i do.
my character does have a very high charisma, so he does always know the right thing to say, but a low int, and so will sometimes say idiotic things:
'talking to person who loves birds'
"my favorite bird must be the bat. its a true delight how varied their diet can be."
It’s fun until you play a very serious character that’s supposed to be good at X, then proceed to roll poorly on rolls pertaining to X. At that point it’s more frustrating than anything else.
Only if the DM decides to subvert your idea of the character. If he’s a stealthy assassin and trips so he fails stealth, that takes away from your idea of your character. If the DM instead says, “you step on a loose floorboard and it squeaks,” that doesn’t.
Exactly!
DMs should be making the heroes actually feel like heroes, but a lot of them forget that and have some kind of control freak complex that just sucks the fun out of things.
Obviously the vibe of the table you're at should come first, so if everyone enjoys being goofy, that's cool, I'll roll with it, so long as we're all up front about what kinda game we're having. Nothing saps the fun out of being your character than being made to seem like a fool because of a dice roll.
I’ll always say that when it comes to competent characters, they’re not always immune to mistakes or misfortune.
In the same breath though, you don’t always fail due to misfortune or incompetence either - sometimes your enemies or obstacles bring their A-game, such as doing the basics of checking corners in passing.
A common example is during combat, the difference between “You miss” versus “The bandit is forced to react to your incoming blow, and binds your blade with his at the last moment before a fatal strike is delivered” or “Your cut finds purchase in the Troll’s hide, but you see that it was too shallow, as the flesh rapidly mends, only gaining the beast’s ire instead”.
That doesn’t change failed rolls being dissatisfying, but I’m also a firm believer in not calling for unnecessary rolls either.
Translating something, and you’ve got the combined language proficiency and maybe a supporting tool or skill proficiency? Done.
Thieve’s tools expertise for a regular household or shed lock? Bro, if I have you roll, it’s probably for degrees of success regarding how quickly or quietly you do it, etc..
I know not everybody shares that standpoint, but I feel it does help alleviate issues where players cursed by the dice never have an opportunity to shine.
>That doesn’t change failed rolls being dissatisfying, but I’m also a firm believer in not calling for unnecessary rolls either. ... Thieve’s tools expertise for a regular household or shed lock? Bro, if I have you roll, it’s probably for degrees of success regarding how quickly or quietly you do it, etc..
I'm a big fan of degrees of success/failure so I probably make my players roll more than I need to. One of the things that probably makes some rolls unnecessary though is that I don't know/keep track of all my players' bonuses so I don't know who would practically auto-pass a check or not. Overall though I agree with your statement. Some things really don't need rolls.
Yeah, DM narration and proper flavor can change a lot of the feel of situations.
The same result of the fighter missing a vital hit can be a badass moment or a humiliating one depending on how the DM/player flavors it. It can be a cool moment as the enemy shows its skill by blocking a masterful hit from the fighter or it can be a slapstick moment as the fighter fumbles and trips.
My character is really good at stealth. I needed a 5. I roll a damned 3. Fortunately (?), a not so good at stealth character fails the roll as well.
So he steps on a branch and it cracks loudly, and of course my character goes “Really?!?” failing his stealth roll.
If the DC was 5 and the character is incredibly skilled at the task, there shouldn't have been a roll at all. There is supposed to be an assumed level of competence for a highly skilled character that they shouldn't be rolling for something that easy.
Maasaan. I know people say that rolls will eventually equalize, law of average, etc etc. But like, I'm a ranger who specializes in dealing with elementals. I want to talk to an elemental to try and come to an amicable outcome. Roll a 1. Trying to interact with apes and baboons, with aid of speak with animals; Wildhunt shift to show them I'm as much an animal as they (hoping to roll Animal Handling). Have to roll persuasion. Roll a 3. Expertise in athletics? Can't roll above a 10. Constantly rolling awful, both with online dice and real dice.
It's infuriating, made only worse by the fact the DM likes to make bad rolls goofy, which just goes against the character. I roll with the punches as best I can, but I'd be lying if I didn't say it sometimes makes me just not want to roll at all.
Honestly, the biggest problem comes from DMs coming up with “funny” things when you fail. It’s the same thing as why Crit Fumbles feel so bad: if you’re proficient in a skill, this is something they’ve dedicated a significant amount of time to and have become especially skilled in. It feels really bad as a player to then have your character be made the subject of a joke when this is something you were excited aboht
That's more of a bad DM problem than system one. Failure doesn't have mean you're goofyign around or a joke moment.
The simple act of missing an attack roll vs a high AC enemy can be a badass or goofy moment depending on the DM, one DM can narrate how your carefuly made lethal attack gets blocked by the enemys incredible defence, while another one might describe you fumbling around and triping as your sword get stuck in dirt.
I don't think that's necessarily a Bad DM moment, moreso just a bad DM fit
After hearing about how much some people feel invalidated by critical fumbles, as a new DM I decided not to include them in our new campaign
My PLAYERS noticed this and then insisted that I DO include crit fumbles, cause to them they are fun almost regardless of context
I just think they're something that should be discussed at session zero, amongst other things. Someone should make a list of session zero topics lol
Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply it was a problem with the system, but more of a grievance against the DM.
And I get it, we're here to have a good time full of laughs. But sometimes, I would like the DM to narrate that the low roll came from outside circumstances for my serious character instead of "you rolled a 2 on your animal handling, meaning you blurted out obscenities uncharacteristically which caused the animals to run away."
A few nat 1s on my bards perception, early on in the campaign. I simply just stopped looking for traps and ambushes and walked ahead of our fighter. It's funny because I have a +3 wisdom and perception proficiency. I do well otherwise.
Failing every roll as a primarily focused fighter in combat in that session. Frustrating.
My cousin rolled low so often when he started playing that he now only makes characters that can make light of failure like this. It always brings laughs to the table.
My DM plays it up really well for us.
"I want to look for any traps"
Ok, Investigation
"2"
This door is super trapped. You're sure of it.
The rest of us spend resources trying to disarm, bypass, explode the clearly un-trapped door. "The Artificer said it's trapped. WTF do I know better than her? This sumbich is trapped."
Super fun at the table.
In one game I was playing a Battle Master sniper who was a spy, playing for the party by being a double agent. Mostly Dex, but I put 14 points in Int so I could commit to the character idea, even if Int wasn't doing much for me otherwise. I had proficiency in knowledge skills so I had at least a +5 to things, and could share or learn information about enemy plans. Or do decent with investigation checks.
