D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[Charlaquin]

If the get the same end number, yes. The advantage in my game is that the intelligent wizard will have a significant bonus, and the dumb fighter will have a penalty. The wizard will hit the higher DCs for more info far more often. I do give more to a wizard who make an arcana roll than say a fighter or rogue, though. Just like I'd give more to a druid or ranger who makes a nature roll than either the smart wizard or dumb fighter.

I believe FrogReaver was asking me specifically, in reference to how I handle lore recollection at the table. Your POV on this matter is also valuable, but I just wanted to point out that in the way I do it, a character’s Intelligence score/mod does not play into what they might or might not recall off the top of their head. Because conflating difereht people’s approaches has been a cause of a fair bit of miscommunication in this thread, I think that’s important to note.

 

[Seramus]

I do memorize all potentially high values my players possess. It is legacy behavior from previous editions, but I took the references to passive checks and secret knowledge to be validation this still existed in 5E.

Besides the effort it took to memorize, I feel that it speeds up play in general since it really helps determine who is statistically likely to auto succeed on certain skills. I am far more inclined to hand out auto successes to keep the game moving, even if there is a dramatic chance of failure, provided that chance of failure is in the 15% or less range thanks to their high scores.

I have six players at my table, but the seats don't rotate much.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe FrogReaver was asking me specifically, in reference to how I handle lore recollection at the table. Your POV on this matter is also valuable, but I just wanted to point out that in the way I do it, a character’s Intelligence score/mod does not play into what they might or might not recall off the top of their head. Because conflating difereht people’s approaches has been a cause of a fair bit of miscommunication in this thread, I think that’s important to note.

Yeah. I was just chiming in with how I do it, not trying to confuse the issue. That's why I specified "my game."

 

[Hussar]

Goal: And I take no damage.
Me, as DM: that's sounds really hard. Gimmie a DC 25 Dex check to time it right. If you fail, you faceplant and will take double normal falling damage.

Goal: to try to reduce the damage I take.
DM: Sounds tough, but doable. Gimmie a DC 15 Dex check to time it right. If you fail, you'll land badly and be incapacitated a round.

Goal: to roll up on my feet. I know it's gonna hurt, but I want to see if I come up standing.
DM: cool. DC 10 Dex check. If you fail, you're not only be prone, but you'll land badly and be incapacitated for a round.

Goal very much matters. If you're shooting for the moon, big stakes call for big risks. If you're trying something more reasonable, less severe risks are warranted. I need to know what you're going for, and I'm just not going to guess when you could tell me.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. And, no @Elfcrusher, this isn't a bad faith attempt to disprove the example. It's PRECISELY what I've always been talking about. A DC 25 check and if I fail, I take x2 damage. That's a total suckers bet. Why on earth would I even try it? At best, my character (outside of rogues) will have a +10 on the check, meaning that I'll fail 3 out of 4 tries. Netting me double damage three times as often. The DC 15 Damage Reduction one is better, although, again, assuming +10, I'm failing 1 in 3 and being incapacitated for a round is pretty punitive considering I'm still taking damage. And the DC 10 one, unless I'm auto successing it, is still not even close to worth the try.

Like I've been saying all the way along, most DM's are incapable of creating skill rolls where the risk:reward is worth it. If you are giving me 1 in 4 odds of success, then whatever I'm doing should be at least three times better than what I can automatically do. If you're then tacking on a huge penalty for failure, then I need several times MORE benefit. When you gamble at a casino, you don't lose extra money when you lose, you only lose your bet. Why am I losing more HP or more actions for failing a check?

So, yeah, if this is how people calculate odds on skill checks, I can totally see why you'd never want to roll. Of course not. It's almost never a good idea to roll if the DM is going to punish you for rolling. And, this is exactly what this is. Add to that more than a few posters here patting @Ovinomancer on the back for his great DM call. This isn't a great DM call. This is a suckers bet all the way around.

Compare to the 4e skill of acrobatics - roll your check, reduce your damage by that amount. Done. THAT'S how you calculate risk/reward. But for virtually the entire history of the game, DM's have interpreted "risk of failure" to mean "punished for failure".

Same. If I get down to 5, I might as well just say yes. Unless there's something about the PC, such as a penalty to the check, disadvantage or something else circumstantial that would put an easy check in doubt, the player is not going to have to roll.

