Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8385579" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Eh, the idea was explicitly to tie them to successes and failures. Things like making a bunch of noise are going to happen regardless.See, I don't always get to high levels, but the system looks like it is designed for 9 to be the mid-point. It is kind of said it was actually designed for that to be an endpoint.Can't comment on the level gaps, but in 5e a single goblin who fights smart (doesn't charge into a crowd swinging and stands there waiting to get hit) is easily a match for far more than one or two commoners. If they stick with archery and keep moving and bonus action hiding, the single goblin at night could kill a crowd of people who never even get a chance to fight back.Even just charging in idiotically they can likely take out three commoners, possibly without even taking any damage. In my homebrew I made goblins of average intelligence, wisdom and charisma, and basically just left them as is. And they are one of the most terrifying forces on the planet.I get wanting to avoid power creep, but I also just don't like the design philosphy of taking away the players abilities until you can challenge them again. It just feels bad.I'm less sure, because sometimes things happen that weren't a result of the players declaring an actionExactly. It doesn't exist as a pillar, but it obviously is part of the game. I would actually think that Exploration is poorly named, and that going through an area they are familiar with counts, but either way, this helps highlight the breakdown in communication. There are things people are claiming are exploration, that others see as part of a different section of the game.Exactly, and I think this is why a lot of us are balking at "exploration = learning new information" because we see going back through the same cave as exploration, but interrogating a prisoner to get new information as social.I would agree with that.</blockquote>

Verification