Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7714888" data-attributes="member: 16814">Huh?&nbsp; What on Earth are you going on about?&nbsp; What does any of this have to do with rules lawyers or power-gamers?Again, I don't have much of a problem with a feat that says, like Actor's mimicry, you can do this thing without a check.&nbsp; Because the baseline is that the DM determines if the thing is uncertain and, if so, calls for a check.&nbsp; This sets some conditions where the feat taker can remove uncertainty.&nbsp; That's not bad stuff (although the Actor feat is imminently abusable by a skilled player).&nbsp; My issue is with things like Acrobat, where the ability is codified as condition/action/DC.&nbsp; This now sets the baseline by which all other considerations of that thing, or a similar thing, are judged by.&nbsp; Previously, if the DM determined something was uncertain, the DM set the DC according to the fiction at the time (so rolling over a table may be DC 10, but wall-bouncing using slick walls over quicksand might be DC 20).&nbsp; Now?&nbsp; It's locked in -- you cannot ever assign a DC 10 to roll over a table because the feat says it's minimum DC 15.&nbsp; That's the kind of codification that moves away from rulings not rules and restricts the flow of the game to 'hey, wasn't there a feat for that?&nbsp; Oh, yeah, let's look it up. &lt;turns pages&gt; Yep, here it is, bonus action and DC 15 to roll over the table, if you have the feat, so lets say you can do it at DC 15 for an action or you can try it at DC 20 for a bonus action!&quot;&nbsp; Blegh, no thank you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7714888, member: 16814"] Huh? What on Earth are you going on about? What does any of this have to do with rules lawyers or power-gamers? Again, I don't have much of a problem with a feat that says, like Actor's mimicry, you can do this thing without a check. Because the baseline is that the DM determines if the thing is uncertain and, if so, calls for a check. This sets some conditions where the feat taker can remove uncertainty. That's not bad stuff (although the Actor feat is imminently abusable by a skilled player). My issue is with things like Acrobat, where the ability is codified as condition/action/DC. This now sets the baseline by which all other considerations of that thing, or a similar thing, are judged by. Previously, if the DM determined something was uncertain, the DM set the DC according to the fiction at the time (so rolling over a table may be DC 10, but wall-bouncing using slick walls over quicksand might be DC 20). Now? It's locked in -- you cannot ever assign a DC 10 to roll over a table because the feat says it's minimum DC 15. That's the kind of codification that moves away from rulings not rules and restricts the flow of the game to 'hey, wasn't there a feat for that? Oh, yeah, let's look it up. <turns pages> Yep, here it is, bonus action and DC 15 to roll over the table, if you have the feat, so lets say you can do it at DC 15 for an action or you can try it at DC 20 for a bonus action!" Blegh, no thank you. [/QUOTE]

Verification