Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7795454" data-attributes="member: 6779196">No, but if you fail to break open that door the first time, the monsters on the other side will know you’re coming. After that, you can break down the door without a second check, because the second time around there is no further cost or consequence for failure.No, the consequence of failing a stealth check is that your presence is detected by whatever you’re trying to stay hidden from.Yes, and jumping further than that would require an approach with a reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure, and consequence for failure (most likely falling down whatever you’re trying to jump across). I don’t especially want to get into jumping though, cause several people blocked me last time we talked about this.If there’s no cost to attempting to handle the animal or consequence for failing to, you should just succeed at doing so, in my opinion. So, most attempts to handle an animal are just going to be successful. A check would be called for if, say, the animal was on-edge, in which case it would make sense if the animal attacked on a failed roll.Interesting. That’s not how it works in my game. So if that’s the only time you see additional consequence for failure, I must not be running or exactly like those other DMs that you have seen. Fancy that.Yeah, folks are risky. You want to avoid them if possible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7795454, member: 6779196"] No, but if you fail to break open that door the first time, the monsters on the other side will know you’re coming. After that, you can break down the door without a second check, because the second time around there is no further cost or consequence for failure. No, the consequence of failing a stealth check is that your presence is detected by whatever you’re trying to stay hidden from. Yes, and jumping further than that would require an approach with a reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure, and consequence for failure (most likely falling down whatever you’re trying to jump across). I don’t especially want to get into jumping though, cause several people blocked me last time we talked about this. If there’s no cost to attempting to handle the animal or consequence for failing to, you should just succeed at doing so, in my opinion. So, most attempts to handle an animal are just going to be successful. A check would be called for if, say, the animal was on-edge, in which case it would make sense if the animal attacked on a failed roll. Interesting. That’s not how it works in my game. So if that’s the only time you see additional consequence for failure, I must not be running or exactly like those other DMs that you have seen. Fancy that. Yeah, folks are risky. You want to avoid them if possible. [/QUOTE]

Verification