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

[Maxperson]

What is being risked? Well, if you don't roll well enough, you're going to take damage. Granted, you are always going to mitigate some damage, but, how much depends on the roll and your character's skill. How much more risk do we need?

How much more risk do you need? Any risk at all. You are already taking that damage, and it's not a risk on a failed roll to take the damage you are already taking. Now, if you are volunteering extra damage on a failed roll for being out of position to defend against the attack, that's a risk.

Again, pointing at combat, we don't penalize characters for missing an attack - they just miss.

The penalty is a less damaged or undamaged monster that is going to swing back. The reward is a more damaged monster that is closer to death, or possibly a dead monster that can't attack back.

We don't have them miss, slip and fall flat on their face.

I've been at tables with fumble charts.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is the player proposing three different actions when faced with the same hall? How did the player to know to roll a rock in one hall and check the walls, floors and ceiling in another?

Why are you saying it's the same hall when it's obviously examples of three different halls?

 

[Maxperson]

Which points out why I don't like that approach. Player number 3 just happens to be better at making up stories on the fly.

No. My players write backgrounds for their PCs. They take time to craft cool ones. In my example, player three had a background that applied and I enjoy giving, so I look for ways to use those backgrounds in the game to help the players out or provide cool game play interactions.

You can't just come up with something like that on the fly during game play in my game.

I'm all for supporting creative solutions, but creative back stories? Nah.

Creative backstories add a tremendous amount to game play.

It's the same with describing how I find a trap. How the **** would I know? I'm not the guy who has spent years understanding how traps are built and work. My PC is. It would be like playing a hacker in a modern-times or Shadowrun game and asking the player how they read the memory dump stack. The hacker knows, the player doesn't.

Draw upon the lore of Indiana Jones.

 

[Hussar]

How much more risk do you need? Any risk at all. You are already taking that damage, and it's not a risk on a failed roll to take the damage you are already taking. Now, if you are volunteering extra damage on a failed roll for being out of position to defend against the attack, that's a risk.



The penalty is a less damaged or undamaged monster that is going to swing back. The reward is a more damaged monster that is closer to death, or possibly a dead monster that can't attack back.



I've been at tables with fumble charts.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about 5e D&D, not homebrew games. If you want to start bringing other games into this conversation, I'm all for it.

But, the point is, failure does not equal penalty. You ignored my example of the wager. Would you take the bet? Would you risk a hundred dollars on a d4 roll? On a 4, you get your money back, on a 1-3, you lose your 100 dollars, plus another hundred dollars.

Because, that's what you're asking me to do with the skill example. Why on earth would anyone take that bet? Well, actually, I know that people would take that bet becaue people are spectacularly bad at calculating risk vs reward. If you're going to give me a DC 25 check to avoid all damage, but, I take double damage on a fail, I either want that DC to be about 15 (which reasonable for the risk/reward) or you're going to have to give me a HELL of a lot more reward. No only do I not take damage, but, the fear of my spectacular landing causes all enemies who see me to flee in terror for the next thirty minutes. IOW, for that kind of risk, I better end the encounter in a win. For that kind of risk, I should become favored of a god of luck who will let me succeed the next three saving throws of my choice, as well as not taking any damage from this fall.

But a 1 in 4 chance of no damage vs 3 in 4 for double damage? That's just bad.

Again, since folks are defending this, I can totally see @iserith's point that trusting the dice in a game is a VERY bad idea. Far, far better to try to find an approach (either leveraging spells, IMO, the most common approach or finding an applicable narration that obviates the need for a die roll).

Why are you saying it's the same hall when it's obviously examples of three different halls?

Sorry but it wasn't obvious to me. But, even if it was three different halls, why would the player come up with three different appoaches. Well, that got answered - @Imaculata would telegraph the traps in each hallway and the player is expected to react appropriately. Again, not my cup of tea, but, hey, at least it makes sense.

