u/Ancient-Lab-372

Buckner is excited to return to the 49ers and looks forward to being the youngest player in their defensive front 8.

Night Unkillable?!

Isn't it Nigh unkillable?

Michael Jackson, Middle Linebacker. 1979 draft, 3rd round.

True Story: When I heard about this new singer, Michael Jackson, I thought it was the Seahawks Linebacker starting a singing career...

As I understand it, for the ground to come up to meet the objects, the ship would need to be accelerating in a straight line, where the floor actually moves into them.

But with centrifugal gravity, the ship rotates, and the apparent gravity points radially outward from the center of rotation. The floor is simply the outer hull in that direction.

My assertion then is that from an outside frame, the objects would stay in place until the rotating wall reaches them or some force couples them to the rotation. From inside, it looks like they’re pushed laterally against the wall and then settle “down”.

Pinned to the side, like a Gravitron ride.

The humans were being used as batteries, not as the primary power source.

They were basically the cells in an Uninterruptible Power Supply.

A better question is: Do all these edge loops serve a purpose?

If you are going low poly, then there are a bunch of extras. If not, then how are they influencing the silhouette?

Mechanically, 'called-shots on body parts' becomes problematic because you are introducing a 'harder-to-hit' for 'bonus damage' system.

There is a reason that D&D did away with Power Attack and Sharpshooter (-5 to hit, +10 to damage) in their original 5e states.
It is because, for many players, that -5 was too easy to overcome, so it became almost a permanent +10 to damage. Even if it wasn't every round, they could layer it with multiple bonuses to get that supernova of damage that would wipe out a significant Enemy too quickly.

The same thing is true for being able to target specific body parts. Why would you focus on the arm when the neck is right there? If it is a similar AC penalty, decapitation is more effective at removing enemies than amputation. And if it can't be destroyed in one hit, you now have to track damage on every body part that has been specifically targeted. Even after the prison, you will have players wanting to make called shots on everything.

You need to make sure you are comfortable with this new status quo. And can enemies use it too? If so, how will players track limb damage? You are probably going to need magical prosthetics all over the place. If not, you have tipped the balance in the player's favor and will need to factor it into your encounter building down the road.

It's fun and cool to introduce new mechanics, but be wary of long-term consequences.

That being said, dispel magic seems like it would be ideal for that boss's armband!

Back to my original point, why would a commoner get a roll against a Terrasque?
Why would a highly trained fighter need to roll to hit the side of a barn?

Just tell the players, "The commoner's attacks harmless bounce off the Terrasque's thick hide" or "Valmor the fighter slams his maul into the side of the barn, roll for damage."

Simple, no to-hit roll is necessary; just move on to the results.

Do they have a 5% chance to fail?

If they treat 1s as 10s, and the DC means they can't roll a failure, why make them roll at all? They are just that good. Describe their success and move one. =)

It's easy to limit your skill check rolls to people who have a chance. One way is that the check is only for people who are trained in a particular skill, or allow a roll only if a character has a +6 or higher, or something similar.

If you have expertise in a skill and a sufficiently high level, and rolling to see yourself generate a 34 to sneak past the sleep guard who has been roofied, cool. I'm simply advocating for the fact that you are an expert, he's unconscious and drugged, maybe a roll isn't necessary.

I generally do. Thank you.

I hope your games are fun too! =)

Those are good points. And there are times that asking for die rolls when they are meaningless is part of a greater meta game of tricking your players. Some DM's ask for a search check every time a party traverses 10' so that they never know when he is asking to find a real trap. There is a balance to how many unnecessary die rolls a DM will ask for.

So, I will concede that asking or not asking for rolls can sometimes inform players of information about the state of the game world. Of course, that would be player knowledge and their characters would never act on that, right? =) So there is a certain metagame to asking for meaningless rolls or hiding meaningful rolls.

The stealth example is a good one because the player wouldn't know that the roll is impossible to succeed against the one enemy that is hiding from them. But keep in mind that there is still a possibility of success, so rolling matters. Rolling that 20 will still hide you from everyone OTHER than the invisible creature watching you. So rolling a 20 gets you success (the best possible outcome). If the guards are so alert (not the invisible ones) that a 20 won't help, we're back to why roll at all?

Your room searching example doesn't make sense, though. If there is nothing to find, and you aren't playing the metagame of "let's make the players roll so they don't know what's going on", then you can feel perfectly content giving them the success result of having found everything of value in the room (nothing).
If you are playing the metagame, then seeing the player roll a 1 and telling them "You glance around the room and see nothing out of the ordinary" contributes to that metagame because now the players might be convinced that there IS something to see and that character just missed it.

