I am not seeing the words "and a meaningful consequence of failure" or equivalent in the ability checks section of the PHB.
Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
I am not seeing the words "and a meaningful consequence of failure" or equivalent in the ability checks section of the PHB.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
DMG, page 237, "Using Ability Scores." I know this section by heart.
"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." It also says stuff like "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." It suggests that a roll is appropriate when the attempted tasks falls somewhere between impossible and trivial, but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not. As to what is or isn't possible, of course, is determined by the DM as is what constitutes a meaningful consequence for failure, given the context of the situation.
Satyrn
First Post
Danggit. This would be the perfect opportunity to farm a laugh from you with a joking reference to a long dead thread. Something like "Wait? Someone actually reads the DMG?"
. . . But that would seriously risk coming across as a slight on S'mon and I'm definitely never aiming to attack anyone here with my jokes.
OK I have it open now - it does not say "but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not", so the "only roll if meaningful consequence" advice arguably contradicts "If (the task is neither automatic nor impossible), some kind of roll is appropriate".
I generally interpret it that if repeated checks will eventually succeed, just say "You eventually succeed" (it says this under Multiple Ability Checks), but that the 'meaningful consequence' line is not meant to be a serious barrier to making checks.
Also the whole section seems very loosely worded. Unsurprising given that "Rolling with it" and "Ignoring the Dice" describe two diametrically opposed approaches, neither forbidden.
Bawylie
A very OK person
You might re-read that. It says it’s “often appropriate” to roll when the task is neither automatic nor impossible. Which means, necessarily, it is sometimes not appropriate. Often isn’t always. Whereas later it says “only roll” when...
It’s not that meaningful consequence is a barrier to a roll - it’s that a lack of meaningful consequences means a check shouldn’t be required.
I don’t think this is loosely worded either.
Nevertheless, the rules serve the DM, in all cases. So if these guidelines don’t work for you, then do what does work for you instead. But a plain reading here is perfectly consistent.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
It seems clear to me that, for a roll to be called for, these things need to all be true since they are put forth in the rules: Not impossible, not trivial, meaningful consequence for failure (<- DMG), chance of failure, and uncertain outcome (<- PHB). This takes all the relevant rules into account and is what I paraphrase in the various threads that discuss this matter.
We can't have an ability check without an accompanying task since the outcomes of those tasks are what ability checks resolve. So when something is referred to as an ability check, we have to look at it as a task that falls into the requirements the PHB and DMG lay out - not impossible, not trivial, meaningful consequence for failure, chance of failure, and uncertain outcome. The Multiple Ability Checks section talks about repeating a task that meets those requirements, which characters can do unless failing the check makes the approach to the goal impossible. (In which case, they need to change their approach to the goal to have another shot at success, which the DM may decide is harder due to the previous failure.)
I would have written it to be much tighter, but I didn't have a say. What we have is workable. But as [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] says, nobody reads the DMG anyway, especially not DMs with experience in other games, so I have this exchange frequently enough where I have this section committed to memory already!
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Whats a DMG?
I kid, I kid. I know it's the book with those sweet magic items in it.
I kid, I kid. I know it's the book with those sweet magic items in it.
Bawylie
A very OK person
Good ole 3 book model:
Player’s Spellbook, now with more spells!
Dungeon Master’s 300 pages on rule zero
And Monster Manual, volume 1 of 35.
Oofta
Legend
Yeah, I disagree with Iserith on this one. Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure. A good example is the case of the players that suspect an NPC is lying when they're really telling the truth. If you don't call for (or allow) an insight check then they know the NPC isn't being deceptive. Makes solving who-done-its really easy I guess. Just walk around to all the suspects and ask if they did it. The first time the DM asks for an insight check you have your culprit.
I don't want to start another long argument about that, just saying that I think he puts too much credence in a one liner buried at the end of a paragraph that just seems to be intended as general guidance.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
