Missing Rules

[Charlaquin]

Now this clearly SHOULD be true but at table it really isn’t, players often insert a question on what would happen if the PC did this i.e. “what is the DC if I try this.”

Now I am of the thought the jump rules and others are in the Players Handbook so they are PC knowledge therefore that’s ok - a player would know they can make it or know if it’s impossible so should be told in advance.

Remember Gimli asked to Aragon to throw him because he knew he could not make the jump.

That’s why I want PC to know in this case and many others the DC ahead of time so they can plan accordingly and then he DM can add or subtract from that.

The DC doesn’t have to be in the book for that to happen though. I agree with you that the PCs should be able to assess their own abilities with enough accuracy that they should know a DC, or at least if a check is Easy/Medium/Hard/etc. before they have to commit to the action, unless they’re attempting something totally unfamiliar. That’s why I just tell them.

“I try to jump across the chasm.”
“Ok. It’s farther than your normal jump distance, but the far side is a little below this side, so it might be possible. Make a DC 15 Athletics check.”
“Hmm... On second thought, I’ll try to climb down.”

I’m fine with the player taking back the action in that way once they know the DC, as long as they haven’t rolled yet. I see it as the character considering their options.

My general idea is skills are on your sheet for a reason and rolling dice is fun so let them fly.

Mine is that they’re on your sheet so you can more accurately assess your character’s aptitude at a given task, not as buttons to push. And while rolling dice can be fun, the fun comes from the thrill of uncertainty and the rush of the random outcome. The reason rolling dice is fun doesn’t exist when the outcome is already determined. It’s fun when the result of your dice roll determines the fate of your character in dire situations, but it isn’t fun to have to make a Dexterity check to tie your shoes properly.

 

[iserith]

I guess I just don't understand your previous posts where you are saying something to the effect that you can only jump as far as your strength allows. Did I not understand what you were saying? I agree that if I have a 15 strength, I can just jump 15 feet with no check. The way I run it, someone trying to exceed the normally allowed 15 feet could make a check. Based on how much they exceed my target depends on how successful they are.

I don't want to argue about it, that's just my interpretation of "an unusually long distance". The 15 foot would not be unusually long, a 20 foot jump would be for a character with a 15 strength. When they make the jump they may land on the other side, they may grab on to the ledge and be holding on by their fingertips, or fall to their doom. A lot of things may affect that including environment, relative height of ledges, are they holding a weapon or a shield and so on.

You can jump as far as your Strength and speed allows with certainty, assuming nothing is complicating that effort. The rules suggest you may be able to jump further with some uncertainty. However, ability checks are inextricably tied to a fictional action that the player has declared that the character is attempting, one that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. That is the role of ability checks.

Let me try to put it another way: A Strength 15 PC can jump 15 feet. That effort is linked to an approach to a goal with a certain outcome. That is why there is no ability check. A PC cannot jump 20 feet by performing the same fictional action that results in a 15-foot jump. That fictional action must necessarily be some other reasonable approach to the goal of jumping further than normal which, according to the rules, may have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. So unless the character is doing something other than the usual effort, he or she has no chance to jump 20 feet. This is likely why the rules call out jumping higher the normal as possible "in some circumstances," for example, suggesting that there is probably something about the situation or environment that allows the attempt. It's not as simple as the player just saying "I make an Athletics jump to jump further than normal." That's not how the game works. The next question the DM need ask is "How do you try to do that?" The swinging platforms, the higher ledge to the lower ledge, the springboard, the ranger tossing the dwarf - these are all reasonable approaches that might be declared by the player and adjudicated by the DM.

And again, since it seems to be coming up with increasing frequency, this is not me telling anyone how to play at his or her table. This is just what the rules of the game say when taken as a whole. You may certainly play with players taking over the DM's role and declaring ability checks. In fact, I'd say if you're used to that approach (and it's pretty common so far as I can tell), what I'm saying above probably sounds very strange. And I certainly invite anyone who can explain it more simply than me to try!

 

[iserith]

Now this clearly SHOULD be true but at table it really isn’t, players often insert a question on what would happen if the PC did this i.e. “what is the DC if I try this.”

Now I am of the thought the jump rules and others are in the Players Handbook so they are PC knowledge therefore that’s ok - a player would know they can make it or know if it’s impossible so should be told in advance.

Remember Gimli asked to Aragon to throw him because he knew he could not make the jump.

That’s why I want PC to know in this case and many others the DC ahead of time so they can plan accordingly and then he DM can add or subtract from that.


My general idea is skills are on your sheet for a reason and rolling dice is fun so let them fly.

I give the DC before the attempt is made and, often, what happens if the PC fails.

My players try to avoid rolling as much as possible by aiming for automatic success by removing the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or any meaningful consequence of failure. The fickle d20 is nobody's friend.

 

[SkidAce]

Let me try to put it another way: A Strength 15 PC can jump 15 feet. That effort is linked to an approach to a goal with a certain outcome. That is why there is no ability check. A PC cannot jump 20 feet by performing the same fictional action that results in a 15-foot jump.

A. Strength 15 PC jumps 15 effortlessly.

B. Strength 15 tries harder and takes risk to jump 20 feet.

Different fictional actions.

