Missing Rules

[Charlaquin]

I've explained it at length, over and over again: An approach is required to determine if the character can actually jump an unusually long distance. "An Athletics check" is not an approach. It is a mechanic to resolve a declared approach to a goal that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. I am in no way against a character trying to jump an unusually long distance. The question is "How?"

The gray area, as I pointed out to [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION], is that the efficacy of the player's answer to "How?" is going to be judged differently by different DMs. He's okay with "I try harder..." (or words to that effect). I am not. Neither of us are wrong.

And to bring this discussion back to the original question, this is exactly why having a formula for determining distance jumped based on the results of an Athletics check doesn’t work with 5e’s resolution system.

 

[5ekyu]

I can only speak for myself, but to my mind it expresses a certain kind of playstyle that isn't inherently more "5e" than any other. A player never needs to state more than their intended goal, IMO. I don't ask what sort of lunge or strike they are making at the orc and I don't ask how precisely they are jumping. I ask what they a doing and what their goal is if clarity is needed. If a player does that through in character expression, that's okay but I will still ask what their mechanical, game based approach is. If all they give me is that mechanical approach, that's fine.

We agree here dead on.

"I attempt to jump as far as i can" is a goal. Period.

I attempt to jump onto the ledge/platform" is a goal. Period.

" run up to the edge and jump" is an approach.

Where the disconnect comes in is that **even though** the rules describe the automatic everytime you can get this far jump distances (without taking any action or risk of failure besides a difficult landing) and also tell you the use of athletics skill in jumping further... it seems like some want to view the automatic/free as maximums outside of some special cases.

In my games, these two rules mean "i jump as far as i can" means an athletics check everytime with the minimum result being the ones defined in the chapter 8 section and the athletics check being used to decide how much farther if any they go.

That means if a character jump "as far as i can" 20 times they will land at various spots over time, not just the exact same spot each time.

That means a character tries to jump a reasonable bit farther than their default auto- min allows 20 times they wont fail every time but sometimes succeed, sometime fail and (per definition of failure in PHB) sometimes make it with setback.

None of those require pogo sticks in my games either as i dont single out the jump-athletics example in the "Each ability" section for pogo sticklering.

But thats me.

 

[Reynard]

That DM does NOT misunderstand his or her role at the table in your example. The DM is narrating the result of the adventurer's action which is the purview of the DM and Step 3 of the basic conversation of the game. However much you may disagree with the ruling, it is appropriate to the role.

As for players asking to make ability checks, please let me know if you find any example of that in the Basic Rules or DMG. To my knowledge, the only thing that is called out is asking to apply a proficiency to an ability check the DM already called for. Players asking to make ability checks is a common approach to playing in my experience, but I find no support for it in the D&D 5e rules. Contrast that with D&D 4e, for example, which explicitly says: "A player often initiates a skill check by asking the DM if he or she can make one. Almost always, the DM says yes." This approach seems very much to me like a holdover from other editions of the game that people are bringing with them into D&D 5e. And to be clear, I still play D&D 4e. In that game, go nuts with asking to make skill checks! But not in my D&D 5e game.

I suppose we are at an impass (again) because absolutely do not see this hard and fast commandment in the 5e DMG that Players Shall Not Ask To Make An Ability Or Skill Check. Nor do I see 5e as any different in kind than any previous edition of D&D.

 

[iserith]

I suppose we are at an impass (again) because absolutely do not see this hard and fast commandment in the 5e DMG that Players Shall Not Ask To Make An Ability Or Skill Check.

If you're okay with assuming what characters are doing, you do you. I don't see that as the DM's role based on my reading of the rules. And it's the player's role to describe what they want to do. There is nothing suggesting a player asks to make ability checks. (Plus it's not even a very good strategy for success.)

Nor do I see 5e as any different in kind than any previous edition of D&D.

Then I guess it's no mystery why you went looking for DCs for jumping!

Me, I treat each edition of D&D as separate and distinct. I try to leave my assumptions at the door and amend my approach as a player and DM to best fit the version I'm playing. To do otherwise seems strange to me. They're different games, not software upgrades of the same game.

 

[Charlaquin]

But 5e does not prescribe this anywhere in the rule book. It says the DM presents a situation, the player describes their actions and the DM adjudicates the next step, repeat until resolution. "Describe" here does not come with any rules attached to it. It is in a portion of the book written in natural language. It means what the word means in common conversation. "I want to jump across the chasm using Athletics," is in fact describing what the player wants to do.

It says the players describe what their characters do. Making an Athletics check is not something the character does, that’s something the player does to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of something the character does. In this scenario, the DM does not have enough information to determine the outcome, because the player has not described what their character is doing that might require an Athletics check to resolve.

If the DM responds with, "Sorry, you can't. It is 16 feet and you only have a 15 strength. You fall to your death." that DM fundamentally misunderstands his role at the table.