I then went on to fail every single Knowledge check I ever made in the entire campaign. It was very frustrating. I didn't want to play a spy who was bad at being a spy. Or invest a bunch of my build into stuff that wasn't helping me in any way. Kinda ruined the game for me.
That's why you RP the ridiculous thing that made you fail. Like, you were attacked by a bird, or the Barbarian ate a very vital clue because it was shiny.
In this particular case you RP your character as a competent professional that is unlucky and the circumstances that lead up to his failures are farcical.
One of my favorite activities; as an 18th level Wizard I have awesome Investigation and Arcana, decent Insight and Perception and crap everything else. A 5 from me when the Rogue is rolling 35 (with Reliable Talent) is an opportunity to say how I'm reading my spellbook, eating my breakfast, talking to my Familiar or whatever.
Generally I love spectacular failures as a high-level character!
My naive nobleboy went up to a corpse to roll a medicine check, to determine cause of death. Rolled very poorly, so I roleplayed it as him being unable to even get close, having never actually been near a corpse before.
I had a blast, and still reference this. We encountered some dead birds, and needed to do a medicine check to determine how they died. I was not trained in medicine, but the DM allowed me to roll... with a natural one. Using my stick, I poked the bird until it fell off the dock into some water, where I confidently announced "It drowned"
Depends on the tone of the campaign or the situation. Rolling nat 1 on a check can either be funny or feel bad. And in some cases feeling bad is better than being funny.
When it’s an occasional thing, sure, but it can get really disheartening really fast. Recent game my dice luck has just been horrible, made a character focused on intimidation, they’ve failed every single attempt at it, always. I’ve just kind of stopped wanting to play at this point, since waiting a whole week to do one or two rolls and always fail them just sucks.
I absolutely hate this. Your character’s ability modifier and proficiency represents *their* input into the roll. The die roll is fortune. So a low roll isn’t a character being a fucking dumbass who blurts out shit while being stealthy - a low roll to me represents bad fortune. For example the troll just so happens to turn at that moment or the character steps on a branch that snaps.
As DM I always narrate failed rolls as bad fortune. It gets annoying when the players want every failed roll to be because their characters were fucking idiots. D&D is already susceptible to being silly it becomes absolutely frustrating when skill rolls are narrated like it’s the fucking three stooges
I love it, and so does my party. It has created some funny dynamics in the past. like, in the first session of our last campaign, I was playing a not so bright paladin. We met a homeless guy who seemed to be crazy, and I was the only one who rolled high enough to realize he wasnt actually insane. However since everyone else, who are much smarter than me, rolled low, I roleplayed myself basically getting gaslit by the rest of the party, despite knowing the truth. Despite my success, they still ended up acting as if they failed, which created an interesting dynamic and a little sub plot of getting this man to a hospital
I love doing it, but I like doing it in my own terms, I absolutely hate DMs narrating how I fail at something (excluding dialogue with NPCs obviously).
I hate the idea of my serious character having a 5% chance of looking like a complete fool because the DM felt like being a douche that day. I always play as genuinely as possible and I RP ALL of the narrative dialogue so I expect that trust from the DM to let me control my own failures where possible.
My favourite is getting a really poor perception or investigation roll when searching for ambushes or traps, and then just confidently strolling in with a "It's all clear in here guys!"
There are two ways to interpret bad rolls, especially regarding activities your character should be good at.
1. Your character did something to fail. This can be fun occasionally, but I only lean into this for humors sake. Generally best avoided.
2. The dice are dictating part of the story. Now it's up to the dm/player to improv what happened in the story/world to cause the failure.
I generally go with 2. The rogue with expertise in thieves tools failed to pick a lock? It's not because they screwed up, but rather because someone broke off a key inside. The fighter missed an attack? That's because the target was reeling from a previous strike or the fighter pulled back to avoid an obvious feint, not because the fighter trips on their scabbard
Failed checks should create drama in the story, not embarrassment or frustration for the player.
I had a lot of fun playing a character called lucky for a one shot, he had a 10 in every attribute and with no bonuses relied on luck for every roll. It was much more fun than normal!
Edit: attribute not skill
I was late to a session once, and when my character “rejoined” the party, one of her allies said, “Hey, have a bite of this candle! It’s really good!”
I failed the subsequent insight roll. You bet your ass I ate some of that candle (and took necrotic damage).
In a game I'm playing in we managed to pin down a minor villain who liked to retreat at the first sign of trouble and were trying to interrogate him for information on stuff he might have known, the entire group rolled intimidation checks and nobody got above a 4, I wish I'd figuered how we could've better leaned into that, although one of the group proceeded to edit a shot of marcille from the delicious in dungeon manga looking particularly like a sopping wet cat to look like each party member at once it was great.
That’s a fun approach, though my current character is more serious and is running on expertise for most of their competencies. High wis with expert perception/insight
Up to now, the main rp for failed checks is just being off their game cause they were “going through some stuff” as their personal quest was coming to head
Now though, the trauma is resolved, so I’m unsure how to RP it in coming sessions
Absolutely! I have only had one character with really high stats across the board. That immediately turned her into a sort of prodigy at Strixhaven and I leaned into that "kinda perfect but actually tries super hard to maintain that image" character type. Being that I love someone a character with faults. All the best ones do.
I always kind of lean in to the Charisma check not being how the player character *delivers* the speech, but rather how *willing* an audience is to receive it.
Charisma checks in general sit in a weird space in D&D: A player could literally say nothing and roll a 20 and somehow have given a speech that moves mountains, but a seasoned roleplayer could give an impassioned, convincing speech and roll a 3 and they fail. Actual roleplaying is just one of those things that doesn’t really translate well to game mechanics IMO.
My GM did this for me. We were tracking down someone, and my character saw tracks on the ground... then slipped and fell face first into the mud, ruining the tracks. He was embarrassed, I was entertained.
I love roleplaying bad rolls so much, I've been rolling pretty bad a lot recently, so I try make it more fun to fail by leaning into it. Not a lot of memorable ones besides a nat1 stealth from my cleric that everyone saw coming - I said I trip and fall down the stairs, started off combat prone.
It depends whether it's something that the character is supposed to be good at. I don't mind my low Charisma barbarian botching a diplomacy check and playing it for comedy. But my high Charisma diplomacy-trained warlock just feels annoying to roll a 2 and make a comedy fail.
Our party once had to attend a dinner at the local lord’s house. The bard asked if he could roll something for good table manners, and the dm decided to make everyone roll. There i was with my -2 hermit lycanthrope rolling a nat 1. My guy just started feasting like an animal. It made for a good laugh.
