My megadungeon has numerous paths to most areas, and so there'd generally be another way around the trapped door. And there's also goblins that go around resetting their traps or laying new ones. But yeah, if the area beyond the trapped door wasn't accessible, then it would be silly of me to telegraph the followup trapped door with bloodstains . . . although the bloodstain could be from a treasure hunter who teleported past the first trap.
Anyway, there are plenty of ways to telegraph a trap without using signs of a previous victim. I've got a trapped portcullis where the players will see barrels of poison gas on the other side, for example. And then some tombs clearly warn they are trapped because I figured they figure it's better to turn away cowards so the trap will remain untriggered.
I find it a fun creative exercise.
Yeah, I considered the multiple paths thing. Just, most of the "foreshadowing" people talk about is done by showing signs of the trap being triggered before. Always makes me wonder how they square that with places where the trap wouldn't have been triggered yet.
Also, because I enjoy puzzle solving, I'm curious how that trap with the portcullis and the barrels works. I'm assuming that the portcullis being triggered breaks the barrels and unleashes the poison (though how they can tell poison gas from a distance...) but isn't that a really easy trap to get past? Hit the barrels from a distance and wait for the poison to dissipate or settle. Heck, might even be able to use it against the trap designer by pushing the poison further past the portcullis.
It seems too simple, so am I missing something or is that one supposed to be an easy one?
Sorry, I copy and paste quote tags a lot, and sometimes things get mixed up. My bad there.
Like I said, no problem. I was just wondering if it was some kind of ENworld system glitch.
Or if I was secretly Oofta and didn't know it
Yes, because the thing you’re doing is defined by the rules as an ability check. You’re just skipping the roll for expediency’s sake.
Did the approach of flagging down the waitress have a reasonable chance of succeeding in the goal of getting her to come to your table, a reasonable chance of failing to do so, and a cost for attempting or consequence for failing? If so, then why are you skipping the dice roll? If not, then an ability check is not the proper method of adjudicating the action, and there’s no reason for that DC5 to just be out there, existing in isolation of an action that requires a check to resolve.
Reliable Talent is only applicable to ability checks, ergo if Reliable Talent is coming into play, there must be a reasonable chance of the approach succeeding in achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of the approach failing to achieve the goal, and a cost for attempting or consequence for failing. If you choose to skip the actual dice rolling part because the effect of Reliable Talent makes it impossible to get a roll result lower than the DC, that’s fine, but it doesn’t make the process of comparing your lowest possible result to a DC not a check.
I'm not seeing how this is all consistent.
In both cases there was no reasonable chance of failure but one is an ability check, because being an ability check is how there is no reasonable chance at failure.
You cannot fail if your lowest possible roll beats the DC, therefore there is no reasonable chance of failure, therefore you do not roll. But it is an ability check. It has to be, otherwise there is a reasonable chance of failure and a roll must be made.
And why does it matter if I make up phantom DCs? If I know the bard has been eager to use their disguise kit, so I figure disguising themselves to get into the castle is a reasonable course of action they may choose to take in next weeks game, why can I not decide what the DC is likely to be ahead of time? I have created an obstacle, assigned a DC to a possible action the player's might take, but that doesn't mean anything about how the actual event will unfold. Maybe they will act like I suspect and I'll be prepared, maybe they'll pull out the Award for Valor they got from a prominent Knight I totally forgot they had in their inventory and be allowed to walk right in. DCs can exist seperate from the actions of the players, in a space of potential plans and actions.
Heck, we already have a second example from the book. It is a DC 20 strength check, a barbarian has an ability that says their lowest result for a strength check is their strength score. With a 20 strength, they cannot fail, and even if they did fail the consequences of failing to break manacles are generally status quo, but the ability only works if they make a strength check.
Not every check corresponds to a d20 roll.
Right, and my point was that your reason for calling for a roll despite the results not actually mattering (namely that your players like to roll dice) is a result of the fact that calling for rolls that have no consequence for failure changes the incentives in your game. In your game, checks are how things get done. You break down doors by succeeding on Strength (athletics) checks, and failing Strength (athletics) checks doesn’t really mean anything, except that you didn’t manage to break down the door, or didn’t manage to break it down right away. Naturally players want to roll in a game where that is the procedure. In my games, you don’t break down doors by succeeding on checks, you open doors by breaking them down, and if something bad could happen as a result of you trying to break the door down, then a check is how we decide if that bad thing happens or not. Naturally, players in my games want to avoid making checks. I like that incentive my style creates. I want plauers thinking about what their characters can do to insure the best possibility of success, not what check they have the highest bonus to.
I don't want to comment on your experience, but at that sort of table I would be terrified to try something my character is bad at.
If my warlock got tossed in a cell, with his +0 strength and no proficiency in athletics, I'd never try and break the door to get out. Maybe by magical means, but I'd want to know what bonus I got before trying to roll. Because, if I fail to break down the door, my situation gets worse. Even if I try and break off a bed leg to get a bar to leverage advantage, the DC is likely at least a 15 and with a +0 I need to roll 15 or better. The odds are really bad. And failure hurts my chances of getting out even more. I'd be much better served pretending to be sick and angling for a performance or deception check, which gets me a +4 or +7 to the roll.
However, at a game where failure does not automatically mean things get worse, I might try athletics. It is certainly a faster solution, and maybe I see speed as of the essence. IF I fail, well they'll know I tried to escape but it doesn't necessarily mean things get worse.
