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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7040073" data-attributes="member: 5890">In which case you're doing a lot of pointless rolling. If there's one thing to spot, you can make one roll to spot it, no matter how many turns there are. If you're really heavy into obfuscating things, then make one roll each time the players go anywhere.The only scenario you have to avoid is splitting things up into small chunks and then only rolling for a chunk when there is something to find.Right, this is a different scenario to what I thought you meant: you aren't modelling a single encounter here, you've got lots of disjointed encounters with nothingness in between. There is no single roll failure, so feel free to do it this way. It just seems like there's going to be a lot of pointless rolling going on.Which is irrelevant in the situations you're talking about for the reasons I expressed above. You're describing independent events here.No. People who don't train skills believe that they are good at things. People who actually receive training have a much more accurate picture of their own ability. That's the entire point. It's not confidence, it's competence.As for how much training is enough? Based off the rules for training tool proficiencies, someone who is proficient has 250 days of exclusive 8-hour a day training with a competent teacher and a small class size (unless teachers are freaking rich). It's apparently enough training to learn a whole language and not need to roll to understand things or express yourself.There's no roll without the action and no action without the roll. You can't roll and then do something else: the roll was you doing the thing that you were rolling for. There isn't any metagaming happening: the roll dictates in-game events.You can't say "I sneak past the guard", roll stealth, get a 1 and then say "oh, actually I stay here in cover". That would be a problematic scenario. You CAN say "I sneak past the guard", get a 1, then jump the guard. Your stealth roll still failed - your character still tried to sneak, stepped on a passing squirrel and alerted the guard (or maybe not! the guard might have a really terrible perception check!), he just didn't wait for the DM to describe the guard drawing his sword and charging. Personally I'd be willing to give a benefit for that (not full surprise, but maybe advantage on initiative): after all, you're losing out on the chance for the guard to screw up and your stealth to be ok.In games I play, the DM asks you to make a roll, you roll, then the DM describes the outcome. He never answers the question "did I succeed at the roll?" except by describing what happens.Now sometimes the actual pass-fail of a roll will be unclear because the fallout from the roll is not immediate. But I think the player knowing his roll and being able to plan future actions based on that is not a bad thing: there's still uncertainty there after all, since he doesn't know the DC.</blockquote>

Verification