D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it’s kind of an “I know it when I see it” thing, I don’t have a particular definition of challenge in mind beyond the plain English meaning. Your definition here seems pretty good though. The even for success part gives me a little pause. Not because I disagree with it, but because I think it may speak to a difference in how we’re using the word failure.

When i say even for success I mean that there is a cost to complete the action, or at least the chance of a cost, regardless of the binary result of the check. You might have to spend a resource no matter what, or you might have to spend a resource unless you succeed by a certain margin, or unless X number of rolls in a group check succeed (where basic success on the task only requires X-2), etc.

For instance, when my players were performing a very complex improvised ritual to stop a necromancer's contingency "if I die i'm taking everything within a dozen miles of my corpse with me and becoming a lich" spell from going off, killing them and everything within 13 (bc Eberron) miles of their location, they had some resources they had to spend (hit dice, as the ritual called for blood), some resources they could spend to boost success or chance of success (spend spell slots or magic item charges to do XYZ or give someone advantage on their next check), and resources they'd have to spend if they failed more than 1 check in the ritual (more HD, levels of exhaustion, or other limited resources based on what made sense in the moment).

The Bard used their inspiration dice liberally, and cast a few different spells. The Paladin of Blood of Vol used a few extra HD to boost the ritual's power. The Monk burned through the rest of his ki, which he'd only used 2 of in the fight, helping everyone align their ki and get a resonating ohm going after the bard and an NPC knight made the "crystaline arcane latticework of the ritual architecture" resonate like crystal glasses being played, the wizard used several spell slots to dismantle or suppress the enchantments of the necromancers magic items that were boosting her contingency.

That was a challenge, not because the stakes were high, although they were, but because it cost them resources, it was hard, and it was something they had to overcome.

Ok, here’s the problem. I would not consider the difference between the left and right path stakes. The word stakes implies an element of risk to me. There’s nothing risked in the left-or-right path choice, so while it may have different possible outcomes, I wouldn’t consider it to have meaningful stakes.


Yeah, I’d say a thing having stakes (something being risked) qualifies it as a challenge by this definition.

I'm not gonna agree on your definition of stakes, tbh. The paths choice has stakes. Something is lost either way. One path might turn out to be better either in terms of greater reward, less risk, or both. The players will never know exactly what the stakes were, but there are stakes. Also, the choice might have known stakes but no way to know how the choice will impact those stakes, such as not knowing which path is quicker, but knowing that you have to quickly get to the destination.

Regardless, there are stakes, but no challenge.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Telegraphs don’t have to be that direct. For example, if lots of things have been hidden in barrels throughout this dungeon, the mere existence of a barrel becomes a sufficient cue to the players that it may be worth searching. In general, the further into a dungeon, the less direct a telegraph needs to be to be effective. You can establish the parameters early on with clear, direct telegraphs and then make subtler, more indirect use of the same tools as you go. This is like level design 101.


I think that’s kind of a different topic.


I use dungeons. They’re not always literal underground complexes, but like. Various site-based adventuring locations, yeah. Even in urban and wilderness adventures can use the same design principles as dungeons.

I do think it’s telling that the folks who argue that 5e is designed with a particular adjudication style in mind also tend to say that 5e lends itself to site-based adventure best.

I really, really, think that the "5e lends itself to site-based adventure best." perception comes from the fact that 5e handles that style well, and that style is something the person with that perception enjoys, moreso than 5e actually being best used to run that sort of adventure.

It's a perfectly cool way to run dnd, but 5e runs really, really, really, well, and IME better, in a non site-based adventure model. I say that because the balance issues that still exist in 5e aren't actually as much of a problem when you don't run the game that way. Site-based 5e games, IME, need the game to be balanced over the course of an adventuring day more than non site-based 5e games. As a result, having 3 encounters on a busy day is a balance issue in a site-based campaign or adventure, but simply isn't in a non site-based campaign or adventure.

But, my perception is also almost certainly biased by my preferences.

 

[Oofta]

Having just run that module, the treasure was in a waterproof satchel inside a open cistern, the cistern being the most prominent feature of the room.

A player who examined the cistern would find the satchel, and the treasure was a perk for those who wanted to check out the cistern, but was not required to continue the adventure.

Barrel/cistern toe-may-toe toe-mah-toe. It's still one object of many in the entire keep. It doesn't stand out, it's not special. It's just set dressing. If you're using one of the prepared maps, the DM may not even mention it.

I don't want my players second-guessing that every time there's a desk in a room they have to carefully search the desk or miss out on treasure.

 

[Charlaquin]

When i say even for success I mean that there is a cost to complete the action, or at least the chance of a cost, regardless of the binary result of the check. You might have to spend a resource no matter what, or you might have to spend a resource unless you succeed by a certain margin, or unless X number of rolls in a group check succeed (where basic success on the task only requires X-2), etc.

For instance, when my players were performing a very complex improvised ritual to stop a necromancer's contingency "if I die i'm taking everything within a dozen miles of my corpse with me and becoming a lich" spell from going off, killing them and everything within 13 (bc Eberron) miles of their location, they had some resources they had to spend (hit dice, as the ritual called for blood), some resources they could spend to boost success or chance of success (spend spell slots or magic item charges to do XYZ or give someone advantage on their next check), and resources they'd have to spend if they failed more than 1 check in the ritual (more HD, levels of exhaustion, or other limited resources based on what made sense in the moment).

