Timeline for How many times may a character attempt a skill roll for the same test?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2019 at 9:51 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
update links https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9369/angry-dm-gm-site-change-link-updates
|
| Jan 2, 2017 at 1:07 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @Random832 just for funsies, I went ahead and laid out how to do such a thing in this Q&A | |
| Sep 29, 2016 at 2:44 | comment | added | Random832 | @nitsua60 yeah. | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 19:23 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @Random832 Ah, so are you talking something like taking p=0.5 you'd generate a percentile table: 01-50=>1, 51-75=>2, 76-87=>3, &c.? So that one percentile roll would give a properly distributed number of trials to success in this instance? (If so, I think that's pretty cool. If not, I'm just not understanding you.) | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 17:48 | comment | added | Random832 | @nitsua60 No, you can't put what I'm talking about in just one number - I'm talking probability of 1 trial to success (= P obviously), probability at most 2 trials to success, at most 3, etc... And in turn, a way to turn a single roll (representing how good your result is in the relevant probability space) into "how many actual trials to success". | |
| Jul 30, 2016 at 3:03 | comment | added | Yakk | If I am not careful, your answer reads as "if the character has lots of free time to pick the lock, you should ensure that the first check causes the pick to break off in the lock on failure", and not "if the character has a task they could easily succeed at given time, and lots of time, just assume the character succeeds". If you intend the second, you might want to stress it. | |
| Jul 28, 2016 at 22:23 | comment | added | Ethan | @Random832: Those were just examples, not precise boundary points. The intent was if failure has a consequence, you get one try or suffer consequences. If time matters, then failure has a consequence. If you can take your time to do it right but failure still has consequences, I might grant advantage. | |
| Jul 28, 2016 at 21:59 | comment | added | Random832 | But if they only get one try in five minutes, then they should get two tries in ten minutes. Or try again the next shift change. It's not reasonable to go straight from "they can only try once" to "they have an hour [or whatever] and can take 20", there's got to be some amount of time between the extremes. I actually have a python script lying around somewhere to generate "how long to succeed" percentile charts, if it's just that rolling over and over again gets tedious. | |
| Jul 28, 2016 at 20:45 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | In general, a player should never roll twice for the same thing because a failure should have changed the circumstances enough that just trying again until they succeed isn't possible, or will have consumed some finite resource such as HP or hit dice (such as when falling on a climb). A fundamental idea supporting this point is that with success, decision or action A, B, or C follows; with failure, decision or action D, E, or F (or G) follows. It isn't just success or failure as being of interest, but the sequel to success or failure. | |
| Jul 28, 2016 at 20:23 | comment | added | Ethan | It looks like I had Angry ranting in the back of my brain when I wrote that up, managed to track down the article. | |
| Jul 28, 2016 at 20:18 | history | edited | Ethan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 230 characters in body; added 8 characters in body
|
| Jul 28, 2016 at 20:00 | history | edited | Ethan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 177 characters in body
|
| Jul 28, 2016 at 19:56 | history | answered | Ethan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |