Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thia Halmades" data-source="post: 2704177" data-attributes="member: 35863">*sucks down coffee*Actually, as DM, I would rule that you had to do extremely well to build in a flaw like that.  Only the truly talented can effectively lie about their total abilities, and for them, it's difficult.  Which likely puts me in the minority here, but... look at it this way.You're going to craft an iron impression for the Royal Seal.  You know exactly what the seal looks like and you have familiarity with the advisor who's going to be seeing it.  It has to be good enough to get past inspection by your captor - a high roll, especially considering they ALSO know what the seal should look like - but must contain a specific flaw, a letter with an extra hook, a flags blowing the opposite direction, etc. - which has to be picked up by the advisor in question.Both of these would require higher, rather than lower, rolls in my campaign.  In the Robin Hood example, he doesn't want to roll low - he wants to roll incredibly high so he can hit the target in just such a way that he advances without lancing the bullseye directly.  First he has to make a sense motive check to determine (roughly) the skill of the field.  Then he has to make a check (attack) and declare it a called shot.  THEN he has to bluff so no one notices that he can center his round nearly at will.So no, under the system (note the caveat) I see no reason why you'd want to do poorly.  I also (personally) don't like the idea of players succeeding by intentionally doing poorly.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who can get more liberal with the rules, but higher generally equals better.</blockquote>

Verification