Depends. I just had a session in the Ghosts of Saltmarsh game we're playing. A character got blown off the ship by a Gust of Wind spell and landed in the water. Pretty calm water, so, DC 5 swim check. Unfortunately, character dump statted Strength, had no skill in athletics and wound up spending a couple of rounds floundering until someone fished him out. For any character without proficiency, DC 5 is about a 15-20% fail chance (sometimes more). Blowing off these low level skill checks is a bad idea I think.

 

[Maxperson]

Depends. I just had a session in the Ghosts of Saltmarsh game we're playing. A character got blown off the ship by a Gust of Wind spell and landed in the water. Pretty calm water, so, DC 5 swim check. Unfortunately, character dump statted Strength, had no skill in athletics and wound up spending a couple of rounds floundering until someone fished him out. For any character without proficiency, DC 5 is about a 15-20% fail chance (sometimes more). Blowing off these low level skill checks is a bad idea I think.

So I literally said, "...such as a penalty to the check..." That covers strength as a dump stat.

 

[Imaculata]

I'm going with he thought you were posting in bad faith. I think he wouldn't know what bad faith was if it slapped him up beside the head.

Yeah, I don't think this is constructive at all...

(Edited to not derail the thread any further)

 

[Charlaquin]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. And, no @Elfcrusher, this isn't a bad faith attempt to disprove the example. It's PRECISELY what I've always been talking about. A DC 25 check and if I fail, I take x2 damage. That's a total suckers bet. Why on earth would I even try it? At best, my character (outside of rogues) will have a +10 on the check, meaning that I'll fail 3 out of 4 tries. Netting me double damage three times as often. The DC 15 Damage Reduction one is better, although, again, assuming +10, I'm failing 1 in 3 and being incapacitated for a round is pretty punitive considering I'm still taking damage. And the DC 10 one, unless I'm auto successing it, is still not even close to worth the try.

Like I've been saying all the way along, most DM's are incapable of creating skill rolls where the risk:reward is worth it. If you are giving me 1 in 4 odds of success, then whatever I'm doing should be at least three times better than what I can automatically do. If you're then tacking on a huge penalty for failure, then I need several times MORE benefit. When you gamble at a casino, you don't lose extra money when you lose, you only lose your bet. Why am I losing more HP or more actions for failing a check?

So, yeah, if this is how people calculate odds on skill checks, I can totally see why you'd never want to roll. Of course not. It's almost never a good idea to roll if the DM is going to punish you for rolling. And, this is exactly what this is. Add to that more than a few posters here patting @Ovinomancer on the back for his great DM call. This isn't a great DM call. This is a suckers bet all the way around.

If you don’t like the risk/reward proposition, you can opt not to take the roll. That’s part of why it’s important, under this style, to tell the player the DC and the consequences for failure.

Compare to the 4e skill of acrobatics - roll your check, reduce your damage by that amount. Done. THAT'S how you calculate risk/reward.

Uhh... What exactly is being risked there?

But for virtually the entire history of the game, DM's have interpreted "risk of failure" to mean "punished for failure".

If there’s no consequence for failure (or punishment, if you like; they are synonyms, after all,) then I’d just let the player succeed without a roll, personally.

I just had a session in the Ghosts of Saltmarsh game we're playing. A character got blown off the ship by a Gust of Wind spell and landed in the water. Pretty calm water, so, DC 5 swim check. Unfortunately, character dump statted Strength, had no skill in athletics and wound up spending a couple of rounds floundering until someone fished him out. For any character without proficiency, DC 5 is about a 15-20% fail chance (sometimes more). Blowing off these low level skill checks is a bad idea I think.

Was this in the midst of combat?

 

[Imaculata]

One of the things I try to do often, is tell my players up front what the consequences 'could be' of failure, before they make their roll. That way the players can decide for themselves if it is worth the risk.

For example: The players encounter a steep cliff with the entrance to an ancient city halfway down the cliff (this situation actually came up during my current campaign). I describe that the sea below the cliff seems pretty rough, it's windy, and there are sharp rocks down below.

Player: Can we climb down?
DM: You can sure try, but it is a steep wall with few handholds and you'll be battered by the wind while doing it. If you fail, you will meet up close and personal with those nasty looking sharp rocks I mentioned earlier. You will need to make a climb check.
Player: What if I tie a rope around a nearby tree, and secure it safely around my waist?
DM: That will require a Use Rope check, and if successful it should make climbing down a lot easier. It will still require a climb check, but I'll lower the DC. There's plenty of rocks or trees that you could tie the rope around.
Player: (Rolls really bad for their Use Rope) Uh oh.... I ehm... I pull it a couple of times, making sure it is secure.
DM: It seems secure enough... (evil smile)
Player: Crap... Ok, here goes... I climb down using the rope.
DM: The wind tosses you around a bit and the rope scratches back and forth along the sharp rocks... but eventually you arrive at the entrance of the city unscathed.
Player: Oh thank god!

