D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Maxperson]

As it says in the PHB, sometimes a failed check just means you make no progress.

Aaaaaaaaaand, the circumstances will dictate when that's appropriate. It's the circumstances, not the roll that's important.

In order to prove that the roll in and of itself is what is important, you have to be able to give an example of a roll with absolutely no context and have it make sense that the roll itself is all that matters. For example, "Roll an athletics check." Now, tell me why a failure means jack without any context.

 

[Maxperson]

Even the DMG section on traps seems to contradict it. That's why that section is "poorly written".

Yeah, but you thought that the DMG section that says, "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." contradicts the PHB rules, so your track record for being able to spot contradictions is poor.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, but you thought that the DMG section that says, "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." contradicts the PHB rules, so your track record for being able to spot contradictions is poor.

Repeating that only your interpretation of the rule is the only interpretation doesn't change anything.

 

[Maxperson]

Repeating that only your interpretation of the rule is the only interpretation doesn't change anything.

It's not an interpretation. I've proven how they work together, so they can't be contradictory.

 

[Oofta]

It's not an interpretation. I've proven how they work together, so they can't be contradictory.

No, you repeated your assertion. The phb is quite clear, one consequence of failure is "makes no progress toward the objective".

I assume that means what it says.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you repeated your assertion. The phb is quite clear, one consequence of failure is "makes no progress toward the objective".

I assume that means what it says.

No, I showed how you could in fact use all three together. That is absolute proof that they are not contradictory rules. If something is truly contradictory, there is no interpretation that can show them working together.

As I proved, you can have no progress AND have a meaningful consequence for failure. No progress all by itself isn't enough to know if failure is meaningful. For that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the no progress.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The one "hole" you find is a complete fabrication.

If you can find a way to express your thoughts in a more civil way I might respond.

 

[Oofta]

If you can find a way to express your thoughts in a more civil way I might respond.

How about this. I don't see an issue. In many cases some things just happen, there is no uncertainty to the outcome so there is no roll. If someone can repeat a check as many times as they want, I still don't guarantee that they will succeed. Some rare items may be virtually impossible to forge, even if we assume the forger eventually rolls a 20. In addition, it's assuming that the person assessing the forger is any good at assessing forgeries. What may look like a validly forged signature to me* may not look like one to someone who is an expert on forgeries.

As the DMG states, if there's no consequence of failure there's no need for a roll. I simply view consequence of failure including "no progress towards the goal" as stated in the PHB. Not being able to tell if an NPC is telling the truth or not is a valid consequence.

Where I may be in "just the way I run it" territory is that I also consider a consequence to not include just consequences to the PCs. I also consider consequences to my players. I think it's more fun when I play and for my players if the players only know what the PCs know or perceive.

Players will of course have meta-game knowledge, especially when it comes to monsters. But not if it's a custom monster. They don't know as much about my world as I do.

*Or my buddy in grade school if he actually existed. But he's hypothetical.

 

[Maxperson]

How about this. I don't see an issue. In many cases some things just happen, there is no uncertainty to the outcome so there is no roll. If someone can repeat a check as many times as they want, I still don't guarantee that they will succeed.

Why waste everyone's time like that, though? If it's possible to succeed, and they are going to be able to roll forever, there's no point in making them roll until they get it right. It's a meaningless waste of time.

As the DMG states, if there's no consequence of failure there's no need for a roll. I simply view consequence of failure including "no progress towards the goal" as stated in the PHB. Not being able to tell if an NPC is telling the truth or not is a valid consequence.

You left out the most important word and it's telling that you would do so. MEANINGFUL consequence for failure is the requirement to have to roll.

 

[Oofta]

Why waste everyone's time like that, though? If it's possible to succeed, and they are going to be able to roll forever, there's no point in making them roll until they get it right. It's a meaningless waste of time.

They don't roll. To use the verbiage from a previous edition, they take 20. But if the DC is 30 and they can only possibly get a 28 they still fail.