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

[Lyxen]

I agree that the rules have two things to bear in mind when resolving ability checks related to hiding and that interpreting one as more specific creates problems for the "no metagaming" crowd. But anyway, no thanks. I don't care about "metagaming" and, as it happens, don't create situations for it to occur in the first place in part by employing those two rules in tandem rather than having one supersede the other.

Obviously, if you don't care about metagaming, you don't need the trick of blind rolling, but we've found out that even with very good players (in the sense of being careful with their decision and thinking about their role as a character and player in a positive light for the table), they are influenced/biased if they know they rolled well or if they know someone is watching for them.

In addition, for specific beats general to apply, the specific rule must contradict a general rule, and I don't think it does in this case because not every attempt to hide needs a roll. Sometimes you just succeed and sometimes you just fail, no roll.

You were the one who brought the second one (about the need to roll) in the equation. After that, I sometimes use passive stealth as well as the passive perceptions/etc., or even decide upon a straight success or failure, but honestly I rarely do this because stealth is one of those skills where rolls can mean so many things for the environment to impact on the success or failure that it's often fun.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, it is, because in the sword case, you decided you swung your sword. In the contact poison case, you didn’t decide you touched the chest.

Except if someone is checking for traps and I ask for a roll I would never assume they touched anything if the check is successful. In my game, I wouldn't assume they touched the chest at all until they go to open it, assuming they aren't using mage hand.

Having them describe what they're doing? If it's a newbie player or even just someone like me who would never consider the possibility of contact poison because I long ago discarded it as silly? Then you're just (potentially) penalizing people that don't know your DMing style.

But this is nothing new. I am not the one checking the chest for traps, my PC is. I think I first had this argument back in the late 20th century, probably in the 1980s. I doubt we're going to solve it now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What you're doing is assuming the possibility the character touches the chest while searching for traps, thus assuming what the character is doing prior to the roll. This is the DM stepping outside their role. What if I'm only visually inspecting the chest, perhaps because the DM described it being shiny? How did I end up touching the thing? Seems like that's something we'd want to sort out in the action declaration phase to avoid such issues.

Action declaration is examining the chest for traps. Not just one specific type of trap, any traps. This process requires touching the chest. Now of course first thing a perfect rogue would do is check for contact poison and detect it, and not proceed if such was present. However, if the roll is low, this obviously didn't happen.

This is literally what skills and checks are for. If you require the player to describe correct steps for finding dismantling traps, why not even roll? Why have skills? If the player describes correct steps, they succeed, if they don't they fail. And that's BTW perfectly valid way to play and RPG, it just isn't how D&D works, as it actually has skills and checks for a purpose.

 

[iserith]

Obviously, if you don't care about metagaming, you don't need the trick of blind rolling, but we've found out that even with very good players (in the sense of being careful with their decision and thinking about their role as a character and player in a positive light for the table), they are influenced/biased if they know they rolled well or if they know someone is watching for them.

I don't care how players make decisions for their own characters. It's none of my business. My role as DM in this regard is only to adjudicate what they actually do, not how they arrived at the decision of what to do.

You were the one who brought the second one (about the need to roll) in the equation. After that, I sometimes use passive stealth as well as the passive perceptions/etc., or even decide upon a straight success or failure, but honestly I rarely do this because stealth is one of those skills where rolls can mean so many things for the environment to impact on the success or failure that it's often fun.

Yes, I did, because your interpretation forgets the rule that for ability checks to exist in the first place, there must be an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. You then stated specific beats general, but as the rule for hiding doesn't contradict the first rule, they must both apply at the same time in my view. And they can. And when they do, it sidesteps the issue of "metagaming" that you say you have with no additional kluge needed. It seems to me this is the cleaner interpretation.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. In the animated movie All Dogs Go to Heaven there’s a scene with a singing alligator that comes out of nowhere, has no bearing on the plot, teaches us nothing about the characters, and is never brought up again. You may like the scene, but the film would unquestionably be better without it.

Or, to relate this back to D&D, when playing Dragon Heist with a friend of mine who was trying his hand at DMing for the first time, we were in candle lane, looking for a door with a snake symbol on it, which we knew to be a Zhentarim hideout. It was dark, so the DM asked us to make perception checks to see if we could spot the symbol. Everyone failed, and the DM realized the game couldn’t actually go anywhere from there if we didn’t find it, so he said “Uhh… Well I guess you’d eventually find it… But it’s really hard and it takes a long time,”

New DM so obviously I'd cut a lot of slack; but the mistake here isn't in calling for the check, it's in not honouring the result.

DM: "OK. You've looked at the doors such as you can in the dark and haven't found anything. What do you do next?"

Player responses could be anything from "We check each door again only this time using a muffled lantern to give a little light" to "We feel each door to see if there's any unusual carvings" to "We abandon for the night and will look again when it's daylight" to whatever else they might come up with; and things carry on from there.

As I’ve told you multiple times, this is a problem I see all the time especially with new DMs, and one of the reasons I advise people not to call for checks if the outcome of the check isn’t consequential.

