Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7796339" data-attributes="member: 22779">On a 100 foot fall?&nbsp; Yeah, it's probably going to be DC 25.&nbsp; However, the difference would be, you don't take any MORE damage from a failed check.&nbsp; An untrained character could never make the DC.&nbsp; A trained character who had spent a fair bit of character resources has a pretty slim chance of making the check.&nbsp; I just don't understand why I have to add in more damage to make it worth the check.&nbsp; Why am I punishing a player for making a check? If you are going to up the stakes, you HAVE to up the reward.&nbsp; I posted a few times that no one would ever take this bet as it stands.&nbsp; And, Ovinomancer admitted that the DC and the stakes have nothing to do with the check per se, but, rather an attempt to nudge players into conforming to a certain style of play.You've spent time, for one.&nbsp; But, other than that?&nbsp; Nothing.&nbsp; And, if you have unlimited time, I wouldn't even bother with the roll. One of the worst things they left behind in 3e was the &quot;Take 20&quot; rule.&nbsp; That was a great rule.&nbsp; And something I pretty much add back into the game.&nbsp; Yup, he did.&nbsp; I quoted the line.&nbsp; I'll quote it again.He flat out stated that this was a trap option because he doesn't want players overshadowing class abilities with skill checks.&nbsp; I don't know how that can be any more clear.&nbsp; He specifically stated that this was a trap option and that the DC 15 option for partial damage was the more reasonable option.&nbsp; Here is the pertinent quote:&nbsp;I'm sorry, but, how much clearer can we be here?&nbsp; This is SPECIFICALLY called out as a trap option BY the person doing it.&nbsp; I'm frankly at a loss as to why we're talking at cross purposes here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7796339, member: 22779"] On a 100 foot fall? Yeah, it's probably going to be DC 25. However, the difference would be, you don't take any MORE damage from a failed check. An untrained character could never make the DC. A trained character who had spent a fair bit of character resources has a pretty slim chance of making the check. I just don't understand why I have to add in more damage to make it worth the check. Why am I punishing a player for making a check? If you are going to up the stakes, you HAVE to up the reward. I posted a few times that no one would ever take this bet as it stands. And, Ovinomancer admitted that the DC and the stakes have nothing to do with the check per se, but, rather an attempt to nudge players into conforming to a certain style of play. You've spent time, for one. But, other than that? Nothing. And, if you have unlimited time, I wouldn't even bother with the roll. One of the worst things they left behind in 3e was the "Take 20" rule. That was a great rule. And something I pretty much add back into the game. Yup, he did. I quoted the line. I'll quote it again. He flat out stated that this was a trap option because he doesn't want players overshadowing class abilities with skill checks. I don't know how that can be any more clear. He specifically stated that this was a trap option and that the DC 15 option for partial damage was the more reasonable option. Here is the pertinent quote: I'm sorry, but, how much clearer can we be here? This is SPECIFICALLY called out as a trap option BY the person doing it. I'm frankly at a loss as to why we're talking at cross purposes here. [U][/U] [/QUOTE]

Verification