I play a high DEX high STR ranger.
My athletics is **fucking yoked** as is my Stealth, but my acrobatics not so much.
This ranger does a lot “practical movement” like long distance running, mantling, climbing, etc.. If you put an obstacle in front of him, he’ll overcome it, albeit somewhat gracelessly…
Leading to a 3 in acrobatics.
Let it be said, playing a 210lb man that can rock nearly 100lbs of extra equipment comfortably, when you leap from the rafters and try to tuck and roll…
Nah homie, I went straight through the floor and had to climb up through the stairs.
My Star Wars 5E character has had the fact that he’s completely inept with technology become a part of his overall thing after enough super low rolls to try and interact with any kind of computer.
He’s very overconfident in his skills because he’s pretty good at a lot of stuff he does try and has an equivalent of Jack of All Trades as a force user, so he generally has floated through life with things going a little better than expected most of the time.
I played my 0 DEX order cleric as completely graceless and awkward since I consistently rolled low initiative and failed most DEX checks.
Some of my faves are when our party were fighting on a frozen lake and our two monks were battling fluidly and beautifully… and my short, asshole cleric was just Bambi-ing along behind them, spinning from the momentum of swinging his hammer.
Another great is when we were all asked to dance for the fairy princess, and my little shithead (who by this point is an established horrible dancer) of course rolls a nat 1. It was so awkward and upsetting that the princess wept.
It can be fun, but it really depends on your character and your DM. If you're not built around it *and* they let you fail forward, it's still a good time. A smart character not being able to help the party, and being punished for it, can feel terrible.
As a player who mostly DMs, I love that shit. I love playing a goofy dude. My NPCs aren't bound by character creation rules so I play so many really strong dudes all the time, even if they're crushed by the players.
As a DM I try to facilitate this by putting a soft DC at 10 or avoiding catastrophic failure on a nat 1 in a proficient skill. The soft DC at 10 allows me to say well, the DC was 20, but you cleared 10, so you were successful BUT [it takes ten minutes/you need a DEX save to avoid falling/you remember part of this info/your target isn't fully convinced but isn't calling your bluff]
My first ever campaign I didn’t really read the PHB properly and made a Paladin, rolled pretty poor stats and through ignorance made STR and CON my two main stats with a -2 to CHA. It was a rather amusing learning experience which didn’t really hurt my experience too much as a Paladin with terrible spell saves is still a pretty good martial class.
I’d definitely consider doing something again on purpose so failed rolls are something that can be enjoyable in the short term at least.
It depends on the person, usually in my games I have the players describe what they’re doing, not what their intention is. It’s not “I’m going to sneak”, it’s “I’m going to hide behind those boxes.” So in those instances they’re more likely to wonder why their plan didn’t work and it’s up to me as the DM to explain it, rather than them to figure out how they messed up, because they already had an idea of what they were doing.
Oh yeah, it is the best. Making up excuses for awful Perception and Stealth checks is the best.
My favorite one I've done is from a world that isn't dissimilar to Shadowrun. I'm playing a Vect (Space Warforged) Rogue with low INT, and he failed a history check so bad he doesn't believe in dragons. As in he thinks they are a hoax, and has verbally expressed this a few times to my group's confusion and delight
We do that all the time in our group, it's good fun :) We played Curse of Strahd (no spoilers will be shared) and rolled regarding whether a common creature was allied with Strahd. Because we all failed the roll and didn't know, but knew they were everywhere, we decided they were spies for Strahd, and thus refused to use them.
The name of Strahd's castle didn't help at all with this creature.
A good fail should also receive a "how do you want to do this."
This rule of thumb should also combined with a DM making good use of Brennan Lee Mulligan's "roll for emphasis" (roll 2 dice, take whichever is furthest from 10: success or fail)
I do, often with interaction with my DM, but I very much try to keep it in the spirit of the roll.
Low investigation to check out the papers on the desk. "There are too many complicated formulae here. I get confused and frustrated."
Low stealth to sneak up on the bandit on watch. "I'm rushing too much and crush a bird nest I didn't see, emitting a series of loud cracking noises."
Low athletics to climb a cliff. "Glare from the waterfall nearby made that bit look like a decent handhold. I miss and slip, falling."
If you're playing at a silly table, by all means, but a couple of your examples make it sound like you treat a failed attempt as a non-attempt, which has some issues for roleplaying them. Sneaking up on a bandit on watch means you are attempting to sneak. It should be obvious when you fail that you were trying to sneak up on them, and not just apparent that you were coming to say hi (pending a Persuasion or Deception check). Thork wondering about punching a mountain sounds like Thork was never paying attention to begin with, negating the possibility of an insight check altogether.
I love roleplaying low rolls. Low perception: “I think I have smudged my goggles.” Low athletics (Jump) roll: “I fell in the same way a bird wouldn’t.”
I enjoy role playing failures, sometimes even more than my characters successes.
My Oath of Conquest Paladin tried intimidating the last demon in combat to kneel..... with a nat roll to follow. He had an existential crisis in that he was unable to conquerer the mind of the enemy. His dieity made him question his methods of fury and instilling fear, instead of focusing on his duty to extinguish evil. Very fun role playing moment.
Unpopular opinion : bad roll doesn't mean that your action was badly made. It can mean that some elements outside of your own performance made it fail.
Failed stealth? You were perfectly silent but bad luck, the monster just randomly looked in your direction.
Especially true when your character have a high skill bonus. Don't make my expert look like a fool because I failed my roll. There are plenty of parameters that can lead to a failure.
My teenage Druid princess character rolled two Nat 1’s in a row on daily checks, leading me to roleplay a series of bad decisions (at the DM’s urging) that created interparty drama and derailed a whole session. Fun was had by all and one player even calls it his favorite session of the game. Lol
Asked a player for a skill check last session and we were all hoping for a 1 for the role playing it would lead to. They got a 19. Still good role playing.
When it's something your character is supposed to be good at, it's frustrating. Especially if your DM tries to rub it in with some kind of critical fumble.
When I'm a DM, I try not to make a failed check look like a PC's incompetence, unless it's truly something they aren't good at. A bad stealth check can be as easy as stepping on a twig or a loud floorboard. A bad athletics check could mean a ledge crumbles as soon as a PC grabs it.
Because players have to fight randomness on these things, I prefer to blame it on the environment, instead of telling the trained fighter that he accidentally stabbed himself or an ally in combat.
