Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7909532" data-attributes="member: 16814">If you're proficient, there should be a roll for things less than easy.&nbsp; Says so in the DMG.&nbsp; Problem solved.I use the Middle Path in the DMG.&nbsp; If an action doesn't have a consequence for failure and/or is trivial, don't ask for a roll.&nbsp; DCs under 10 are trivial.&nbsp; If you tell me that you're leveraging your proficiency in cheesemaking to make a wheel of cheese and it's not for royalty or being done in a rushed manner (which there's not a lot of ways to rush cheese), that's no check, you just do it.&nbsp; I don't need to math up a passive check, because, on that day when you're in a terrible rush to make a wheel of cheese to impress the King, I'm going to call for a check.&nbsp; A failure wouldn't mean you didn't make cheese -- that seems unlikely -- but that your result will not earn you favor with the King.Now, if you're untrained, you might not even make cheese.In other words, using passive checks as a floor is addressing the same issues that the middle path does -- it takes checks that shouldn't be made and gives players a way to just be competent.&nbsp; However, not using passive floors means that there's actual drama and risk when situations call for it.&nbsp; Pairing that with fail forward or success at cost means helps make failing a check not be you failing to do anything right; you just don't do enough right.&nbsp; Binary fail/succeed is boring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7909532, member: 16814"] If you're proficient, there should be a roll for things less than easy. Says so in the DMG. Problem solved. I use the Middle Path in the DMG. If an action doesn't have a consequence for failure and/or is trivial, don't ask for a roll. DCs under 10 are trivial. If you tell me that you're leveraging your proficiency in cheesemaking to make a wheel of cheese and it's not for royalty or being done in a rushed manner (which there's not a lot of ways to rush cheese), that's no check, you just do it. I don't need to math up a passive check, because, on that day when you're in a terrible rush to make a wheel of cheese to impress the King, I'm going to call for a check. A failure wouldn't mean you didn't make cheese -- that seems unlikely -- but that your result will not earn you favor with the King. Now, if you're untrained, you might not even make cheese. In other words, using passive checks as a floor is addressing the same issues that the middle path does -- it takes checks that shouldn't be made and gives players a way to just be competent. However, not using passive floors means that there's actual drama and risk when situations call for it. Pairing that with fail forward or success at cost means helps make failing a check not be you failing to do anything right; you just don't do enough right. Binary fail/succeed is boring. [/QUOTE]

Verification