Of course, what the players didn't realize at this point was that I was messing with their knowledge that it was a bad roll. I had however decided that the rope would only snap if two or more people tried to descend at the same time... which eventually happened as they got overconfident of the safety of the rope. As the rope suddenly snapped, it required quick reflexes and strength checks from nearby players to save their friends.

So this is a perfect example of how I tell my players upfront what the risks and checks involved are, and I allow them to change their mind, or add extra detail to their declarated action. But I don't always tell them what is required for failure, because having metagame knowledge of a bad roll and having that uncertainty can add a lot of suspense. Sometimes I tell my players the DC and sometimes I don't. It depends if the situation is more or less suspenseful if they know the DC. In this case I didn't, and the uncertainty really added to the scene.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Also, there's the GM to consider - in theory, the GM may let many things happen without a roll. Theory is a lovely tourist destination, but few actually get to live there. So, the behavior may be an adaptation to the GM.

So, before you complain of players doing this, ask yourself about what opportunities you offer without die rolls, and ask them about previous GMs who may have trained them to the behavior.

That's a very solid point. I think players wanting to call for checks largely comes from GMs who auto fail based on description. Example:

Player: My character searches the room.
GM: How do you search it?
Player: Uh, I don't know, I look behind things open drawers...mover anything reasonable to move around.
GM: You find nothing.
Player: !?!? <wonders why he got no check>

Sometimes a GM auto fails them because they didn't say they check the bottom of draws for the letter stuck to the bottom or that they checked each drawer for false bottom. Alternatively their could be nothing in that room to find the GM just wanted them to be more descriptive. The player doesn't know the difference.

No matter which it was the player is left feeling like they as a player was tested and the skills of the character were not accounted for with no idea what they did wrong. If they are allowed to call for a roll and they don't need it the player can use the passive of the ability and still let them succeed on the role. If there is nothing there they find nothing even if they role a natural 20 with expertise and maxed attubute the player will be satisfied there is nothing there.

I personally prefer roles to auto fails or success because I have played under GMs who auto failed because how well as a player I described a skill my D&D character has that I don't have in real life. Perception and charisma roles are the worst offenders for this. But I also prefer rolls to auto success because I feel more involved with what I am doing even if the out come of the role is not important. If I want to use a tool proficiency "fishing pole" to catch a fish and the GM says you catch 5 fish and moves on... I feel let down. If I get to roll and get a 1 and catch 5 fish or if I roll a 20 and catch 5 fish and add those to my rations.... I still feel like I am more involved and enjoy the anticipation of the role. As a player ... I still don't know the difference, but sill prefer a roll even knowing counting the roll leans then chance against me, regardless of if the role counts or not.

As a GM if a player wants call for a roll, I let them. It might not change the out come, or If they roll well I add some flare / bragging rights to it, while if they roll low I describe how they barely manage to hold on but because they are proficient they save themselves but they it took longer than it should have and they are a little embarrassed. If there would be consequence meaning the DC is higher than their passive proficiency, then the role is "real" and so is the consequences.

Just personal preference.

 

[Imaculata]

Sometimes a GM auto fails them because they didn't say they check the bottom of draws for the letter stuck to the bottom or that they checked each drawer for false bottom. Alternatively their could be nothing in that room to find the GM just wanted them to be more descriptive. The player doesn't know the difference.

Well this is just a terrible way to handle auto success and auto failure. Here's how I do it:

Example of a hall with no traps in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: You find no traps, no check needed.
Player: Ok.

Example of a hall with a wall trap in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: How do you search the hall?
Player: I specifically check the walls, floors and ceiling for strange holes or things that look out of place. I make sure the rest of the party does not move beyond what I have declared safe.
DM: Make a search check, with advantage. (as I play 3.5, I would probably give a +2 to the check here)
Player: 15!
DM: You notice several tubes in the left wall, barely hidden behind some vines.

Example of a hall with a floor trap in it

Player: I search the hall for traps.
DM: How do you search the hall?
Player: I roll a rock across the floor and then take cover.
DM: The rock sets off several traps as dozens of spears shoot out from the floor, well away from where you are standing. You are however confident that they can only spring once, as they do not retract. (auto success)