 

[iserith]

Mine is that they’re on your sheet so you can more accurately assess your character’s aptitude at a given task, not as buttons to push. And while rolling dice can be fun, the fun comes from the thrill of uncertainty and the rush of the random outcome. The reason rolling dice is fun doesn’t exist when the outcome is already determined. It’s fun when the result of your dice roll determines the fate of your character in dire situations, but it isn’t fun to have to make a Dexterity check to tie your shoes properly.

Yes, the smart play in my view is to never ask to make a check or otherwise declare you're making one. Aim for automatic success by taking steps to remove uncertainty and/or any meaningful consequence of failure.

When I get into one-shots where the players are used to asking to make checks and the DM is okay with that, I always find I'm about 50% more successful than everyone else at the table. Because I'm not asking for a chance to fail all the time! Randomness is the death of many an adventurer - best to avoid.

Now, if I'm playing D&D 3e or D&D 4e, I will argue otherwise. In D&D 4e, for example, the players are expected to ask to make skill checks and the DM is encouraged to say "Yes" to such requests. There is nothing like that in the D&D 5e rules so far as I can tell. So I don't play that way. (I really don't like dragging my assumptions and approaches from one game into a different game.)

 

[iserith]

A. Strength 15 PC jumps 15 effortlessly.

B. Strength 15 tries harder and takes risk to jump 20 feet.

Different fictional actions.

I agree they would necessarily be different fictional actions. "Tries harder and takes risk" would not be reasonably specific enough as an approach in my view. I need something tangible to be able to judge the uncertainty and, if I found the outcome to be uncertain, to set a DC.

"I jump off the springboard to get some more distance..."

"I take advantage of the higher ground to jump a bit further onto the lower ledge..."

"I swing from the rope midway through the jump to eke out some more distance..."

"I use the momentum of the swinging suspended platform..."

 

[SkidAce]

I can understand your viewpoint.

I think what other folks are saying is that the "effortless" 15 feet is a trivial task, and that exerting themselves i. e. "pushing past the limit" is enough justification for a roll.


Basically for a 15 Strength PC, in normal circumstances, jumping 5 feet or 15 is effortless, simple, and reliable.

There needs to be room for simply trying harder, taking risk?

 

[Reynard]

I agree they would necessarily be different fictional actions. "Tries harder and takes risk" would not be reasonably specific enough as an approach in my view.

That is totally fine. What I at least was arguing against is your apparent view that this is objectively how the game works. it isn't. It is up the DM and DMs letting PCs just "try harder" are just as correct as you are. At my table (now that I've realized the rules in questions and the intent of the system) the way it works is you make an Athletics check vs DC 10. If you fail by 5 or more you only jump half your normal distance. For every 5 points you succeed by, you add 5 feet to your jump distance up to a total of twice your speed (as if you were using the dash action). And the thing is, I'm right. THAT is how the game works.

 

[iserith]

I can understand your viewpoint.

I think what other folks are saying is that the "effortless" 15 feet is a trivial task, and that exerting themselves i. e. "pushing past the limit" is enough justification for a roll.

Basically for a 15 Strength PC, in normal circumstances, jumping 5 feet or 15 is effortless, simple, and reliable.

There needs to be room for simply trying harder, taking risk?

To me, the question remains: How are you trying harder right now? What are you actually doing to eke out that extra distance?

"Try harder, take risk" is too broad. It can apply to almost anything all the time. It's too vague to allow me to easily determine uncertainty without a number of assumptions or to set an appropriate DC. To some degree, this can also lead to the DM establishing what the character is actually doing which is to be avoided in my view. If the described action is too vague, that often leads the DM to describing all manner of things the character does which is the DM overstepping his or her role - this is for the player, not the DM, to do. (I see this A LOT in other people's games.) Reasonable specificity is both friend to the player and to the DM here for many reasons.

 

[Reynard]

The player acts. The character jumps. The DM adjudicates. The player isn't asking if they can perform an action, they do the thing. It's just the DM chooses how it is adjudicated.

That adjudication may very well be: "Okay, you've leapt over the chasm, what do you do now?"

The idea of activating your athletics button is very 3e.

If you are talking to an NPC you don't say: "I use persuasion on him"
When you are trying to be sneaky you don't say: "I roll stealth, 18"
When you are investigating a room you don't say: "I use investigation on the room"

Instead it should go something like this:

"I tell him that we are not working for the magistrate, indeed we know why you have quarrel with him as we have uncovered his secret dungeon!" DM: "He is grateful for the news and implores you to continue"
"I sneak around to the other side of the camp" DM: (sees there is no one nearby) "Okay you spend some time moving over there"
"I find it strange for the paintings to be in such good shape, I remove them to look behind" DM: "Upon removing a painting you find a locked door behind it"

In none of those cases do I see a lack of player agency. What they say could also earn them an automatic failure which is also fine. Failing at something because of a choice is not a lack of agency. It is also possible that the outcome is in doubt and then the DM needs to decide how to resolve it based on the circumstances that only they know about.

You are making a value judgement here, not expressing anything that is actually in the rules of the game. As a GM that runs a lot of convention games and therefore is exposed to a lot of different players with different expectations, playstyles and social comfortability levels, I never require players to speak in character, describe their actions in narrative terms or otherwise hide the fact they are playing a game. I do not care if the player treats it like a board game, a CRPG or improv theater. As long as they are engaged, make an effort to understand the rules and don't detractfrom the enjoyment of the entire table, I do not tell them how to play.