Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8693416" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, six seconds of being frozen in terror, and you are no longer brave. Or maybe twelve seconds. I disagree, full throatedly and without reservation. You simply don't understand what bravery is, if you think a bare few seconds of terror can remove it from a person.So now my position that I've held this entire time and been trying to discuss this entire time is "inventing" things and "ignoring" the mechanics. The mechanics that I keep reminding people, are not what I'm trying to talk about. So, to reiterate my position again. If a halfling is supposed to be supernaturally lucky, to the point they are depicted in fiction, then they need to be lucky when not acting. Not every second of every day, but an example in the text of the dnd rulebooks is walking down a hill, tripping, and landing on a gold nugget. Now, I don't know about your games Max, but I don't have people roll to walk. I also follow the RAW rules and don't have them roll to climb a wall or a tree or a cliffside. Now, maybe for you the 3% of the time you re-roll into a success feels very impactful. But, as I stated, in my experience, the halfling doesn't feel lucky in play, not to the point where their defining trait is their luck. To fix this, and have them feel lucky to the player, every few sessions I would have to take narrative control and force the halfling's luck into the narrative, even when the halfling doesn't roll. Say, for example, there is an ambush and the enemies first arrow misses the halfling because they are in full plate with a shield. With any character I would describe the arrow shattering on their armor, but for the halfling, would I need to make it about the halfling's luck? Because, in traditional literature, not getting shot during an ambush is considered lucky. As is getting shot, and not actually getting hurt, like the bible or silver flask in the chest pocket. So, while a normal character might get downed and then roll a 20 and spring back to their feet in a show of grit and determination, if the halfling does it, was it halfling luck? This is what I am talking about. The narrative of "supernaturally lucky" insists on being forced into the world, and if the DM doesn't do that, then the halfling doesn't actually feel lucky. They feel like any other character in the game.So, you've come in to argue against my position, by first stating my position doesn't matter. I had an earlier post, I think with Faolyn, where I said something to the effect of, you are confusing a mechanic existing, to it being meaningful. Sure, the halfling is 3% more likely to succeed on something, assuming their die and rolling surface is perfectly balanced and aligned. Of course, if it isn't, then they aren't. That is a true, objective mechanic. It isn't meaningfully impactful. A 3% difference is a literal margin of error. And, actually, yes, if a player who doesn't roll a 1 plays a halfling... they are not lucky enough to have that halfling narrative of being supernaturally lucky. The player's luck overrides your objectively true mechanic, and buries it away where no one is going to notice it. Failing the frightend condition does not make you a coward. Succeeding on the frightened condition does not make you brave. The inability of people to understand this boggles me.</blockquote>

Verification