D&D 5E Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)

[doctorbadwolf]

You should roll the player's Stealth check yourself. Stealth is one of those skills where if the player rolls it, he sees the result and can easily extrapolate an success/failure by the result, and proactively adjust his behaviour. Which is bad, imho.

I find the notion that they aren’t aware that they’re doing poorly kinda odd.

 

[Charlaquin]

First, the rules don't tell you that you are hiding from someone, you might just be hiding as a general precaution. You might not even know that there is someone, you are just trying to be stealthy. Read the sentence again, it is very clear on this subject.

The rules don’t say any of those things.

 

[Lyxen]

Specific does indeed beat general, but if interpreting the rules that way leads you creating an opportunity for "metagaming" such that you then have to make private rolls for players to combat the situation you created, then why are you doing this to yourself?

First, some people don't care about metagaming (and the rules make that assumption), and for us, there is a perfect simple solution that takes care of it, so how is that a problem ?

 

[Charlaquin]

And again, as I've said, not very convincingly. "I check the chest for traps" should be sufficient for a standard player. Requiring further details is usually the mark of a DM trying to "gotcha" a player ("you did not check the sides/bottom/whatever").

You’re not accounting for telegraphing. If you need to check the sides/bottom/whatever, there will be an environmental clue that indicates as much.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because “check for traps” doesn’t communicate what action is taking place in the narrative. “Pick the lock with my lock picks” does.

I think it does, if the target is specified. "I check the chest for traps" is specific enough, if (as is likely) neither the players or the GM really knows how checking for medievalish fantasy traps actually works.

 

[Lyxen]

I find the notion that they aren’t aware that they’re doing poorly kinda odd.

Remember that the roll does not necessarily say how they are doing in general, but how the circumstances react to what they are doing. With the swinginess inherent to a d20 (compared to the bonusses), it would be absurd to consider that someone trained at stealth can be that good or bad just depending on what, their mood ?

 

[iserith]

I would agree with that if it had been "old argument", not "old people", sorry, it's still extremely insulting.

Except it is an old argument. It's been trotted out every single time these discussions have arisen and refuted every single time. It's a wonder why it continues to get brought up. It's a terrible, easily-refutable argument.

And again, as I've said, not very convincingly. "I check the chest for traps" should be sufficient for a standard player. Requiring further details is usually the mark of a DM trying to "gotcha" a player ("you did not check the sides/bottom/whatever").

What happens if the chest has a contact poison on it? Do I just assume you touch it? What happens if the fiction the player has in their head about how the character is checking the chest for traps isn't the same as what I narrate? Now we have to resolve that, when instead the player could have just established what the character was doing with reasonable specificity up front so there's no conflict.

In the chest example I posted upthead, the chest is in the grip of a giant skeletal hand. How do you get at that chest to check it for traps exactly? It might matter. This is why it's better for the player to be reasonably specific. They don't have to be engineers, but I don't want to assume what your character is doing either. That's not the DM's role.

 

[iserith]

First, some people don't care about metagaming (and the rules make that assumption), and for us, there is a perfect simple solution that takes care of it, so how is that a problem ?

I'm glad you found a solution for the problem you created yourself.

 

[Lyxen]

The rules don’t say any of those things.

"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check."

Not "when you try to hide from someone, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of the creature that you are hiding from".

 

[Lyxen]

I'm glad you found a solution for the problem you created yourself.

Just read the rules, they are perfectly clear, old people like me obviously learnt how to read better.