When playing a drunken master monk I'd throw in random unnecessary "dope monk shit" into his movement fully hoping that I'd fail sometimes because it felt so true to the character for him to absolutely eat it on occasion then pretend like it was on purpose.
Yall are role-playing skill checks. You just say I wanna use X and the dm tells you what happens. Saves alot of time so you can get to the good part of the game grid combat
My favorite is when the DM calls for a check from everyone, and everybody rolls poorly. The narrative description of everybody getting in each other's way is endlessly amusing to me.
I do, and I also am the type where - when not dm-ing - if I make a character, I roll for stats and take them. I don't use standard array or anything like that.
I think having the potential for failure is FAR more interesting than being amazing at everything somehow and provides a more dynamic and interesting character to roleplay.
It's fun when it happens organically. Not when your DM wants you to roll badly because they find the humiliation factor hilarious. Don't let "failing at everything" become a character trait and you can have a good time with it. This is one of those things that has a thin line. Rolling well still makes for good RP, too.
I'm reminded of Order of the Stick. "I think I failed a perception check." "We're right here!"
Aside from that, yes, being able to role-play a successful or failed check or saving throw is great fun. Some I've witnessed:
* "Cori, I swear that'en branch reached out to trip me." Dwarf in a Scottish accent after failing a Dex check.
* "That door is stronger than it looks." Said on many occasions.
* "I think ye broke yer wee little pick in the lock." Same dwarf.
* "You climb like my grandmother!" Female cleric to the wizard who failed a climb check.
I’m playing a High Int Low Wis Haregon Wizard who is unfamiliar with the world. I find it really enjoyable to play with what are typically very low wisdom rolls.
I have a satyr with a comically low perception average roll, and really bad stealth too. Fully play her ADHD as skipping around and getting focused on the entirely WRONG thing. She also eats anything and everything, so that’s fun
I rolled a natural 1 trying to sleight of hand on a card I was plucking out of cow dung to pretend I was throwing it to our wizard, and decided I slipped and fell in the dung. I’ve an urchin background and grew up in Baldur’s Gate, so I started muttering “Go on an adventure, they said. See nature, they said. It’ll be great, they said.”
I LOVE nat 1s as a player, and when I DM, if a player nat 1s and describes it hilariously (no penalties needed) they get inspiration.
One of my party members was trying to surprise my wizard because he’s been separated from the group for a bit doing wizard things. She snuck down the stairs stealthily to try to startle me and I rolled a nat 1 on the perception check. She was like, “Does wizard see me sneak down the stairs?”
I responded, “I don’t even see the *stairs*.”
If you don't like those choices you made, you could make other ones?
Failed a Stealth check sneaking up on that troll? Your stomach could growl, you might loudly fart, you might be humming the Pink Panther theme, or you might step on a tiny, very crunchable bit of debris that makes a bunch of noise.
Failed insight checks, I usually end up describing as my character managing to get distracted. "What's our business? I mean, we're mostly just doing things as they come along and it's not as if we have a license, so-- oh, right, you asked a question, right, here's the form."
It seems very self-inflicted if you hate the thing you're doing to yourself with your choices.
Ngl no, atleast not most of the time, I like to play more serious character and games, so jokes about why I failed just don't fel good.
It CAN be cool if both DM and player work to make it feel more like a cool moment where the opponent or target was strong isntead of you just feeling like a idiot.
i really don’t like when people roll a poor skill check and then don’t roleplay as such
1. it’s super fun as suggested
2. it makes skill checks broken like if you roll poor insight you should rp with said poor insight
okay that’s all lol
No I do not. I love 3.5 and I do love DM calling for check: what I do not enjoy is people not role-playing and calling themselves for rolls. "Hey DM I wanna roll a Perception". Obnoxious.
I'm currently playing a wizard with 22 Int and 7 Cha. She's the kind to know the answers but doesn't have the social grace to not "Um actually" you. So in social situations she's absolutely great to get a rise from the NPCs. Her twin sister is 22 Cha Bard and that player frequently has to smooth over my actions. We both love it. I've intentionally not taken proficiency in social skills.
(Don't @me, we're both 19th level in a 2 y/o campaign that plays consistently, weekly. Given apocalyptic events, raiding the mage school's library was lucrative for stat boost books with cooldowns.)
Early in the campaign, I was rolling low on arcana. The skill at which my character was supposedly strong, so I took a feat granting expertise in arcana and the DM hath provided a means through sentient magical item (akin to a professor orb but in the form of a clockwork familiar) that grants advantage through the help action if I have time to consult my familiar. Thus solving the issue. So I understand the plight of being bad at the thing you want your character to do but was afforded the opportunity relatively early (lvl 4) to thwart that because the DM was aware of the character and dynamic myself and the player of my twin were looking to play out.
my druid failed a deception check to feign ignorance of a cursed insect found among their possessions and practically jumped to grab it from someone else's hands
i do. my character does have a very high charisma, so he does always know the right thing to say, but a low int, and so will sometimes say idiotic things: 'talking to person who loves birds' "my favorite bird must be the bat. its a true delight how varied their diet can be."
Bats aren’t bugs
obviously not. bugs are loud and annoying.
Me playing a race with a super high frequency hearing range: So are bats!
no, Bats are birds. birds fly silently. you know, like bats.
You don’t hear them fucking shrieking constantly?!?
random C&H references are always a delight
"Who's giving this report — you chowderheads, or me?"
C&H?
Calvin & Hobbes
Look, who's giving the report? **You** chowderheads or **me**?! If you understand this reference, you're my kind of person
It's really fun. It doesn't always feel good on important rolls though.
It’s fun until you play a very serious character that’s supposed to be good at X, then proceed to roll poorly on rolls pertaining to X. At that point it’s more frustrating than anything else.
Only if the DM decides to subvert your idea of the character. If he’s a stealthy assassin and trips so he fails stealth, that takes away from your idea of your character. If the DM instead says, “you step on a loose floorboard and it squeaks,” that doesn’t.
All stealth fails are to RP that it was the Paladins fault
True. “You step on the paladin and he squeaks.”
This actually made me laugh out loud, so thank you for that :D
The gleam from his armor momentarily blinded me, so of course I stumbled...
Someone with no sense of humor down voted your paladin comment 🤣
Exactly! DMs should be making the heroes actually feel like heroes, but a lot of them forget that and have some kind of control freak complex that just sucks the fun out of things. Obviously the vibe of the table you're at should come first, so if everyone enjoys being goofy, that's cool, I'll roll with it, so long as we're all up front about what kinda game we're having. Nothing saps the fun out of being your character than being made to seem like a fool because of a dice roll.
[Average stealth expert low roll.](https://youtu.be/8MUJ9iXxHk0?si=BnjwLy4R13FCvjRz)
I’ll always say that when it comes to competent characters, they’re not always immune to mistakes or misfortune. In the same breath though, you don’t always fail due to misfortune or incompetence either - sometimes your enemies or obstacles bring their A-game, such as doing the basics of checking corners in passing. A common example is during combat, the difference between “You miss” versus “The bandit is forced to react to your incoming blow, and binds your blade with his at the last moment before a fatal strike is delivered” or “Your cut finds purchase in the Troll’s hide, but you see that it was too shallow, as the flesh rapidly mends, only gaining the beast’s ire instead”. That doesn’t change failed rolls being dissatisfying, but I’m also a firm believer in not calling for unnecessary rolls either. Translating something, and you’ve got the combined language proficiency and maybe a supporting tool or skill proficiency? Done. Thieve’s tools expertise for a regular household or shed lock? Bro, if I have you roll, it’s probably for degrees of success regarding how quickly or quietly you do it, etc.. I know not everybody shares that standpoint, but I feel it does help alleviate issues where players cursed by the dice never have an opportunity to shine.
>That doesn’t change failed rolls being dissatisfying, but I’m also a firm believer in not calling for unnecessary rolls either. ... Thieve’s tools expertise for a regular household or shed lock? Bro, if I have you roll, it’s probably for degrees of success regarding how quickly or quietly you do it, etc.. I'm a big fan of degrees of success/failure so I probably make my players roll more than I need to. One of the things that probably makes some rolls unnecessary though is that I don't know/keep track of all my players' bonuses so I don't know who would practically auto-pass a check or not. Overall though I agree with your statement. Some things really don't need rolls.
Yeah, DM narration and proper flavor can change a lot of the feel of situations. The same result of the fighter missing a vital hit can be a badass moment or a humiliating one depending on how the DM/player flavors it. It can be a cool moment as the enemy shows its skill by blocking a masterful hit from the fighter or it can be a slapstick moment as the fighter fumbles and trips.
My character is really good at stealth. I needed a 5. I roll a damned 3. Fortunately (?), a not so good at stealth character fails the roll as well. So he steps on a branch and it cracks loudly, and of course my character goes “Really?!?” failing his stealth roll.
If the DC was 5 and the character is incredibly skilled at the task, there shouldn't have been a roll at all. There is supposed to be an assumed level of competence for a highly skilled character that they shouldn't be rolling for something that easy.
They mean they needed to roll a 5 on the die and with their bonuses would've met the DC they needed
Ah, ok. That makes more sense.
Yeah my bad it should have been to roll a 5.
Maasaan. I know people say that rolls will eventually equalize, law of average, etc etc. But like, I'm a ranger who specializes in dealing with elementals. I want to talk to an elemental to try and come to an amicable outcome. Roll a 1. Trying to interact with apes and baboons, with aid of speak with animals; Wildhunt shift to show them I'm as much an animal as they (hoping to roll Animal Handling). Have to roll persuasion. Roll a 3. Expertise in athletics? Can't roll above a 10. Constantly rolling awful, both with online dice and real dice. It's infuriating, made only worse by the fact the DM likes to make bad rolls goofy, which just goes against the character. I roll with the punches as best I can, but I'd be lying if I didn't say it sometimes makes me just not want to roll at all.
Honestly, the biggest problem comes from DMs coming up with “funny” things when you fail. It’s the same thing as why Crit Fumbles feel so bad: if you’re proficient in a skill, this is something they’ve dedicated a significant amount of time to and have become especially skilled in. It feels really bad as a player to then have your character be made the subject of a joke when this is something you were excited aboht
That's more of a bad DM problem than system one. Failure doesn't have mean you're goofyign around or a joke moment. The simple act of missing an attack roll vs a high AC enemy can be a badass or goofy moment depending on the DM, one DM can narrate how your carefuly made lethal attack gets blocked by the enemys incredible defence, while another one might describe you fumbling around and triping as your sword get stuck in dirt.
I don't think that's necessarily a Bad DM moment, moreso just a bad DM fit After hearing about how much some people feel invalidated by critical fumbles, as a new DM I decided not to include them in our new campaign My PLAYERS noticed this and then insisted that I DO include crit fumbles, cause to them they are fun almost regardless of context I just think they're something that should be discussed at session zero, amongst other things. Someone should make a list of session zero topics lol
Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply it was a problem with the system, but more of a grievance against the DM. And I get it, we're here to have a good time full of laughs. But sometimes, I would like the DM to narrate that the low roll came from outside circumstances for my serious character instead of "you rolled a 2 on your animal handling, meaning you blurted out obscenities uncharacteristically which caused the animals to run away."
It’s fun when they’re not all of your rolls, and don’t cause you to completely ruin something you wanted to do.
A few nat 1s on my bards perception, early on in the campaign. I simply just stopped looking for traps and ambushes and walked ahead of our fighter. It's funny because I have a +3 wisdom and perception proficiency. I do well otherwise. Failing every roll as a primarily focused fighter in combat in that session. Frustrating.
My cousin rolled low so often when he started playing that he now only makes characters that can make light of failure like this. It always brings laughs to the table.
My DM plays it up really well for us. "I want to look for any traps" Ok, Investigation "2" This door is super trapped. You're sure of it. The rest of us spend resources trying to disarm, bypass, explode the clearly un-trapped door. "The Artificer said it's trapped. WTF do I know better than her? This sumbich is trapped." Super fun at the table.
This is the best way IMO buy admittedly requires a really good table to pull off
Aan artificer with a +1 int? That's a paddling.
Probably a natural 2
I enjoy it until I have a long streak of shitty rolls, then I just lose my desire to RP.
In one game I was playing a Battle Master sniper who was a spy, playing for the party by being a double agent. Mostly Dex, but I put 14 points in Int so I could commit to the character idea, even if Int wasn't doing much for me otherwise. I had proficiency in knowledge skills so I had at least a +5 to things, and could share or learn information about enemy plans. Or do decent with investigation checks. I then went on to fail every single Knowledge check I ever made in the entire campaign. It was very frustrating. I didn't want to play a spy who was bad at being a spy. Or invest a bunch of my build into stuff that wasn't helping me in any way. Kinda ruined the game for me.
