D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

5ekyu

Hero
As you can see from PHB page 175, you only roll dice if the outcome is uncertain.



It's when the outcome is uncertain that the dice determine the results.
Again, that is not the same thing as saying "if a roll is made, a failure chance will be added even if it was not there."

The DMG goes into even more detail on various level of dice use in different game for different playstyles, yet even there the "if you roll i add failure in that was not previously there" is not presented as a rule.

"If its above 90 we will serve ice cream at lunch" does not mean "we will never serve ice cream if its below 90" and certainly does not mean "if we catch you eating ice cream we will turn on the heat until we get it to 90."

Right? You see the difference?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

5ekyu

Hero
I could write shorter examples, I guess, but my methods cannot be devorced from specific example cases because the specifics are part of the method I use. “The player checks for secret doors and fills in the narrative” is not enough information for me to make a call as to the results. That’s only a goal, I need both a goal and an approach. “The player checks for secret doors by feeling the walls” is sufficient. “The player checks for secret doors by looking for a seam” is sufficient. “The player looks for secret doors by feeling for a draft” is sufficient. “The player looks for secret doors, narrative, narrative” isn’t. A big part of the reason I prefer this way of doing this is specifically because I don’t like actions to be naked goals divorced of methods.


If your axe hit him, you know you scored damage. If the force of the impact was high, you know you rolled a lot of damage. If your knife sunk into a seam, you know you found a secret door. If your knife didn’t hit a seam you know you didn’t find a secret door. The reason the “narrative requirement” as you put it is higher is not the uncertainty of the outcome, it’s the nature of the method. The method of hitting an orc with an axe to try and kill it, by nature, gives very immediate and detailed feedback about how successful the method was. The method of feeling for seams with a knife, by its nature, gives only partial feedback about the existence of a secret door. This is all true whether or not dice are involved in either action. That’s exactly why a lot of DMs who allow contextless “search for secret doors” checks make the roll behind the DM screen - because not finding a secret door doesn’t necessarily mean you know there isn’t a secret door to be found, and you don’t always know how successful your unspecified methods were in achieving your goal.


You don’t need to be any of those things to pose an action in terms of your goal and your method. “I try to repair the cracked armor by working it at my forge.” “I try to slow the poison by applying an herbal poltice.” “I try to stem the bleeding by applying sutures and bandages.” Whatever. It doesn’t really matter if you know every little detail or not, just give your goal and method in broad strokes.


Good thing the spells are already written for you then?


The things you describe are those people’s jobs. The DM’s job is not to tell you if the fact that you didn’t find a secret door means there is no secret door to be found.


Good thing I don’t do that.


They’re not. I do need to know your specific approach in order to evaluate your chances to success. I am also invested in insuring that you have all the information you need to make meaningful decisions and have meaningful interactions with the world. I will take into account the fact that you’re not an expert in masonry and make sure my secret doors are detectable by common-sense methods. I will give you that Investigation check safety net in case what I think of as common sense doesn’t occur to you. I will look for opportunities to reward your attempts, whether or not they are perfectly accurate reflections of how such a thing would be done in reality (hell, I wouldn’t even know if it was). But if you don’t give me both a goal and a method of trying to achieve it, then I don’t have enough information to adjudicate how the world responds to your action. Just try something. I promise, my goal is not to thwart you, it’s to give your choices narrative impact.

So i have two cases you have given good info about...

secret doors - you say i chose to do the knife mortar scrape to look for secxret doors and the info i get back basically nothing about secret doors but i get back "no seams" type responses and if i wonder about confidence i am confident i found no seams and if i want to actually know how that applies to being sure about secret doors i get to try another check using another skill check which seems to turn it into a two skill proficiency.

Healing poison - i tell you i use my herbal poultice a to slow poison and i wont need to now medical stuff to assess the result you will give me cuz - what -will it be clearer than the seam thing?

Are you aware that for some medical cases "the pain goes away" is a good sign and for others it is a very very very bad sign? Same for fevers? Same for chills? Same for a whole lot of symptoms for a whole lot of problems? So, if your description for the poison poultice thing is equally a report of "application was successful and fever broke[or any symptom subsides]" leaving me to interpret that as good or bad - heaven help me if its some demonic arcane poison where there is actually no medical basis for symptom to results assessment - or is it going to be an actual assessment of success failure to the goal - curing the patient/slowing the poison, etc and not just the test results like we got with the knife and mortar? If they player asked "how sure am i if this is helping" would they also need a successful int check or just be told "you are sure you put it on them and sure the [insert change described]" like we saw in the secret door example you cited???


See, i am fully down with rewarding players for catching clues and hints... thats part of the story and narrative and mystery/puzzle solving part of the game. to me its integral to the story.

this is just the first case i think the puzzle solving part of the game being required for actually interpreting the outcome of the characters using its aptitudes and skills for the basic functions they are designed for as the default practice. At least, for some skills cases if not others, hard to tell at this point.

But i will give you this.... if you explained to me right away at chargen that investigate would be used to actually translate the results of the other skill rolls on an ongoing basis, in addition to its own uses, i would expect you would definitely i think see a lot more proficiency into investigate put in play.

Investigate - the follow-up skill for the others.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Again, that is not the same thing as saying "if a roll is made, a failure chance will be added even if it was not there."

