Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7795138" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Well, you don’t need any risk, but if there isn’t any, there’s no point rolling. Just let the action succeed. In the falling example, if there’s no consequence for failure other than not mitigating as much damage as you would on a success, then it’s a non-choice. Everyone should take that “bet” because they only stand to gain from it.In combat, there is a cost. If you fail the attack roll, you used your one action for the turn and didn’t accomplish anything with it.Because they want to mitigate the fall damage, obviously.If I’m going to lose 100 gp anyway if I don’t roll, and if I have means of mitigating the risk, such as my ability and proficiency bonus, inspiration, maybe a bardic Inspiration die, maybe the effects of Guidance or Bless, maybe the Lucky Feat or the Halfling Lucky racial trait? Maybe. If I don’t have any such resources available to me, or if I don’t loose that 100 gp unless I agree to the “bet” then no.So your objection was to the DC in the specific example? Ok, I don’t disagree with that. I thought you were objecting to the general idea of consequences for failure beyond missing out on the benefits of success.Yeah, see in combat those turns spent floundering are a real consequence. Same thing if the ship is at sail. If the ship was anchored and no combat was happening, I’d have skipped the roll.Yeah, Immaculata runs some variant of 3e, and in that system, I don’t care for goal and approach. It’s not built to handle it well, and I agree with you that this ruling looks very player-unfriendly to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7795138, member: 6779196"] Well, you don’t [i]need[/i] any risk, but if there isn’t any, there’s no point rolling. Just let the action succeed. In the falling example, if there’s no consequence for failure other than not mitigating as much damage as you would on a success, then it’s a non-choice. Everyone should take that “bet” because they only stand to gain from it. In combat, there is a cost. If you fail the attack roll, you used your one action for the turn and didn’t accomplish anything with it. Because they want to mitigate the fall damage, obviously. If I’m going to lose 100 gp anyway if I don’t roll, and if I have means of mitigating the risk, such as my ability and proficiency bonus, inspiration, maybe a bardic Inspiration die, maybe the effects of Guidance or Bless, maybe the Lucky Feat or the Halfling Lucky racial trait? Maybe. If I don’t have any such resources available to me, or if I don’t loose that 100 gp unless I agree to the “bet” then no. So your objection was to the DC in the specific example? Ok, I don’t disagree with that. I thought you were objecting to the general idea of consequences for failure beyond missing out on the benefits of success. Yeah, see in combat those turns spent floundering are a real consequence. Same thing if the ship is at sail. If the ship was anchored and no combat was happening, I’d have skipped the roll. Yeah, Immaculata runs some variant of 3e, and in that system, I don’t care for goal and approach. It’s not built to handle it well, and I agree with you that this ruling looks very player-unfriendly to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification