Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad
Originally Posted by Zpawn
Also I think somebody mentioned it earlier, but does it really feel rewarding when you pass a check by plain luck?

If you've found yourself in a situation where you shouldn't be, absolutely. I remember in the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion for BG I was approaching the end of Durlag's Tower and I needed a rest, but thought I'd open one more door to see what was through it, and it was a Demonknight.

I was doomed. I had no reason to think this was a winnable encounter. Everyone was hurt and I was nearly out of spells and my wizard-heavy party definitely wasn't prepared to fight a think with 95% magic resistance. In desperation, Viconia (who had killed Kivan earlier in the dungeon, so I was also down an archer) fired a Hold Monster at the Demonknight, and despite the fiend's 95% magic resistance, it landed. Held, it was defenseless before Coran's arrows (sped up by his Boots of Speed) and the three wizards collectively hurling 9 darts per round.

I won that fight, and I will remember it until the day I die. So yes, it does feel rewarding to pass checks by pure luck.


Fair point, but I was referring more to the dialogue check. Like let`s say you fail a DC 15 persuasion check with your +5 to charisma warlock. And when you try again with your fighter, you succeed because you rolled a nat 20, even though he has -1 to charisma. It`s just too big of an inconsistency. For me, it makes it redundant whatever character I use for check, because it feels like "hey no matter what character I use, if I roll good, it won`t matter my bonuses, so i`ll be better off just using whomever"
That`s why I think there should be a difference between failing a DC 15 with a 14, and failing the DC 15 with a 1 or 2.