Except the outcome of the check is consequential, in that it concludes what they're doing doesn't work and so they have to think of something different.

 

[iserith]

Action declaration is examining the chest for traps. Not just one specific type of trap, any traps. This process requires touching the chest. Now of course first thing a perfect rogue would do is check for contact poison and detect it, and not proceed if such was present. However, if the roll is low, this obviously didn't happen.

This is literally what skills and checks are for. If you require the player to describe correct steps for finding dismantling traps, why not even roll? Why have skills? If the player describes correct steps, they succeed, if they don't they fail. And that's BTW perfectly valid way to play and RPG, it just isn't how D&D works, as it actually has skills and checks for a purpose.

The issue is in the assumption that examining a chest for traps involves touching the chest. That is, at best, a table rule that you and your players may agree on. Perfectly fine, but it is not a rule of the game. Therefore, for those groups who do not share your table rule that "examine chest for traps = touching the chest," you're going to get pushback that the DM is overstepping their role and that reasonable specificity is required (which actually is set forth in the rules in the section on hidden objects).

As for why the character has skills, as @Charlaquin has noted, these are effectively insurance for when a player's decisions fall short of success without a roll. Which will happen quite a bit in a game where the pace is reasonably good and the PCs are engaged in situations that have actual stakes to them.

 

[Oofta]

Action declaration is examining the chest for traps. Not just one specific type of trap, any traps. This process requires touching the chest. Now of course first thing a perfect rogue would do is check for contact poison and detect it, and not proceed if such was present. However, if the roll is low, this obviously didn't happen.

This is literally what skills and checks are for. If you require the player to describe correct steps for finding dismantling traps, why not even roll? Why have skills? If the player describes correct steps, they succeed, if they don't they fail. And that's BTW perfectly valid way to play and RPG, it just isn't how D&D works, as it actually has skills and checks for a purpose.

The problem I see is that someone playing Oaf McClumsy, tank fighter with an 8 dex and no proficiency, has exactly the same chance of describing how to look for traps "correctly" as Sly Quick fingers who maxed out their dex and has expertise. Maybe Sly even invested in magic items to increase their odds.

It would just feel wrong to me if Oaf had a better chance to succeed because the player was more skilled.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think so, in particular "slip away without being noticed" or "slink past guards", who might or might not be where you go at the time when you get there.

“Slip away without being noticed” implies there is someone there who might notice you. “Slink past the guards” implies there are… guards… to be snuck past…

Look, I'm not going to fight with you over this, since we both agree that the rules are supposed to be interpreted as guidelines, and that it's up to the DM to call for rolls or not anyway, my point was just that the rules do actually preserve the tension by people not knowing if someone is watching them or not. If you have another mechanism that works well for you, it's great, I just wanted to present my type of mechanism as a supported option.

Sure, your approach is definitely a supported option as well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is the purpose of play?

Myself, I want to feel like I am experiencing the events of play. I want the verisimilitude of having characters roleplay full conversations. I want to hear the detail of how they attack their enemy, how they examine the chest for traps, and how they attempt to move quietly through the palace gardens.

Boiling the experience down to Diplomacy check, attack roll, Investigation check, Stealth check with no narration seems to defeat its own purpose. What is it in aid of?

I actually agree with your overall sentiment. And I this isn't a new conflict, and I am usually on the side that player skill is allowed to matter. But ultimately in a game where skills and such are a thing, they must matter too. And I feel farther we go from the area of which the players actually have practical understanding, more we need to abstract things and let the system handle it. Like everyone (Ok, almost everyone) has at least some idea how conversations work. Even if they were not super charismatic master manipulators, they can at least approximate a persuasion attempt. But when we get to specialised technical knowledge I don't feel this really works, and I don't feel expecting players to describe such things in detail is fair. Like in real world there are people who can fix computers. I'm definitely not one of them. And if I was playing a techie character in a modern game, I would just expect that I could say things like "I try to fix the broken computer" and I feel it would be extremely unfair if the GM expected me to be able to describe whether I check if the problem is in the mother board or in the power... thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except if someone is checking for traps and I ask for a roll I would never assume they touched anything if the check is successful. In my game, I wouldn't assume they touched the chest at all until they go to open it, assuming they aren't using mage hand.

But there’s still the problem of you having to assume what my character does or doesn’t do.

Having them describe what they're doing? If it's a newbie player or even just someone like me who would never consider the possibility of contact poison because I long ago discarded it as silly? Then you're just (potentially) penalizing people that don't know your DMing style.

If there’s contact poison, I’ll give some hint to that in my description of the environment. I don’t do gotchas.

But this is nothing new. I am not the one checking the chest for traps, my PC is.

But you’re the one deciding what your PC does. If what your PC does has a chance of failure, and that failure matters, your PC’s stats will influence the likelihood of failure.

I think I first had this argument back in the late 20th century, probably in the 1980s. I doubt we're going to solve it now.

Oh, yeah, I have no illusions about changing your mind.