I agree. The DM should respond with a clarifying question about what the character is doing. Now, if the player says “jumping,” it falls to the DM to determine the results of this action. They may decide the outcome is uncertain and ask for an Athletics check to resolve that uncertainty, or they may determine that the outcome is certain and narrate the results. Either would be perfectly in line with the task resolution rules outlined in the PHB.

 

[AlViking]

The issue with "I want to make an X check to Y" is that X doesn't describe an approach. At best it implies one then kicks it to the DM to imagine what the character is actually doing. The DM cannot establish what the character is doing as that is not the DM's role - the player is the only one who can say how the character acts or what it says or thinks. The DM can only describe the environment and (after determining whether mechanics come into play) narrate the results of the adventurers' actions.

I don't require players to speak using a narrowly prescribed phraseology. If someone says "I want to do an investigation check" I know what they're doing is looking closely and trying to get a better understanding. If they say "I make an athletics check to jump further than I normally can" I'll give them some feedback on difficulty and then either allow it or tell them it's not possible. I may provide an alternative approach.

There's give and take. The player is proposing a way of overcoming an obstacle, I let them know if it would work. I don't care if it's "I use athletics to bypass" or "I jump over it".

I don't understand why you're so stuck on a couple of sentences in the DMG. People have different ways of expressing what they want their character to do.

I think the distinction is pointless. You do you though.

 

[5ekyu]

I suppose we are at an impass (again) because absolutely do not see this hard and fast commandment in the 5e DMG that Players Shall Not Ask To Make An Ability Or Skill Check. Nor do I see 5e as any different in kind than any previous edition of D&D.

I agree as well. In my games, with players i have been playing with since 80 and new ones, sometimes we speak game mechanics sometimes we dont snd making them say the pre-determined 1000 times before words for "what can my character tell from..." (Skill check) doesnt add fun or ease or speed up anything... It gives no value to treat there words as if its computer code and my responses as programmed events.

Might take different approach if this was a tourney environment or some chaotic show up anybody table at flgs.

But, i think one key to me in my resolution is that "who asks" doesnt affect the outcome.

If a player describes or asks for skill check, if it would have failed automatically - it does. If it would have succeeded automatically - it does. If it would have been a check vs DC it will.

I strive to keep my resolutions consistent **within the world** so that exceptional cases can be recognized as exceptional. So, its incumbent on me to keep that process consistent and dependent on character traits and situational elements and not make "syntax" issues like "which player said what and how" affect the in-game odds or outcomes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't require players to speak using a narrowly prescribed phraseology. If someone says "I want to do an investigation check" I know what they're doing is looking closely and trying to get a better understanding. If they say "I make an athletics check to jump further than I normally can" I'll give them some feedback on difficulty and then either allow it or tell them it's not possible. I may provide an alternative approach.

It’s not about specific phrasing, it’s about giving the DM enough information to make a judgment call about the results. Just telling me “I want to do an investigation check” doesn’t tell me what you are trying to learn or how you are going about trying to learn it, which makes it impossible not only to determine if you need to make a check in the first place, but also what the difficulty of a check might be of one is necessary. “I make an Athletics check to jump further than I normally can” actually does give me enough information. Your goal is to cover more ground than you can normally jump, and your method is by jumping. From that description of what your character is doing, it is my job as DM to determine what the results are, and skill checks are a tool to help me make that determination in the case of an uncertain outcome. Personally, I would say that your approach, “jump” does not have a reasonable chance of success at achieving your goal, “cover more ground than I can by jumping,” so I would tell you an Athletics check is not necessary. You would fail. But I would also say that and give you the opportunity to try something else, rather than skipping straight to narrating the failure, just as I would provide you with an opportunity to change your mind after I told you the DC if I felt a check was necessary. Other DMs might rule differently, and that’s perfectly fine.

There's give and take. The player is proposing a way of overcoming an obstacle, I let them know if it would work. I don't care if it's "I use athletics to bypass" or "I jump over it".

I think the fundamental difference in our approaches is not about give and take or lack thereof, but about the role of skills. To you, Skills are a player tool for interfacing with the game world. To me, Skills are a DM tool for determining the outcomes of actions that are not otherwise clear.

 

[Reynard]

I think the fundamental difference in our approaches is not about give and take or lack thereof, but about the role of skills. To you, Skills are a player tool for interfacing with the game world. To me, Skills are a DM tool for determining the outcomes of actions that are not otherwise clear.

Ah. There's the heart of it. Okay, I get where you are coming from. I don't run my game that way and if a player would not like to be in a game ran that way, but I do understand your perspective now.

Good gaming to you!

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah. There's the heart of it. Okay, I get where you are coming from. I don't run my game that way and if a player would not like to be in a game ran that way, but I do understand your perspective now.

Good gaming to you!

Awesome! I knew we’d reach an understanding eventually. Good gaming to you as well!