D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[iserith]

maybe i am misreading you but are you suggesting that a GM who has decided a taks is an auto-success would allow a low roll to result in failure?

No, as I say I ignore rolls I didn't ask for, but I take the time to explain why asking to make ability checks isn't such a great strategy in general. This is a way to break their habit of asking to roll or forcing one.

 

[5ekyu]

You’ve misunderstood. If the task is auto-success there is no roll.

you said you would take a low resulkt as a failure even if "even if I was not going to call for a roll in the first place. "

now, maybe you want to play retro-cause and effect and say that because a roll was made the task that was going to be no roll required changed into a chance of failure because of the roll being made...

but it seems like the player rolling a dice changed your determination about the task.

Why?

Does it work both ways? if he gets a roll down before you say "no roll" can he succeed even if you were going to say "no roll needed - fail"

Why does a roll being made change the determination of whether it can succeed or can fail?

 

[robus]

you said you would take a low resulkt as a failure even if "even if I was not going to call for a roll in the first place. "

now, maybe you want to play retro-cause and effect and say that because a roll was made the task that was going to be no roll required changed into a chance of failure because of the roll being made...

but it seems like the player rolling a dice changed your determination about the task.

Why?

Does it work both ways? if he gets a roll down before you say "no roll" can he succeed even if you were going to say "no roll needed - fail"

Why does a roll being made change the determination of whether it can succeed or can fail?

I’m not Iserith, but if you reread his response you’ll find he ignores players rolls he didn’t request. His ruling is final.

 

[5ekyu]

No, as I say I ignore rolls I didn't ask for, but I take the time to explain why asking to make ability checks isn't such a great strategy in general. This is a way to break their habit of asking to roll or forcing one.

Why is going ahead and rolling a dice that is commonly done in a game not a great "strategy"?

If the Gm was going to say "auto-succeed" as in "no roll needed" my dice should not change that.
if the Gm was going to say "auto-fail, no roll need, my roll should not change that.
if the Gm was going to say "roll" and my roll should not change that as it compared to whatever DC.
If the Gm thought another skill was appropriate, he can describe the results for the skill i used, likely not what i was after and then we can get to another character or me using a more appropriate skill.

i am seriously asking what is the "strategy" involved there?

hey, do you know that some games roll damage dice along with to-hit dice, even if that damage die roll may not be used?

should that also be treated this way? ignore the damage roll even if the attack hits?

 

[iserith]

you said you would take a low resulkt as a failure even if "even if I was not going to call for a roll in the first place. "

now, maybe you want to play retro-cause and effect and say that because a roll was made the task that was going to be no roll required changed into a chance of failure because of the roll being made...

but it seems like the player rolling a dice changed your determination about the task.

Why?

Does it work both ways? if he gets a roll down before you say "no roll" can he succeed even if you were going to say "no roll needed - fail"

Why does a roll being made change the determination of whether it can succeed or can fail?

I think I see the error.

In my games, you don't make ability checks without being asked to.

In games in which I have played, where DMs are inclined to say "Yes" when players ask to roll or accept the result of unsolicited rolls, a player who doesn't do that (like me) and simply states goal and approach tend to be more successful. You end up rolling less. In my experience, anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

I’m not Iserith, but if you reread his response you’ll find he ignores players rolls he didn’t request. His ruling is final.

thanks for that clarification but i dont think anybody questions whether or not a given Gms ruling is final in his game, so how does that apply here?

 

[happyhermit]

Do you find this makes combat go better?

third round player standing next to boss and says " i want to hit him with my battle axe"
you say OK, that will be a take attack action so you will need to roll d20 and add your attack bonus"
player rolls then gives you the result.
you do some pausing then say "ok you hit just like last time, so now you need to roll your damage and add your strength modifiers

every time
every turn
every character
no exceptions
even if it has been done before and before and before

that goes well huh?
...

It can go well, yes. Except for all the BS about the GM ego and "his" pair of dice and the pausing and the description. I have run/played in sessions where the GM called for every roll, and it happened for a variety of reasons mostly to do with lots of description, roleplay and non-standard stuff in combat. It really only added a bit more time to combat and it actually often flows better in those cases. These games have a lot of situational advantage/disadvantage, complicated Totm battlefields, players doing things other than just "I hit it with my axe", and so on. So, a player describes what they want to try to do and the GM might say; "Roll with advantage" or "Make a dex check" or, if it really is a straight forward situation and the player says "I bring my axe above my head, scream in rage and slash with all my might" the GM just says "Roll it".

 

[Severite]

Why? Why did that action just become harder in your world?

Would it go the other way if you decided an action was impossible but he rolled high?

or is this just punishment being handed down?

i seriously want to know what is being gained by doing this?

Because there are many different ways to play the game, as I said in an earlier post, I almost always ignore them if they are not relevant, which has saved people when they have rolled poorly, but used the wrong skill, or no roll was necessary at all (to extrapolate on that thought, it has also more rarely left people with a high roll that they did not get to use). But I stay consistent in my approach to the rules. So, yes, if the player rolled, and failed, and I was inclined to take the roll, I would then in that game also very likely go with a rule that 1's are always failures, and by extension a 20 would always be a success.

Though, in my earlier example I would set base DC as 10

 

[Severite]

Are you punishing the player for rolling when it wasn’t needed then?

I do not believe so, but instead of either copying and pasting my reply, I will instead refer back to my post when I replied to 5ekyu, and state that the one thing I very much believe in is fairness, and consistency. Often, I will even change up a house rule, or even core rule, if the table would like us to do so, but I then have it apply across the board, both for players, and NPC's

 

[Leatherhead]

I would honestly rather have this problem than the problem that I currently have with some players: I ask for a check and they fumble with their character sheet for two minutes while they struggle to remember what numbers to add to the check.

Seriously guys, we have been doing this stuff for years now, learn to play the game already.