 

[Maxperson]

But, the point is, failure does not equal penalty. You ignored my example of the wager. Would you take the bet? Would you risk a hundred dollars on a d4 roll? On a 4, you get your money back, on a 1-3, you lose your 100 dollars, plus another hundred dollars.

Nope! The risk is not worth the reward. I'd go the other way, though. On a 1 I lose my $100, and on a 2 I win/lose nothing, and on a 3-4 I win $100. That's significant risk, but enough chance of reward to make it worthwhile.

Because, that's what you're asking me to do with the skill example. Why on earth would anyone take that bet? Well, actually, I know that people would take that bet becaue people are spectacularly bad at calculating risk vs reward. If you're going to give me a DC 25 check to avoid all damage, but, I take double damage on a fail, I either want that DC to be about 15 (which reasonable for the risk/reward) or you're going to have to give me a HELL of a lot more reward.

A few things. First, no damage IS a hell of a lot of reward. Especially since once a DM allows that, the player is going to use it for every attack. It would be stupid to not have some sort of increased risk associated with it as a mitigation for the very powerful extra ability to just outright negate damage.

Second, I never said anything about double damage. I said increased damage.

Third, it doesn't have to be damage. The risk could be falling prone in front of the monster and being unable to get up until your next turn.

There does need to be some sort of increased risk, though, or else I'm just going to tell you no. I don't allow abusive abilities like that where you can just negate or minimize damage for a free roll with no downside. As I said, it then becomes something rolled by every player(since they all have athletics) on the chance that they hit the DC and take no damage.

But a 1 in 4 chance of no damage vs 3 in 4 for double damage? That's just bad.

But not as bad as your suggestion of a free roll on every attack to avoid damage. At least with double damage(something I didn't say), if you're going to be going down to 0, it's worth the shot to stay up.

 

[Seramus]

That’s... Not really how D&D 5e works, at least not as-written. 5e doesn’t have a system for degrees of success, so no, they’re not all possible depending on how well you roll.

There are many goals that are all or nothing, but I cannot imagine running a game without degrees of success. It might be DC 20 to notice Jane has a photograph in her pocket, but only DC 15 to see her left hand favoring her pocket overmuch. Your approach can modify those DCs, but what you roll determines how much information I give you.

No degrees of success would also create bizarre situations. Imagine the curious case of Mr Flip, who frequently succeeds at making six flips but fears attempting ten flips because whenever he tries he fails to do any flips at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

What is being risked? Well, if you don't roll well enough, you're going to take damage. Granted, you are always going to mitigate some damage, but, how much depends on the roll and your character's skill. How much more risk do we need?

Well, you don’t need any risk, but if there isn’t any, there’s no point rolling. Just let the action succeed. In the falling example, if there’s no consequence for failure other than not mitigating as much damage as you would on a success, then it’s a non-choice. Everyone should take that “bet” because they only stand to gain from it.

Again, pointing at combat, we don't penalize characters for missing an attack - they just miss. We don't have them miss, slip and fall flat on their face.

Why not? What's the difference?

In combat, there is a cost. If you fail the attack roll, you used your one action for the turn and didn’t accomplish anything with it.

"If you don't like the risk/reward proposition" isn't really the issue. It's that the risk/reward proposition is so bad that no one in their right mind would take it. All of those options are terrible. Why would anyone take that option?

Because they want to mitigate the fall damage, obviously.

Let's make a wager shall we? Ante up 100 gp. If you roll a 4 on a d4, you get your 100 gp back. If you roll 1-3, you lose your 100gp plus you lose another 100 gp. Would you take that bet? The only time you might take the odds given is if the fall damage would outright kill you. Otherwise, it's pointless. And, any player with a basic understanding of math will very quickly realize it. The consequences of failure are so great that it makes the roll superfluous.

If I’m going to lose 100 gp anyway if I don’t roll, and if I have means of mitigating the risk, such as my ability and proficiency bonus, inspiration, maybe a bardic Inspiration die, maybe the effects of Guidance or Bless, maybe the Lucky Feat or the Halfling Lucky racial trait? Maybe. If I don’t have any such resources available to me, or if I don’t loose that 100 gp unless I agree to the “bet” then no.