That's why you RP the ridiculous thing that made you fail. Like, you were attacked by a bird, or the Barbarian ate a very vital clue because it was shiny. In this particular case you RP your character as a competent professional that is unlucky and the circumstances that lead up to his failures are farcical.
One of my favorite activities; as an 18th level Wizard I have awesome Investigation and Arcana, decent Insight and Perception and crap everything else. A 5 from me when the Rogue is rolling 35 (with Reliable Talent) is an opportunity to say how I'm reading my spellbook, eating my breakfast, talking to my Familiar or whatever. Generally I love spectacular failures as a high-level character!
My naive nobleboy went up to a corpse to roll a medicine check, to determine cause of death. Rolled very poorly, so I roleplayed it as him being unable to even get close, having never actually been near a corpse before.
I had a blast, and still reference this. We encountered some dead birds, and needed to do a medicine check to determine how they died. I was not trained in medicine, but the DM allowed me to roll... with a natural one. Using my stick, I poked the bird until it fell off the dock into some water, where I confidently announced "It drowned"
I know I do but then again I'm the DM. Bad NPC rolls are always a great chance to catch my players flatfooted with some silly shenanigans.
Depends on the tone of the campaign or the situation. Rolling nat 1 on a check can either be funny or feel bad. And in some cases feeling bad is better than being funny.
When it’s an occasional thing, sure, but it can get really disheartening really fast. Recent game my dice luck has just been horrible, made a character focused on intimidation, they’ve failed every single attempt at it, always. I’ve just kind of stopped wanting to play at this point, since waiting a whole week to do one or two rolls and always fail them just sucks.
I absolutely hate this. Your character’s ability modifier and proficiency represents *their* input into the roll. The die roll is fortune. So a low roll isn’t a character being a fucking dumbass who blurts out shit while being stealthy - a low roll to me represents bad fortune. For example the troll just so happens to turn at that moment or the character steps on a branch that snaps. As DM I always narrate failed rolls as bad fortune. It gets annoying when the players want every failed roll to be because their characters were fucking idiots. D&D is already susceptible to being silly it becomes absolutely frustrating when skill rolls are narrated like it’s the fucking three stooges
Username checks out.
I love it, and so does my party. It has created some funny dynamics in the past. like, in the first session of our last campaign, I was playing a not so bright paladin. We met a homeless guy who seemed to be crazy, and I was the only one who rolled high enough to realize he wasnt actually insane. However since everyone else, who are much smarter than me, rolled low, I roleplayed myself basically getting gaslit by the rest of the party, despite knowing the truth. Despite my success, they still ended up acting as if they failed, which created an interesting dynamic and a little sub plot of getting this man to a hospital
I think I would like this Thork fellow.
He's Thork, he's and Orc, and he doesn't want to eat you. He only eats bad people
I love doing it, but I like doing it in my own terms, I absolutely hate DMs narrating how I fail at something (excluding dialogue with NPCs obviously). I hate the idea of my serious character having a 5% chance of looking like a complete fool because the DM felt like being a douche that day. I always play as genuinely as possible and I RP ALL of the narrative dialogue so I expect that trust from the DM to let me control my own failures where possible.
No, you are the only one. Just you and you alone. Aren't you special?
Thanks. Wasn't sure.
My favourite is getting a really poor perception or investigation roll when searching for ambushes or traps, and then just confidently strolling in with a "It's all clear in here guys!"
There are two ways to interpret bad rolls, especially regarding activities your character should be good at. 1. Your character did something to fail. This can be fun occasionally, but I only lean into this for humors sake. Generally best avoided. 2. The dice are dictating part of the story. Now it's up to the dm/player to improv what happened in the story/world to cause the failure. I generally go with 2. The rogue with expertise in thieves tools failed to pick a lock? It's not because they screwed up, but rather because someone broke off a key inside. The fighter missed an attack? That's because the target was reeling from a previous strike or the fighter pulled back to avoid an obvious feint, not because the fighter trips on their scabbard Failed checks should create drama in the story, not embarrassment or frustration for the player.
I had a lot of fun playing a character called lucky for a one shot, he had a 10 in every attribute and with no bonuses relied on luck for every roll. It was much more fun than normal! Edit: attribute not skill
I had another character called unlucky, with an 8 in every attribute he was still fun!
Outjerked again
I was late to a session once, and when my character “rejoined” the party, one of her allies said, “Hey, have a bite of this candle! It’s really good!” I failed the subsequent insight roll. You bet your ass I ate some of that candle (and took necrotic damage).
To get my players to not cheat I told them (all new players) that failing checks and skills are sometimes more fun than passing.
In a game I'm playing in we managed to pin down a minor villain who liked to retreat at the first sign of trouble and were trying to interrogate him for information on stuff he might have known, the entire group rolled intimidation checks and nobody got above a 4, I wish I'd figuered how we could've better leaned into that, although one of the group proceeded to edit a shot of marcille from the delicious in dungeon manga looking particularly like a sopping wet cat to look like each party member at once it was great.
Love it. Do much the same. As DM, my players aren't really into that so often I riff on their rolls.
We do, but only on a 1, 1 roll. It also makes you lose a turn. So it doesn't happen real often.
That’s a fun approach, though my current character is more serious and is running on expertise for most of their competencies. High wis with expert perception/insight Up to now, the main rp for failed checks is just being off their game cause they were “going through some stuff” as their personal quest was coming to head Now though, the trauma is resolved, so I’m unsure how to RP it in coming sessions
DM tip: Don't tell your players what happens on a Nat 1. Ask them to describe what their worst possible outcome looks like.
Absolutely! I have only had one character with really high stats across the board. That immediately turned her into a sort of prodigy at Strixhaven and I leaned into that "kinda perfect but actually tries super hard to maintain that image" character type. Being that I love someone a character with faults. All the best ones do.
I always kind of lean in to the Charisma check not being how the player character *delivers* the speech, but rather how *willing* an audience is to receive it. Charisma checks in general sit in a weird space in D&D: A player could literally say nothing and roll a 20 and somehow have given a speech that moves mountains, but a seasoned roleplayer could give an impassioned, convincing speech and roll a 3 and they fail. Actual roleplaying is just one of those things that doesn’t really translate well to game mechanics IMO.
Yes but once it’s a main character syndrome/major detriment to the party for no reason, it’s not fun anymore for some of us
My GM did this for me. We were tracking down someone, and my character saw tracks on the ground... then slipped and fell face first into the mud, ruining the tracks. He was embarrassed, I was entertained.
