make a wager shall we? Ante up 100 gp. If you roll a 4 on a d4, you get your 100 gp back. If you roll 1-3, you lose your 100gp plus you lose another 100 gp. Would you take that bet? The only time you might take the odds given is if the fall damage would outright kill you. Otherwise, it's pointless. And, any player with a basic understanding of math will very quickly realize it. The consequences of failure are so great that it makes the roll superfluous. So, yeah, I totally get why people feel like rolling is bad. Drop the DC for falling without damage to about 15 and we'll talk. DC 25 to avoid damage when I'm capped at a +10 check? I'd have to be stupid to take those odds. And, yes, falling in the water was in the middle of combat. Out of combat, it likely would have been less of an issue, although, if they were at sail, then it might have been worse since they would very quickly leave the PC behind with the real risk of drowning. So, to put it another way, you lied to the players about the consequences of their checks. They didn't know that they couldn't send two down at the same time because you didn't tell them what a failed check meant. You were in no way up front about this. You hid the consequences and then aha gotcha!'d them when they tried something that they would have no way of knowing. Since they don't know what failure means, they cannot possibly declare a different action because they don't have the information needed to do so. How does this fit into the mold of always knowing the consequences of a failure? How is this not an aha gotcha? [/QUOTE]

Verification