Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8623129" data-attributes="member: 71699">In 3e, players invoke skills. Virtually in neo-trade mode. Most skills can be retried on failure.In 5e, if following the game text as written, DM calls for a check when a player character's actions and system considerations together indicate one. There must be both uncertainty and meaningful consequences. Following the game text as written, 5e skills would be played fiction-first, although 5e gives the DM the traditional opt out. The important text to read is DMG 237 and PHB 174 (read together for the whole meaning.)5e's approach isn't innovative: it's immediately traceable to significant discourse and design work that occured between the editions.Agreed that advantage is over-used.  I'll emphasise again my words - "faint nods". The DMG discussion of Inspiration outlines what they are nodding toward. Speculatively, 6e will go one of two ways. Either it will remove inspiration. Or it will improve it so that it mechanically matters. They might tighten up the contextualising text, also, as it's a bit all over the place.Hmm, what do you experience when at your table a diviner chooses one of two d20 rolls they made that morning, to replace a roll they observe another entity making? The sense is they saw and can intervene in the future. It is implemented at the table as straight-up dice manipulation. It's presence in the game is cute.</blockquote>