D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Charlaquin]

Yes I know this goes against 3e-and-forward design. Tough.

Actually, I’d say it’s very much in line with 3e design, and isn’t terribly far off from 4e design (which despite popular conception was very much a direct continuation of 3e design, only further evidenced by the abundance of 4e style design found in PF2). What it’s not in line with is pre-3e design, or 5e design which revived a lot of pre-3e thinking.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ugh. I tried to write a detailed "Monster Lore" feature for a ranger rework. Ran into I suspect a lot of the same obstacles for systematizing knowledge checks. In the end I just punted: gave 'em advantage on checks to recall information about creatures, and left it to the DM to figure out what that meant.

Sounds like the Hunter’s Sense 3rd level feature of the Monster Slayer Ranger archetype.

 

[5ekyu]

I would have run it the same way in my campaign unless someone had previously established an unusual background.

Let's say someone has told me they don't remember where they came from and had just found themselves on the beach one day. That player has left open room for knowing a creature that is otherwise unknown.

But otherwise? If it hasn't been something they at least mentioned in their backstory, I don't see why some players wouldn't try to justify anything. Your flying creature? Yeah, that was in a weird book I found. That symbol to an unknown religion? An old priest in my hometown used to wear that and he told us all about it, I guess he wasn't crazy after all.

In my current game, one character literally did wash in from "somewhere very different" and the micing of whst they know and what they dont (and vice-versa) has been great.

I think if she has to explain "tides" again she may start charging.

And yes there have been some threats and situations where she recognized things alien to others.

 

[iserith]

This thread has been enlightening so far. Thanks for starting it, @Elfcrusher

At our table last week, a player asked if his character recognized the leathery winged bird-like reptilian beasts that were attacking their ship in the fog. I simply said “no, these creatures appear to be from a land that time forgot.”

For me, I would have asked the player not to ask a question and instead state as an action that gives me something to judge. This would necessarily include what information the player wants and what the character is drawing upon to recall the lore.

After the game, I second guessed myself. Was I telling the player what his character thought? Should I have asked him in return “tell me about what in your PC’s life experience might inform him about such creatures.”? In this case, I don’t think a roll was appropriate since there is no special ability to be gleaned for said creature. It was a Yes or No call on my part, but I still felt critical of myself that I may have botched it.

After reading some responses here, I now feel confident I can choose to say No since I had already established that the creatures were not known in the civilized world at all. But, with a good backstory reason (which I should have encouraged) I might have said Yes in the moment.

If I had established already that they were not known in the civilized world at all, my response would have been, "As I mentioned before, these creatures are not known in the civilized world at all." This reinforces to the player that what has been established previously matters and to pay attention.

If I hadn't already established this, I would feel I was on less firm ground to say rule that an attempt to recall lore was a failure without a roll. Typically, if it matters to the challenge in some way that characters would not be able to recall a thing due to no exposure to it, I'm going to establish that well in advance of it coming up so that this isn't an issue. At least, that's the goal.

Now, what if PC’s backstory somehow included possible pertinent knowledge of said creatures AND said creatures had a special trait, like their bones could be ground up to brew a Heroism potion. Meaningful cost of failure = miss out on some treats. I guess I would set a reasonably difficult DC and ask for an INT roll letting the player know if they fail, they only get partial info since these creatures are so obscure. Whaddaya think?

I note how I do it upthread. But the key part here is getting the player to be reasonably specific about what they want to recall. If that doesn't include uses for the creature's bones, then that's not going to be at stake if there's a roll. If I do have a creature that has useful parts, then I'm likely to telegraph that in some way and leave it for them to investigate, perhaps after the battle. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think point 3 makes assumptions of facts not in evidence.

His point #3 also is rendered kind of moot by the playstyle under discussion. If you're eliminating zero-cost "information check" dice rolls, then there's no risk of them being metagamed.

 

[Oofta]

His point #3 also is rendered kind of moot by the playstyle under discussion. If you're eliminating zero-cost "information check" dice rolls, then there's no risk of them being metagamed.

But that's what doesn't make sense to me. If you eliminate all checks that you consider zero cost there are so many things that you cannot adequately represent in your game.

Most knowledge checks get thrown out the window. Insight? Never used. Using perception to search? It seems like just about anything not related to a physical activity goes away.

