Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 7584770" data-attributes="member: 463">I didn't make any assertion about other people's styles, and I use a variety myself, depending on various factors, like I just said.With the door, it was not literally unbreakable, a sufficiently high number could have broken it. For me to say &quot;Don't roll&quot; I would have had to first establish what the PC's maximum bonus was. Rather than have that discussion followed by you-bounce-off, for me it worked better to have player roll. It actually made for a dramatic little vignette - &quot;No normal door could have withstood that!&quot; Conversely with the high level Barbarians IMC I know what their minimum Athletics checks are (= STR, currently 24 &amp; 30!) - so I will say &quot;That was a DC 25 so you auto-succeed...&quot; and that works well there, too.IMO the important thing with the 5e system is to be flexible, not doctrinaire, and use the best tools for the job.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 7584770, member: 463"] I didn't make any assertion about other people's styles, and I use a variety myself, depending on various factors, like I just said. With the door, it was not literally unbreakable, a sufficiently high number could have broken it. For me to say "Don't roll" I would have had to first establish what the PC's maximum bonus was. Rather than have that discussion followed by you-bounce-off, for me it worked better to have player roll. It actually made for a dramatic little vignette - "No normal door could have withstood [I]that[/I]!" Conversely with the high level Barbarians IMC I know what their minimum Athletics checks are (= STR, currently 24 & 30!) - so I will say "That was a DC 25 so you auto-succeed..." and that works well there, too. IMO the important thing with the 5e system is to be flexible, not doctrinaire, and use the best tools for the job. [/QUOTE]

Verification