All I see from a style of play where failure is punished more harshly every time, is a style of play that disincentives risk. The low charisma characters won't try to talk their way out, because they have a bad chance at that if it comes to a roll. And if you say "I hear you want to persuade the guard to let you go by talking about your achievements for the city, but he's not convinced your deeds outweigh the damages you've done. It'll be a DC 15 charisma persuasion check, and if you fail you might get slapped with a huge fine instead of simply tossed in jail" Then as a player who sees -1 charisma on his sheet, I'm going to try and backpedal. I've got only a 25% chance of making that roll. 75% chance of making things worse, no way, I'll let the bard take over. No reason for me to risk making that roll.
Alternatively, I've had quite a few times in my games where a player will pipe up trying to convince an NPC of something, or trying to look for a clue, despite having no mechanical skill. Because they don't fear failure. That doesn't mean there are no consequences ever, sometimes failure hurts, but the consequences are in line with what they attempted, and they are not guaranteed to make things worse by trying.
I could be wrong, but you seem here to suggest that "an ability check" is an abstractly existing thing, or a latent element of the fiction. Whereas an ability check is clearly an event that occurs at the table in order to decide certain things about the fiction.
So the question is, Is flagging down the waitress as that possibility has arisen here-and-now in the play of the game the sort of moment in the fiction that, at our table and by the rules of our game, requires an ability check to resolve it? DIfferent tables might answer differently. But if one table answers no, then that's that - the fiction unfolds without any check being needed to determine how it unfolds. There's no (abstract, possible) check that's been "skipped over".
But, this creates a problem from my perspective as I discussed above.
If ability checks only exist when a roll happens, and rolls only happen when their is a reasonable chance of failure, then what do abilities that change the result of a roll to eliminate that reasonable chance of failure do?
A high level barbarian does not have a reasonable chance of failure to break standard manacles, but that is only because they have an ability which dictates the result of that ability check. No chance of failure, no roll, no ability check, then the ability which removed the chance of failure does not activate. If the game definitions of "Ability check" are stringent enough that they are only this one thing which involves a D20 roll.... then how is this consistent? And if their are ability checks which do not require a roll... then the statement I said a few hundred posts ago was correct, despite people telling me it was not.
I
I'm not across the shopkeeper example, but just picking up on this: I think what makes the fiction interesting, in adventure-oriented RPGing, is what is at stake. And in the example of being spotted by a goblin scout, it seems that quite a bit might be at stake. So I'm missing why is not interesting.
As I understand the positions of those I'm discussing with, a check needs to have direct consequences on the narrative.
Finding out the shopkeeper is lying was not interesting, supposedly because the adventure was not about whether or not they were lying but what they were lying about.
By that same logic, being spotted by the scout is not interesting. Being spotted does not have a direct consequence, and some of the consequences that could arise are easily canceled out by players.
At, while the stakes for being spotted by an enemy scout are immediately obvious, the stakes for this merchant break-in are not. It could be high stakes involved (and likely is since we are investigating it as part of the adventure) so failing to know that could have just as dire consequences going forward.
That's why I'm confused, a single obstacle is rarely interesting. Whether the goblin scout sees you or not is not interesting, how the players react to the goblin scout darting out of hiding to warn the cave of your approach is interesting. Whether of not the merchant is lying isn't interesting, but the consequences of not realizing he's working with the bad guys can be interesting.
I
One answer would be that the rules force a division between the GM deciding that no check is called for and the GM deciding to call for a check, and setting a DC, which the player of the rogue can't miss. This happens in my 4e game quite a bit, because the Sage of Ages epic destiny somewhat breaks the maths of skill checks, with the result that most knowledge skills are auto-succcesses for the player of that character; but the skill challenge rules still require me to call for checks from that player: which means I have to distinguish between events which are unfolding fiction with no need for a check (eg because nothing is at stake) and events which involve stakes in respect of the unfolding fiction, and hence do call for a check (even if it's an auto-success).
I think this could also work in 5e, although if a GM is using PC capabilities as an element in determining whether or not a check is requred then it could be that sometimes Reliable Talent factors into adjudication at that point, rather than affecting the resolution of a check.
A fair point. Some people would argue that using 4e logic is wrong since 5e's rules are not 4e's rules (for example, they could say 5e never requires an ability check to be called), but I can see that being a fine resolution to the dissonance being created by the people I'm discussing this with.
Okay, so, to be clear, your confusion is because I said that the shopkeeper lying is the conflict?
I say this because it's treated with importance in the examples. A successful check to see if the shopkeep is lying leaves the uncertainty intact -- some hint is provided, but it's been clearly stated that an answer isn't going to be provided. The only way I see this being useful is if the shopkeeper lying is a key part of the mystery (which has also been said) such that a quick answer will disrupt the GM's plans. If it's not that important, I really don't understand why the uncertainty isn't being resolved on a success, much less what might happen on a failure.
In other words, it appears to be the crux of the situation because of the level of protection provided to the truth of the shopkeeper lying. I don't understand why you would do this if it wasn't the important part.
Okay, this makes some sense.
I think this is a confusion of speakers thing. Some people have been claiming they would not give definitive answers to an insight check because IRL you can't tell if someone is lying.
I think that is only a portion of the people discussing the shopkeeper though, which is what is causing the confusion here.
