D&D 5E I reject your reality and substitute my own!

[jmartkdr2]

To the OP question: halflings have some capacity for this (On second thought, I don't roll a nat 1) especially if they take the racial feat, but DnD has nothing like Invoking a Fate Aspect.

 

[Mort]

Most of the background abilities "just work". It's kind of my problem with them as presented. While it's satisfying to have an ability work that says "you automatically do X", it's not very interesting for an adventure. Sage says you know where to learn something you don't know offhand. Outlander says you never really get lost. It's just odd. I'd like a bit more depth there, I think. Not a lot, but a little.

Sure the abilities "just work," but the HOW is up to the player (and sometimes the DM) and the extent is up to the DM. Lots of opportunities for interesting interactions thanks to the backgrounds! Frankly, I don't think most campaigns utilize them enough.

 

[Mort]

To the OP question: halflings have some capacity for this (On second thought, I don't roll a nat 1) especially if they take the racial feat, but DnD has nothing like Invoking a Fate Aspect.

Optional Hero points (from the DMG) can be close. Especially if the DM makes the player explain how the hero point manifests. Of course, that's 1) an add on 2) by default. it just works the player doesn't have to explain it. But If I throw hero points in, I think I will make the player explain how the hero point manifests for the character.

 

[Stormonu]

Prestidigitation.

DM: "You have been out in the rain for the last hour, and arrive at the inn cold and wet."
Wizard player: "No, I don't."

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Regarding the Lucky feat, I don't think it works quite that way. I mean, it can turn a miss into a hit sometimes, but it won't make a trap appear on a chest if there wasn't one to be found in the first place. This actually happened in my game.

The rogue was searching a chest for traps, and rolled really low...like a 2 or something. I responded, "The chest doesn't appear to be trapped." Which would have been the truth no matter what he rolled...the chest wasn't trapped.

"I am going to use my Lucky feat," the player said, and rolled again. "Yeah, nat-20!" he shouted. "Now I'd like to disarm the trap!"

"The chest doesn't appear to be trapped," I repeated.

"But I rolled a nat-20!" the player insisted. "I totally found the trap!" It never occurred to him that there was never a trap there for him to find. When I explained that to him, he accused me of wasting his Luck points.

 

[Flamestrike]

True, but I think that can lead to a lot of metagaming and meaningless rolling.

The purpose of asking for a check when there is no trap is to avoid metagaming.

If the DM only ever asks for checks when the chest is trapped, then you know a request for a check means 'trapped chest'.

The PC in question was unable to metagame if this chest was in fact trapped simply due to the request for a check.

 

[Thunder Brother]

The purpose of asking for a check when there is no trap is to avoid metagaming.

If the DM only ever asks for checks when the chest is trapped, then you know a request for a check means 'trapped chest'.

The PC in question was unable to metagame if this chest was in fact trapped simply due to the request for a check.

Both rolling and not rolling lead to metagaming. Unless the outcome is immediately obvious, a PC isn't necessarily aware of the outcome of a check. Only the player knows they rolled a 2, not the character.

So really it comes down to one's preferred flavor of metagaming, and how much the table likes rolling them dice.

On a side note, the DM rolling certain checks behind the screen for the PC would potentially resolve this issue, but from what I know that's not exactly kosher in DnD.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"But I rolled a nat-20!" the player insisted. "I totally found the trap!" It never occurred to him that there was never a trap there for him to find. When I explained that to him, he accused me of wasting his Luck points.

Some players aren't the brightest lol, that is amazing.

A ton of D&D spells pretty much amount to "I reject your reality...", in that they allow the player to dictate the fiction. They might not meet the ultra-strict definition posited by @Ovinomancer but I think they're close enough for me. Wish being the most obvious/powerful in that it can literally change reality.

 

[Mort]

Both rolling and not rolling lead to metagaming. Unless the outcome is immediately obvious, a PC isn't necessarily aware of the outcome of a check. Only the player knows they rolled a 2, not the character.

So really it comes down to one's preferred flavor of metagaming, and how much the table likes rolling them dice.

On a side note, the DM rolling certain checks behind the screen for the PC would potentially resolve this issue, but from what I know that's not exactly kosher in DnD.

It's not that rolling behind the screen is not "kosher." it's that hidden rolls have fallen out of favor to rolling out in the open.

I tend to favor passive checks in such circumstances. If a player doesn't indicate that they are actively searching, I don't have them roll, but a passive investigation check might then be dictated.

If the player expressly engages in behavior that involves searching for traps, then I have them roll whether there is a trap or not. Note, this means under most circumstances the minimum ACTUAL result would be their passive check. I find it silly that they could actively get lower than they could passively (though one could certainly, and easily, justify that in the fiction).

All that said, even with the lucky feat, this isn't really ALTERING reality, it's finding reality. Unless the player has some way of saying I KNOW there's a trap there and the trap suddenly is there whether or not it read before.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Some players aren't the brightest lol, that is amazing.

A ton of D&D spells pretty much amount to "I reject your reality...", in that they allow the player to dictate the fiction. They might not meet the ultra-strict definition posited by @Ovinomancer but I think they're close enough for me. Wish being the most obvious/powerful in that it can literally change reality.

I posted a definition? <looks> Where?