The Bard used their inspiration dice liberally, and cast a few different spells. The Paladin of Blood of Vol used a few extra HD to boost the ritual's power. The Monk burned through the rest of his ki, which he'd only used 2 of in the fight, helping everyone align their ki and get a resonating ohm going after the bard and an NPC knight made the "crystaline arcane latticework of the ritual architecture" resonate like crystal glasses being played, the wizard used several spell slots to dismantle or suppress the enchantments of the necromancers magic items that were boosting her contingency.

That was a challenge, not because the stakes were high, although they were, but because it cost them resources, it was hard, and it was something they had to overcome.

Yeah, I agree with you there. A thing can be challenging without necessarily having high stakes (though this scenario does have both), and I think your definition of challenge was a good one.

I'm not gonna agree on your definition of stakes, tbh.

Risk is part of the definition of stakes though. When something is “at stake” it’s at risk of being lost. When you “stake” something, you are betting it. When “stakes are high,” there’s a lot at risk of being lost.

The paths choice has stakes. Something is lost either way. One path might turn out to be better either in terms of greater reward, less risk, or both. The players will never know exactly what the stakes were, but there are stakes.

Also, the choice might have known stakes but no way to know how the choice will impact those stakes, such as not knowing which path is quicker, but knowing that you have to quickly get to the destination.

Regardless, there are stakes, but no challenge.

No, those are just different outcomes. The players aren’t betting anything, they’re not investing anything, they’re not losing anything, they’re just gaining one of two unknown things.

 

[Oofta]

False bottoms was from a favorite trick of a DM I played with for a while back in the day. I never stated the LMOP was a barrel with a false bottom, but a cistern you have to specifically search is just as bad IMHO.

 

[iserith]

I really, really, think that the "5e lends itself to site-based adventure best." perception comes from the fact that 5e handles that style well, and that style is something the person with that perception enjoys, moreso than 5e actually being best used to run that sort of adventure.

I don't have a preference for either location-based or event-based adventures because I can run and play in both well. They just represent trade-offs to me. A location-based adventure is typically more prep, but easier to run at the table. An event-based adventure is much easier to prep, usually, but harder to run at the table, particularly if the DM is hiding the plot and needs the players to stay on it. Then we have to look at what the system supports better and my practical experience with both shows that location-based adventures win out in D&D 5e. Event-based adventures win out in D&D 4e.

It's a perfectly cool way to run dnd, but 5e runs really, really, really, well, and IME better, in a non site-based adventure model. I say that because the balance issues that still exist in 5e aren't actually as much of a problem when you don't run the game that way. Site-based 5e games, IME, need the game to be balanced over the course of an adventuring day more than non site-based 5e games. As a result, having 3 encounters on a busy day is a balance issue in a site-based campaign or adventure, but simply isn't in a non site-based campaign or adventure.

I'm not aware of any "balance issues" in D&D 5e in general, particularly as this isn't a board game, nor anything specific to location-based adventures. I have noticed that PCs in event-based adventures are more likely to nova since there are typically fewer combat challenges than in a location-based adventure. Of course that's going to vary a bit, but I think it holds as generally true.

 

[prabe]

No, those are just different outcomes. The players aren’t betting anything, they’re not investing anything, they’re not losing anything, they’re just gaining one of two unknown things.

I think @doctorbadwolf is proposing a scenario where the choices are mutually exclusive, so choosing one eliminates the possibility of the other. In that case, they lose whatever was down the path they didn't take (and that makes all the difference).

 

[Charlaquin]

I really, really, think that the "5e lends itself to site-based adventure best." perception comes from the fact that 5e handles that style well, and that style is something the person with that perception enjoys, moreso than 5e actually being best used to run that sort of adventure.

It's a perfectly cool way to run dnd, but 5e runs really, really, really, well, and IME better, in a non site-based adventure model. I say that because the balance issues that still exist in 5e aren't actually as much of a problem when you don't run the game that way. Site-based 5e games, IME, need the game to be balanced over the course of an adventuring day more than non site-based 5e games. As a result, having 3 encounters on a busy day is a balance issue in a site-based campaign or adventure, but simply isn't in a non site-based campaign or adventure.

But, my perception is also almost certainly biased by my preferences.

Well, first of all, I don’t agree that having too few encounters in an adventuring day doesn’t cause balance issues in non-site-based adventures. And second of all, if you’ve observed that the number of encounters in an adventuring day is an important balance factor for site-based adventures, the existence of guidelines surrounding how many encounters to include in an adventuring day should be an indication that 5e was designed around site-based adventures, no? Of course you can still use it for other things, and it might work well for those things. But it was clearly designed around site-based adventure.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think @doctorbadwolf is proposing a scenario where the choices are mutually exclusive, so choosing one eliminates the possibility of the other. In that case, they lose whatever was down the path they didn't take (and that makes all the difference).

They don’t lose it though, because they never had it in the first place to lose. They just never gain it.

 

[prabe]

They don’t lose it though, because they never had it in the first place to lose. They just never gain it.

I think that's a difference between your outlook and @doctorbadwolf 's. As for myself, I kinda think you're both right (presuming I understand you both).