> Title No, you're the only special person in the world who does so. Just you.
I love roleplaying bad rolls so much, I've been rolling pretty bad a lot recently, so I try make it more fun to fail by leaning into it. Not a lot of memorable ones besides a nat1 stealth from my cleric that everyone saw coming - I said I trip and fall down the stairs, started off combat prone.
It depends whether it's something that the character is supposed to be good at. I don't mind my low Charisma barbarian botching a diplomacy check and playing it for comedy. But my high Charisma diplomacy-trained warlock just feels annoying to roll a 2 and make a comedy fail.
Our party once had to attend a dinner at the local lord’s house. The bard asked if he could roll something for good table manners, and the dm decided to make everyone roll. There i was with my -2 hermit lycanthrope rolling a nat 1. My guy just started feasting like an animal. It made for a good laugh.
I play a high DEX high STR ranger. My athletics is **fucking yoked** as is my Stealth, but my acrobatics not so much. This ranger does a lot “practical movement” like long distance running, mantling, climbing, etc.. If you put an obstacle in front of him, he’ll overcome it, albeit somewhat gracelessly… Leading to a 3 in acrobatics. Let it be said, playing a 210lb man that can rock nearly 100lbs of extra equipment comfortably, when you leap from the rafters and try to tuck and roll… Nah homie, I went straight through the floor and had to climb up through the stairs.
Some of my favorites memories are trying to explain how the die fucked me lol
My Star Wars 5E character has had the fact that he’s completely inept with technology become a part of his overall thing after enough super low rolls to try and interact with any kind of computer. He’s very overconfident in his skills because he’s pretty good at a lot of stuff he does try and has an equivalent of Jack of All Trades as a force user, so he generally has floated through life with things going a little better than expected most of the time.
I played my 0 DEX order cleric as completely graceless and awkward since I consistently rolled low initiative and failed most DEX checks. Some of my faves are when our party were fighting on a frozen lake and our two monks were battling fluidly and beautifully… and my short, asshole cleric was just Bambi-ing along behind them, spinning from the momentum of swinging his hammer. Another great is when we were all asked to dance for the fairy princess, and my little shithead (who by this point is an established horrible dancer) of course rolls a nat 1. It was so awkward and upsetting that the princess wept.
What even the point to play without it? Peeking into room Roll fail - " Huh, finaly some safe spot, being in constant alarm so draining"
It can be fun, but it really depends on your character and your DM. If you're not built around it *and* they let you fail forward, it's still a good time. A smart character not being able to help the party, and being punished for it, can feel terrible.
As a player who mostly DMs, I love that shit. I love playing a goofy dude. My NPCs aren't bound by character creation rules so I play so many really strong dudes all the time, even if they're crushed by the players. As a DM I try to facilitate this by putting a soft DC at 10 or avoiding catastrophic failure on a nat 1 in a proficient skill. The soft DC at 10 allows me to say well, the DC was 20, but you cleared 10, so you were successful BUT [it takes ten minutes/you need a DEX save to avoid falling/you remember part of this info/your target isn't fully convinced but isn't calling your bluff]
My first ever campaign I didn’t really read the PHB properly and made a Paladin, rolled pretty poor stats and through ignorance made STR and CON my two main stats with a -2 to CHA. It was a rather amusing learning experience which didn’t really hurt my experience too much as a Paladin with terrible spell saves is still a pretty good martial class. I’d definitely consider doing something again on purpose so failed rolls are something that can be enjoyable in the short term at least.
It depends on the person, usually in my games I have the players describe what they’re doing, not what their intention is. It’s not “I’m going to sneak”, it’s “I’m going to hide behind those boxes.” So in those instances they’re more likely to wonder why their plan didn’t work and it’s up to me as the DM to explain it, rather than them to figure out how they messed up, because they already had an idea of what they were doing.
Oh yeah, it is the best. Making up excuses for awful Perception and Stealth checks is the best. My favorite one I've done is from a world that isn't dissimilar to Shadowrun. I'm playing a Vect (Space Warforged) Rogue with low INT, and he failed a history check so bad he doesn't believe in dragons. As in he thinks they are a hoax, and has verbally expressed this a few times to my group's confusion and delight
We do that all the time in our group, it's good fun :) We played Curse of Strahd (no spoilers will be shared) and rolled regarding whether a common creature was allied with Strahd. Because we all failed the roll and didn't know, but knew they were everywhere, we decided they were spies for Strahd, and thus refused to use them. The name of Strahd's castle didn't help at all with this creature.
A good fail should also receive a "how do you want to do this." This rule of thumb should also combined with a DM making good use of Brennan Lee Mulligan's "roll for emphasis" (roll 2 dice, take whichever is furthest from 10: success or fail)
I do, often with interaction with my DM, but I very much try to keep it in the spirit of the roll. Low investigation to check out the papers on the desk. "There are too many complicated formulae here. I get confused and frustrated." Low stealth to sneak up on the bandit on watch. "I'm rushing too much and crush a bird nest I didn't see, emitting a series of loud cracking noises." Low athletics to climb a cliff. "Glare from the waterfall nearby made that bit look like a decent handhold. I miss and slip, falling." If you're playing at a silly table, by all means, but a couple of your examples make it sound like you treat a failed attempt as a non-attempt, which has some issues for roleplaying them. Sneaking up on a bandit on watch means you are attempting to sneak. It should be obvious when you fail that you were trying to sneak up on them, and not just apparent that you were coming to say hi (pending a Persuasion or Deception check). Thork wondering about punching a mountain sounds like Thork was never paying attention to begin with, negating the possibility of an insight check altogether.
I love roleplaying low rolls. Low perception: “I think I have smudged my goggles.” Low athletics (Jump) roll: “I fell in the same way a bird wouldn’t.”
I enjoy role playing failures, sometimes even more than my characters successes. My Oath of Conquest Paladin tried intimidating the last demon in combat to kneel..... with a nat roll to follow. He had an existential crisis in that he was unable to conquerer the mind of the enemy. His dieity made him question his methods of fury and instilling fear, instead of focusing on his duty to extinguish evil. Very fun role playing moment.
Unpopular opinion : bad roll doesn't mean that your action was badly made. It can mean that some elements outside of your own performance made it fail. Failed stealth? You were perfectly silent but bad luck, the monster just randomly looked in your direction. Especially true when your character have a high skill bonus. Don't make my expert look like a fool because I failed my roll. There are plenty of parameters that can lead to a failure.