So, yeah, I totally get why people feel like rolling is bad. Drop the DC for falling without damage to about 15 and we'll talk. DC 25 to avoid damage when I'm capped at a +10 check? I'd have to be stupid to take those odds.

So your objection was to the DC in the specific example? Ok, I don’t disagree with that. I thought you were objecting to the general idea of consequences for failure beyond missing out on the benefits of success.

And, yes, falling in the water was in the middle of combat. Out of combat, it likely would have been less of an issue, although, if they were at sail, then it might have been worse since they would very quickly leave the PC behind with the real risk of drowning.

Yeah, see in combat those turns spent floundering are a real consequence. Same thing if the ship is at sail. If the ship was anchored and no combat was happening, I’d have skipped the roll.

So, to put it another way, you lied to the players about the consequences of their checks. They didn't know that they couldn't send two down at the same time because you didn't tell them what a failed check meant. You were in no way up front about this. You hid the consequences and then aha gotcha!'d them when they tried something that they would have no way of knowing. Since they don't know what failure means, they cannot possibly declare a different action because they don't have the information needed to do so.

How does this fit into the mold of always knowing the consequences of a failure? How is this not an aha gotcha?

Yeah, Immaculata runs some variant of 3e, and in that system, I don’t care for goal and approach. It’s not built to handle it well, and I agree with you that this ruling looks very player-unfriendly to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are many goals that are all or nothing, but I cannot imagine running a game without degrees of success. It might be DC 20 to notice Jane has a photograph in her pocket, but only DC 15 to see her left hand favoring her pocket overmuch. Your approach can modify those DCs, but what you roll determines how much information I give you.

Nothing wrong with adding degrees of success if you like having them. Lots of published 5e adventures have cases of additional consequence for a failed toll “if you fail by 5 or more...” But in the PHB and DMG, I don’t really see any support for this idea.

No degrees of success would also create bizarre situations. Imagine the curious case of Mr Flip, who frequently succeeds at making six flips but fears attempting ten flips because whenever he tries he fails to do any flips at all.

If Mr Flip attempts to to 10 flips and fails, it doesn’t necessarily mean he fails to do any flips, it just means he fails to do 10 flips, and suffers whatever the consequences for failure were determined to be. Maybe he does 9, but on the 10th he lands badly and falls prone.

 

[Seramus]

But in the PHB and DMG, I don’t really see any support for this idea.

Edit: There seem to be many cases with implied degrees of success. Anything from dealing damage to your enemy, hiding from some people but not all people, failing your resistance rolls by 5 or more, using the performance skill to earn money, etc. Generally speaking, degrees of success have to exist or the game breaks down pretty quick, unless you are playing some kind of dark comedy.

Maybe he does 9, but on the 10th he lands badly and falls prone.

If he does any flips at all that is degrees of success, whether he botches the last one or not.

 

[5ekyu]

There are many goals that are all or nothing, but I cannot imagine running a game without degrees of success. It might be DC 20 to notice Jane has a photograph in her pocket, but only DC 15 to see her left hand favoring her pocket overmuch. Your approach can modify those DCs, but what you roll determines how much information I give you.

No degrees of success would also create bizarre situations. Imagine the curious case of Mr Flip, who frequently succeeds at making six flips but fears attempting ten flips because whenever he tries he fails to do any flips at all.

It seems odd, thatvthere are those who thinkn5e does not support degrees of success - even "as written."

The DMG and Monster Manual show a number of examples of cases where degrees matter or can matter.

One case that's common for saves are poison saves - where in a number of cases failing by 5 gets you a worse effect - unconscious - maybe others.

Other DMG cases include worse consequences on social checks orctraps if you fail by 5. There are sections in running the game on Degrees of Failure, critical failure and success etc.

The DMG gives more specifics but the core rules simply put give a variety of latitude to the GM on success and failure adjudication.

Does it need to have a label with "degrees of success" for some to think its RAW?