Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8796485" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No problem. I have gotten that point from you, but it seems to be a very inconsistent position. For example, let us take the Medicine Action I was just talking about it. It is a DC 10 medicine check. Now, I'm going to take this out of combat for a moment, because we are talking about out of combat skills. Why isn't this a problem too? This is a no-brainer. If you have an ally who is bleeding out, you go over and make the check. There is no reason not to, no penalty for doing so.Why is this not a bad game design? It is a no-brainer decision, therefore according to you it is uninteresting, but I've seen those checks as being very dramatic in multiple games. One could further make the argument that the Healer's Kit would be worse, because it is so cheap that it is basically no cost to get, and even takes the risk of a failed roll away. However, I see the Healer's Kit as a signal that the party is planning ahead. They are considering what might happen and taking steps to prepare themselves for that problem in the future. And this might be the biggest disconnect between us. You seem to see the action itself having no consequences as it being a "brain-off" moment, but the times I have most seen the Help Action taken are the times when the players are invested in the moment. They want to succeed, so they are jumping in to help the person making the check succeed. Often times when no one is interested, instead of "I help" I hear "I go do X" or "I'll check out Y instead" and the party scatters looking for something interesting. The Help action is almost a flag that tells me "We as a Party are invested", so I cannot see the "brain-off" moment that you seem to dread so much.</blockquote>

Verification