It's your game, do it how you want, I think you still dismissing the cost of not gaining useful information.

 

[Mort]

This thread has been enlightening so far. Thanks for starting it, @Elfcrusher

At our table last week, a player asked if his character recognized the leathery winged bird-like reptilian beasts that were attacking their ship in the fog. I simply said “no, these creatures appear to be from a land that time forgot.”

After the game, I second guessed myself. Was I telling the player what his character thought? Should I have asked him in return “tell me about what in your PC’s life experience might inform him about such creatures.”? In this case, I don’t think a roll was appropriate since there is no special ability to be gleaned for said creature. It was a Yes or No call on my part, but I still felt critical of myself that I may have botched it.

It was a quick call, you made it and moved on - that's really all you can do - and I suppose the players/characters can learn what the monster is later - so more incentive to do so.

That said:

I think the character choices do matter here (not necessarily what the player put into the background), for example:

1. The character has the outlander background - most of the time he's the stranger in a strange land, constantly surprised by the ways of civilization. But if the group is not in civilization - maybe he knows a thing or two they don't, like what the heck this monster is.

2. The character has the sage background and it's come up that he's studied ancient creatures/etc. Maybe he at least gets a check on this?

If none of that applies - well they don't know what the monster is.

Now, what if PC’s backstory somehow included possible pertinent knowledge of said creatures AND said creatures had a special trait, like their bones could be ground up to brew a Heroism potion. Meaningful cost of failure = miss out on some treats. I guess I would set a reasonably difficult DC and ask for an INT roll letting the player know if they fail, they only get partial info since these creatures are so obscure. Whaddaya think?

Relating to the thread - I don't think any kind of "special trait" is necessary. Not knowing what the creature is, is enough of a consequence (and not that a secondary consequence should always be necessary). As for the check, if the player has a chance of knowing, then your method works (though proficiency should be applied if the character has something appropriate to the situation).

 

[Bawylie]

But that's what doesn't make sense to me. If you eliminate all checks that you consider zero cost there are so many things that you cannot adequately represent in your game.

Most knowledge checks get thrown out the window. Insight? Never used. Using perception to search? It seems like just about anything not related to a physical activity goes away.

It's your game, do it how you want, I think you still dismissing the cost of not gaining useful information.

I believe the core idea is to eliminate inconsequential checks. Not necessarily all checks altogether.

For instance, in the normal course of adventuring, a cleric trained in religion probably shouldn’t need a check to recall religious lore, or discern the purpose of a cult’s ritual, perform a regular religious service, or stuff like that. Whereas recreating that ritual or devising a counter-ritual might well need the check.

Just being trained in religion is probably sufficient for a lot of the knowledge checks. The cases where it isn’t sufficient, should be weightier or more significant scenarios than “Who’s that poke-undead?” IMO, anyway.

 

[iserith]

It was a quick call, you made it and moved on - that's really all you can do - and I suppose the players/characters can learn what the monster is later - so more incentive to do so.

That said:

I think the character choices do matter here (not necessarily what the player put into the background), for example:

1. The character has the outlander background - most of the time he's the stranger in a strange land, constantly surprised by the ways of civilization. But if the group is not in civilization - maybe he knows a thing or two they don't, like what the heck this monster is.

2. The character has the sage background and it's come up that he's studied ancient creatures/etc. Maybe he at least gets a check on this?

If none of that applies - well they don't know what the monster is.

Yes, and this argues for reasonable specificity from the player when attempting to recall lore. Background details like this help the DM make a fair and consistent adjudication. And who doesn't want to help their DM?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But otherwise? If it hasn't been something they at least mentioned in their backstory, I don't see why some players wouldn't try to justify anything. Your flying creature? Yeah, that was in a weird book I found. That symbol to an unknown religion? An old priest in my hometown used to wear that and he told us all about it, I guess he wasn't crazy after all.

1. I should hope a player has not written a novel about their character’s backstory. Not doing so leaves room for improvisation, which is just fine at our table.
2. I should hope a player is not trying to justify everything with specious backstory claims. That is encroaching on bad actor territory.
3. After finding out what they want to know, why they want to know it, and how they could possibly know it, with reasonable specificity, the DM can still say No because reasons, right?