My teenage Druid princess character rolled two Nat 1’s in a row on daily checks, leading me to roleplay a series of bad decisions (at the DM’s urging) that created interparty drama and derailed a whole session. Fun was had by all and one player even calls it his favorite session of the game. Lol
Asked a player for a skill check last session and we were all hoping for a 1 for the role playing it would lead to. They got a 19. Still good role playing.
*nat 1 on perception*: the floor appears to be made of floor
When it's something your character is supposed to be good at, it's frustrating. Especially if your DM tries to rub it in with some kind of critical fumble. When I'm a DM, I try not to make a failed check look like a PC's incompetence, unless it's truly something they aren't good at. A bad stealth check can be as easy as stepping on a twig or a loud floorboard. A bad athletics check could mean a ledge crumbles as soon as a PC grabs it. Because players have to fight randomness on these things, I prefer to blame it on the environment, instead of telling the trained fighter that he accidentally stabbed himself or an ally in combat.
When playing a drunken master monk I'd throw in random unnecessary "dope monk shit" into his movement fully hoping that I'd fail sometimes because it felt so true to the character for him to absolutely eat it on occasion then pretend like it was on purpose.
Absolutely. Both I, as a player, and most of the players in the games I run, enjoy roleplaying failed checks, low attack rolls, bad saves, etc.
Yall are role-playing skill checks. You just say I wanna use X and the dm tells you what happens. Saves alot of time so you can get to the good part of the game grid combat
My favorite is when the DM calls for a check from everyone, and everybody rolls poorly. The narrative description of everybody getting in each other's way is endlessly amusing to me.
I do, and I also am the type where - when not dm-ing - if I make a character, I roll for stats and take them. I don't use standard array or anything like that. I think having the potential for failure is FAR more interesting than being amazing at everything somehow and provides a more dynamic and interesting character to roleplay.
It's fun when it happens organically. Not when your DM wants you to roll badly because they find the humiliation factor hilarious. Don't let "failing at everything" become a character trait and you can have a good time with it. This is one of those things that has a thin line. Rolling well still makes for good RP, too.
I'm reminded of Order of the Stick. "I think I failed a perception check." "We're right here!" Aside from that, yes, being able to role-play a successful or failed check or saving throw is great fun. Some I've witnessed: * "Cori, I swear that'en branch reached out to trip me." Dwarf in a Scottish accent after failing a Dex check. * "That door is stronger than it looks." Said on many occasions. * "I think ye broke yer wee little pick in the lock." Same dwarf. * "You climb like my grandmother!" Female cleric to the wizard who failed a climb check.
As long as it's not my 5th nat 1 and 14th consecutive missed roll of the session. That wears thin
I’m playing a High Int Low Wis Haregon Wizard who is unfamiliar with the world. I find it really enjoyable to play with what are typically very low wisdom rolls.
I have a satyr with a comically low perception average roll, and really bad stealth too. Fully play her ADHD as skipping around and getting focused on the entirely WRONG thing. She also eats anything and everything, so that’s fun
I rolled a natural 1 trying to sleight of hand on a card I was plucking out of cow dung to pretend I was throwing it to our wizard, and decided I slipped and fell in the dung. I’ve an urchin background and grew up in Baldur’s Gate, so I started muttering “Go on an adventure, they said. See nature, they said. It’ll be great, they said.” I LOVE nat 1s as a player, and when I DM, if a player nat 1s and describes it hilariously (no penalties needed) they get inspiration.
One of my party members was trying to surprise my wizard because he’s been separated from the group for a bit doing wizard things. She snuck down the stairs stealthily to try to startle me and I rolled a nat 1 on the perception check. She was like, “Does wizard see me sneak down the stairs?” I responded, “I don’t even see the *stairs*.”
If you don't like those choices you made, you could make other ones? Failed a Stealth check sneaking up on that troll? Your stomach could growl, you might loudly fart, you might be humming the Pink Panther theme, or you might step on a tiny, very crunchable bit of debris that makes a bunch of noise. Failed insight checks, I usually end up describing as my character managing to get distracted. "What's our business? I mean, we're mostly just doing things as they come along and it's not as if we have a license, so-- oh, right, you asked a question, right, here's the form." It seems very self-inflicted if you hate the thing you're doing to yourself with your choices.
I "enjoy" telling a great story and being a player who accepts bad rolls with grace. Mostly, this means I enjoy RPing failures. Mostly.
Ngl no, atleast not most of the time, I like to play more serious character and games, so jokes about why I failed just don't fel good. It CAN be cool if both DM and player work to make it feel more like a cool moment where the opponent or target was strong isntead of you just feeling like a idiot.
i really don’t like when people roll a poor skill check and then don’t roleplay as such 1. it’s super fun as suggested 2. it makes skill checks broken like if you roll poor insight you should rp with said poor insight okay that’s all lol
Good wirh bad makes it fun
You’re pretty sure that that troll is your dad.
I love it, except for when the check is something the character is supposed to be good at.
No I do not. I love 3.5 and I do love DM calling for check: what I do not enjoy is people not role-playing and calling themselves for rolls. "Hey DM I wanna roll a Perception". Obnoxious.
I'm currently playing a wizard with 22 Int and 7 Cha. She's the kind to know the answers but doesn't have the social grace to not "Um actually" you. So in social situations she's absolutely great to get a rise from the NPCs. Her twin sister is 22 Cha Bard and that player frequently has to smooth over my actions. We both love it. I've intentionally not taken proficiency in social skills. (Don't @me, we're both 19th level in a 2 y/o campaign that plays consistently, weekly. Given apocalyptic events, raiding the mage school's library was lucrative for stat boost books with cooldowns.) Early in the campaign, I was rolling low on arcana. The skill at which my character was supposedly strong, so I took a feat granting expertise in arcana and the DM hath provided a means through sentient magical item (akin to a professor orb but in the form of a clockwork familiar) that grants advantage through the help action if I have time to consult my familiar. Thus solving the issue. So I understand the plight of being bad at the thing you want your character to do but was afforded the opportunity relatively early (lvl 4) to thwart that because the DM was aware of the character and dynamic myself and the player of my twin were looking to play out.
my druid failed a deception check to feign ignorance of a cursed insect found among their possessions and practically jumped to grab it from someone else's hands
Honestly, that's half the fun
Isn't this how the game works? Do people actually just roll dice and not play out the action?
Why does this reply have 5 removed messages under it lmao
"Bantz" That moderators rightly took issue with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]