It's very clearly saying that no roll is made UNLESS there is a chance of failure. If you make a roll, failure is a part of it as it is only when the outcome is in doubt that the dice get rolled. No doubt = no roll.

The DMG goes into even more detail on various level of dice use in different game for different playstyles, yet even there the "if you roll i add failure in that was not previously there" is not presented as a rule.
You can't find, "The players can roll dice for skill checks without being asked to by the DM.", either. The fact is, the DM decides if the die can be rolled, and he asks for a roll if the outcome is in doubt.

"If its above 90 we will serve ice cream at lunch" does not mean "we will never serve ice cream if its below 90" and certainly does not mean "if we catch you eating ice cream we will turn on the heat until we get it to 90."

Bad example. There is no "if" in the DMG rule. It's "The DM calls for the ability check...", not "If the DM calls for an ability check...". It's letting you know the one person who can call for ability checks.
 

Immoralkickass

Adventurer
Oh no. If you do this at my table, you'd get a right telling off. This is far worse than the guy who constantly describes his actions as 'I want to roll for Nature check'. There is a good reason for the 'roll only when the DM asks you to', and its not because the DM is a power trip/Rule 0 whatever.

Its that you can't go around assuming stuff. I see people saying 'I want to roll Arcana check for this weapon', when the weapon is not even magical. You can't assume a weapon is magical just because its shinny. Yes, the Self-Assigning Roll Guy is far worse than this. Because he is going to say 'I roll a nat 20 Nature check on this NPC, so I should know all his resistances, immunities, vulnerabilities, secret powers, loot table, underlings, wives, ex-wives, pets....' Whoa, buddy. I am the DM, not you.
 

5ekyu

Hero
It's very clearly saying that no roll is made UNLESS there is a chance of failure. If you make a roll, failure is a part of it as it is only when the outcome is in doubt that the dice get rolled. No doubt = no roll.

You can't find, "The players can roll dice for skill checks without being asked to by the DM.", either. The fact is, the DM decides if the die can be rolled, and he asks for a roll if the outcome is in doubt.



Bad example. There is no "if" in the DMG rule. It's "The DM calls for the ability check...", not "If the DM calls for an ability check...". It's letting you know the one person who can call for ability checks.
The cafeteria will serve ice cream when the temperature reaches 90 degrees.

Not the same as

The cafeteria will never ever serve ice cream for any other reason.

Not the same as

Nobody else can ever serve ice cream

Not the same as

If you serve ice cream we will crank the heat to make it 90 degrees.

Is it your understanding that anything not explicitly permitted in the book is not allowed?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
 

5ekyu

Hero
Oh no. If you do this at my table, you'd get a right telling off. This is far worse than the guy who constantly describes his actions as 'I want to roll for Nature check'. There is a good reason for the 'roll only when the DM asks you to', and its not because the DM is a power trip/Rule 0 whatever.

Its that you can't go around assuming stuff. I see people saying 'I want to roll Arcana check for this weapon', when the weapon is not even magical. You can't assume a weapon is magical just because its shinny. Yes, the Self-Assigning Roll Guy is far worse than this. Because he is going to say 'I roll a nat 20 Nature check on this NPC, so I should know all his resistances, immunities, vulnerabilities, secret powers, loot table, underlings, wives, ex-wives, pets....' Whoa, buddy. I am the DM, not you.
Yes i can go around asduming shiny weapons are magical. Teally, i can. So can any player charscter in your game or are you one of those gm who need to tell their players the thoughts in their character mind?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The cafeteria will serve ice cream when the temperature reaches 90 degrees.

Not the same as

The cafeteria will never ever serve ice cream for any other reason.

Not the same as

Nobody else can ever serve ice cream

Not the same as

If you serve ice cream we will crank the heat to make it 90 degrees.

Is it your understanding that anything not explicitly permitted in the book is not allowed?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

You're assuming things not in the rules, though. Nowhere is anything other than "The DM calls for the ability check...". If you're going to start adding in stuff that isn't written, then I get to add in things like a nuclear blast into the damage of a longsword, since no rule says that isn't a part of longsword damage.
 

Immoralkickass

Adventurer
Yes i can go around asduming shiny weapons are magical. Teally, i can. So can any player charscter in your game or are you one of those gm who need to tell their players the thoughts in their character mind?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Nothing can help stupid, I guess. Its shinny because its very ornate and pretty, and its a decorative weapon. But you didn't investigate it first, did you?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Nothing can help stupid, I guess. Its shinny because its very ornate and pretty, and its a decorative weapon. But you didn't investigate it first, did you?

You've never been wrong about something before? Never assumed something incorrectly? That's all he's saying. He's just telling you that he and his characters are free to assume anything they want, and they can. You might want to think things through a bit better before you call someone else stupid, especially since that's a clear violation of the terms here.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Nothing can help stupid, I guess. Its shinny because its very ornate and pretty, and its a decorative weapon. But you didn't investigate it first, did you?
Exactly, you get it. Finally.

A character and a player can make an assumption, act on that assumption and the GM tell them the results of that action without it being a federal case.

It can be simply handled directly with the skill and other info gathering system

If i see shiney and check for magic there does not **have to be added** a penalty to me, nor does there have to be a separate means of resolution.

My character's error in judgement does not need to create a different process at arriving at a resolution.

Maybe the character is an idiot for thinking shiney means magic but whether or not it happens to be magical or not does not need to completely change how the "check for magic" is handled.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
 

Remove ads

Top