And as for your Ninja, do feel cool because they rolled a Stealth check, rolled a 1, and still they assume no one can see them, or is it being told that, because of their incredible skill, no one can see them? Does the die roll contribute something meaningful?

So you are saying that you prefer rolling the die, then being told that you had no chance, to simply being told you have no chance?

If that is the way you want to play, more power to you. There isn't a wrong way to play.

I am only advocating for removing the meaningless die roll and proceeding with giving you the information you were asking for: Can I get out of these manacles?
If the DM says no, the player always can come back with "But remember, I have this McGuffin of manacle release, are you sure I can't get out? To which the DM can amend his ruling. "Oh, in that case, feel free to make a roll" (Since it is no longer impossible).

To be clear, to me it sounds like you are advocating for: Asking a player for a roll, they add all their bonuses and modifiers, they roll the best possible outcome on the dice they can, and you say, "Not good enough, you fail."

If you think that a player is capable of generating a +10 or better to hit a DC 30 test, by all means, let them roll. If there is no way they could generate a +10 to hit that same test, why bother?

If it's close, ask them for their bonuses.

How often do your players attempt to do things that are so outlandish that even a 20 on a die roll won't succeed?

Success does NOT mean giving the players exactly what they asked for, but if they are given the option to roll, they should not then fail if they roll a 20.

If actions have consequences and failure is possible, then rolling a 1 should get them those consequences.

If there are no consequences or someone is far too skilled (reliable talent rogue) to fail, there is no point forcing them to roll. It simply takes up time and slows the pace of play.

A roll of 20 should get you the best reasonable outcome that there is. You should have some level of success. If not, then reframe the roll to see how badly the character's action fails. On a 20, they get the least bad result.

If there is no chance of success (I want to jump to the moon), don't ask for a roll. A 20 won't get them to the moon, so why would you need them to roll? Just tell them, "You don't reach the moon with that leap."

Players only get rolls when the DM asks for them.
So, they can't walk up and say I'm making a persuasion roll to have this guy give me all his wealth.
They can say that they walk up to the guy and try to persuade the guy to give them all his wealth, but they only get the roll if the DM signs off on it.
If you say, there is no way that he is going to give you all his wealth, no matter how persuasive you are, no need for a roll.
If they DEMAND he give them all his wealth, then you can ask them to roll to see how badly they've offended him and how angry he is. =)

You already conceded that you are going to fail your player's character for being stupid (something perfectly valid to do, btw).

You did that when you determined that the task was impossible (no success on a nat 20).

If that kills your player's character, that's unfortunate. If they are stupidly getting themselves into certain death scenarios, they will probably perish.

The question is, in that case, what are they rolling for? Not to see if they succeed on their moronic, doomed to fail, plan. They are rolling to see how bad the consequences of their failure are.
Cool, I dig it.
Just let them know that is what they are rolling for so if they happen to get a nat 20 they are not bummed out by still failing.

For example:
They roll a 1, and they are crushed by the unavoidable falling boulder (the worst possible outcome).
They roll a 20; they are only maimed by the unavoidable falling boulder (the best possible outcome).
You don't need to tell them those outcomes in the beginning, but as long as they are clear on what they are rolling for, then they can have accurate expectations.

But if you ask for a roll to dodge it, and they roll a 20, and still get maimed... They will feel cheated. If it was unavoidable and you let them think it wasn't, it will feel like a bait and switch.

Why are you, as a DM, allowing those rolls to occur?

Players only get to roll for things when you ask for a roll.

If they roll and get a nat 20, they get some success. Maybe not the one they were hoping for. But if you allowed the roll, and they got the best possible result on the roll, they should get the best reasonable outcome.

If it is impossible to achieve what they hope to achieve, don't waste their time with a roll.

Maybe success doesn't find you the dog, but gets you a clue to the dog's whereabouts.

What success looks like is up to you. I am merely stating, rolling a nat 20 should never result in a failure. If a nat 20 was going to fail, you need to reframe the roll so that the player isn't rolling to see if they succeed (which is impossible) but rather how badly they fail. =)

Fair enough. I was bored and wanted to start a conversation about this topic.

Maybe I should change the title to: Lukewarm take:
=)

I play in a game every Thursday night and run a game every Tuesday night.

Sure, but maybe approach it from "You are going to fail, go ahead and roll to see how badly it goes." That way, they know they will not succeed and the roll is to determine the outcome.

If they don't expect a chance of success, then a nat 20 doesn't need to give them success.
But if you let them think that they have a chance, no matter how slim, and they roll the impossible. You need to allow them to enjoy that success.

Nope. Not at all.

And I wouldn't ask my players to make that roll. Again, this is about asking for rolls that are possible. If they are possible (to have some level of success), then a 20 should accomplish it.

If it is impossible, why are you wasting everyone's time rolling?