Missing Rules

iserith · Aug 19, 2018

Reynard said:
We have probably exhausted the potential for worthwhile debate on the topic, especially given our very different readings of that paragraph in the DMG. But thank you! It was a fun discussion.

Indeed. I'll leave you with this which gives an example of what the DMG is talking about in that section (page 239, for anyone who wants to see what [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION] was referencing). So here, from Basic Rules, page 2:

Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?
Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?
DM: Make an Intelligence check. <---
Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply? <---
DM: Sure!
Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven.
DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?

In other words, "Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check."

Maxperson · Aug 19, 2018

iserith said:
DMG page 237: "When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores... Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure."

The section goes on from there about determining uncertainty.

That's pretty wide open, though. "Meaningful" can be anything from failing to accomplish the goal to falling off of the swinging platform to your death. Thanks for showing me where that is, though.

Maxperson · Aug 19, 2018

AlViking said:
Isn't it also ignoring the rule which says: You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump?

I don't remember if they say it in this edition, but I assume specific overrides general.

Specific beats general, but that only ever comes into play when there's a conflict. You can't go through walls AND passwall allows you to go through walls is an example of specific beating general. The situation under discussion has no such conflict. "You can try to jump an unusually long distance" does not conflict with how to go about setting up actions and ruling on them, so the only general rule for it to beat is the one governing jump distance.

Maxperson · Aug 19, 2018

smbakeresq said:
That’s not how it works. There is no penalty for failing to jump a distance, you just don’t jump as far. What is underneath you doesn’t matter for the purposes of the jump check, your check determines the distance you jumped for that effort.

Think about it, as a DM you say “it’s 20’ to jump across a chasm, the DC is 20, start making checks as you each jump across.” Someone gets a 19, so they jumped 19’ and are 1’ away from the other side in the air, they didn’t “fail” to jump, they just jumped less. I would give them a Str and Dex check to grab the other side assuming they had 1’ of reach. I would grant advantage if they said something like “I am holding both of my daggers in my hands pointed down to dig them into the ledge if I am a little short.” Or using a the pick side of an ax the grab the ledge like Steppenwolf did in Justice League.

That is how it works. If it's 20 feet to jump the chasm, it doesn't matter if you went 19 feet, because you FAILED to jump 20. Because of that failure, you now have the penalty of trying make the dex check to see if you can grab the ledge and not fall potentially to your death.

ad_hoc · Aug 19, 2018

Reynard said:
You are making a value judgement here, not expressing anything that is actually in the rules of the game.

If you play 5e that way then, yes, the skill rules will seem bad. That isn't a problem with 5e. It's just a matter of taste. It's important to understand that as otherwise the skill rules won't make sense. It's not a value judgement, play however you want. It's just that certain styles of play aren't well supported by the game.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

"When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores...Only call for a roll when there is a meaningful consequence for failure."

That's the rule. You are free to dislike it or play contrary. It's just that you will likely have issues as seen in this thread. I've seen many threads like this. Most of them involve the poster complaining about how much more sense the 3e skill rules make. It's not wrong to prefer another game. Just don't be upset when the game you are playing is not that other game.

Maxperson · Aug 19, 2018

Reynard said:
But there is nothing in the rules that says that the character making the Strength (Athletics) check to jump an unusually long distance (a thing explicitly allowed by the rules) needs to come up with some convoluted explanation for how they are going to do so.

There is. It's at the beginning on page 6. The players have to describe what they want the PCs to do. Then the DM narrates the result.

Grackon wants to make an athletics check to jump farther is not a description of what the PC is doing to jump farther. There's nothing there other than a description of a normal jump. Now, letting you know that the Grackon is rolling a log to the edge of the chasm to provide a higher push off point for his jump IS a description of what the PC is doing to be able to jump farther than normal. The formal should result in the DM stating that Grackon automatically fails to jump farther, not having described anything that would allow him to be able to jump farther. The latter is such a description and would probably be entitled at least to a roll, if not an auto success.

Maxperson · Aug 19, 2018

Reynard said:
In neither of the above are the words "in some circumstances" found. So, according tot he rules, Strength checks and the Athletics skill cover jumping, including jumping unusually long distances. According to the rules on Ability checks, the DM sets the DC. (The DM also decides which Abilities and/or Skills apply, but in this case it seems clear that Strength and Athletics are applicable.)

It's right there where I bolded. In order to be unusual, it must be only done in some circumstances or it could not be considered to be unusual. If it can be done all the time, then it's usual.

Charlaquin · Aug 19, 2018

Reynard said:
How do you mean "contrary to the rules for resolving a jump that are written in the player's handbook"? Do you mean because of the chance of jumping a shorter distance than your strength allows? Because remember the rules regarding Ability Checks require a chance of failure, otherwise no roll should be called for.

I mean, the rules player’s handbook don’t say you make a DC10 Athletics check, jumping half your maximum jump distance on a failure, and your maximum plus an extra foot for every 5 over the DC on a success. That’s a perfectly reasonable method of resolving a jump is perfectly fine, but to say it’s “how the game works” is just not true. How the game works is that can jump up to a certain distance, determined by your Strength score, full stop. In some circumstances you may be able to make an ability check (possibly applying a relevant proficiency) to clear a distance greater than you can jump, as per the game’s normal action resolution system.

Charlaquin · Aug 19, 2018

Maxperson said:
That's pretty wide open, though. "Meaningful" can be anything from failing to accomplish the goal to falling off of the swinging platform to your death. Thanks for showing me where that is, though.

Simply failing to accomplish a goal, per se, is not a meaningful consequence, because it leaves you in exactly the situation you would be in had you not made the attempt in the first place. If you can’t distinguish between failing and never having tried, then the consequences for failing were not meaningful. If something has changed for the worse as a result of the attempt, or a limited resource has been expended, that’s a meaningful consequence.

Another way to phrase “if there is no meaningful consequence for failure, you don’t need to roll” is, “if there’s no reason you can’t keep trying until you succeed, you succeed.”

Maxperson · Aug 19, 2018

Charlaquin said:
Simply failing to accomplish a goal, per se, is not a meaningful consequence, because it leaves you in exactly the situation you would be in had you not made the attempt in the first place.

Which could be up &$^$'s creek, which is meaningful in that 1. you are still there, and 2. one possible way to get out of it has been closed off to you, which has meaning. It won't always be meaningful, but simple failure can be meaningful.

If you can’t distinguish between failing and never having tried, then the consequences for failing were not meaningful.

To you. To others being in the same crappy situation is a meaningful consequence of failure,.

If something has changed for the worse as a result of the attempt, or a limited resource has been expended, that’s a meaningful consequence.

Sure, but as I correctly point out above, it's not the only meaningful consequence.

is, “if there’s no reason you can’t keep trying until you succeed, you succeed.”

Which does not preclude ending up in the same crappy situation after a simple failure. The PCs situation has not changed as the ogres are still hurling spears at them, and they've just failed to climb out of the way. However, there's great meaning in that situation, despite nothing changing.