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

[iserith]

I already said this. They make an investigation check, on good result they notice the poison on time, and don't touch it.* On bad result they don't notice it, continue examining the chest resulting them touching it. Con save next.

(*I mean they can, if they want to intentionally poison themselves, but I doubt that they do.)

That fails to honor the action declaration in my view. The player said the character touched the chest since that is assumed in the action declaration of "I examine the chest for traps." Now the DM is saying they didn't touch it. No bueno in my view. DM can't say what the character does.

Yes. Like examining the correct piece of furniture. Like 'I open the drawers (of the bureau)' or 'I search the bureau' resulting finding the keys on a successful check. The latter is pretty much same thing than 'I examine the chest for traps' resulting finding the trap on a success. Notice how the key is under folded clothes in the top drawer of the bureau, yet it is not required that the player describes their character lifting the clothes or rifling through them, or specify which drawer they're examining. Hell, it doesn't even need the player to specify what they're looking for, whilst in the case of looking for traps that is specified.

The example shows orders of specificity for failure and for uncertainty. There's one more, too: automatic success. If the character specifically searches beneath the folded clothes in the top drawer, there is no need for an ability check since the outcome is certain - they find the key, no roll. The example indicates that reasonable specificity is required and demonstrate that how a player describes an action has an impact on whether it's a success, a failure, or whether a roll is called for.

So how would you describe the DMG needle chest, and what the players need to say to get to roll?

Well, first, the goal of the player isn't to roll. It's to find the trap. Rolling is bad. Succeeding outright by removing uncertainty or the meaningful consequence for failure is the best strategy given how the game is designed.

Second, my traps are telegraphed. In this case (since I've used this trap before in a one-shot), I described it as "an oversized chest (50 lbs.) of exotic hardwood banded with iron is sealed shut by an oddly-shaped lock with an intricate design." Some players honed in on the lock and searched it specifically for a trap, some using light sources or the like to illuminate the keyhole to see the mechanisms inside. Nobody touched it. (I ran this for about half a dozen groups.) Depending on the approach, this was resolved with a Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) check.

At least a couple of groups just smashed the chest open because they didn't have anyone that could disarm the trap or pick the lock. This meant breaking a stone tablet within that contained a unique and hilarious spell: ray of nudity. Another group as I recall disabled the trap, extracted the poisoned needle and then used that poison on a villain in the adventure location to great effect. Another group found the key to the chest in another chamber and just used it to unlock the chest. One group used acid to destroy the lock and the trap. What was in the chest was more than the cost of the acid so that was a good trade.

I mean, in the amount that is required to relay the outcomes of actions. "You slice open the gnoll's throat, it gurgles miserably and collapses at your feet." I think this is pretty normal. You don't?

I try to avoid saying anything about the character and describe only the result of their actions. There are a lot of DMs who are happy to hear a lackluster action declaration from a player and then fill in the blanks, assuming and establishing what the character is doing. And there are plenty of players that are happy to play that way. Not at my table!

 

[Scott Christian]

I would say a large part of this is how much the GM has prepared. I mean, if I know the group will be exploring some mansion, most (if not close to all) of the meaningful skill checks that players make will be configured ahead of time.

Side note: I realize this is only for a certain style of game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Only in a sense that everything in D&D combat has more detail! This is hardly an revelation. Also, it is not just 'search for traps, it is 'search this chest for traps.'

Combat doesn’t demand more descrptive detail than any other part of the game.

Again, we might demand the player to describe their specific way of swinging their sword at the gnoll and adjust the gnoll's AC based on that, but we don't.

No, we determine based on the player’s goal and approach what rules, if any, are appropriate to use to resolve the action. Kill the gnoll is the goal, hit it with sword is the approach, no further detail is needed to make that determination, and the appropriate rules to use are an attack roll against the target’s AC. In the trapped chest scenario we have a goal but not an approach. “Check,” unlike “attack with sword” does not convey what the character is actually doing.

Yes. Because the investigation check represents how skilfully the character examines the check for traps.

How skillfully the character does what, exactly?

Just like the attack roll represents how skilfully the character hits the gnoll.

But you don’t need to rely on the roll to determine what the character did to try and achieve their goal of killing the gnoll. The player already told you, they swung their sword at it, and the roll determines if that works. If we knew what the character was doing to try and find out if the chest is trapped, maybe an Investigation check could determine whether or not that succeeds. Or maybe it wouldn’t need to. Not enough information to say at this point.

And because neither you or the player actually knows how to search for traps, the player is unable to make informed decisions of what steps are reasonable. At the best, they can try to guess what you think is reasonable.

Let’s not overstate the complexity of the action here. We’re talking about a chest that was specifically described as shiny. It doesn’t take a galaxy brain to think of ways to try and test if it’s safe to open, nor to work out whether or not those ways are going to succeed.

Do you know of fantasy traps work? How you determine which approach is reasonable? This is just very 'mother may I.' The player needs to use specific words even to get to use their character's capabilities.

They do not need to use specific words. They need to use any one of the infinitely many approaches they can imagine, and they can describe whatever approach they go with in whatever words they wish.

This is like if in combat they would need to describe the attack in specific way to even get to roll for an attack.

Indeed, they would not. They would only need to clearly communicate their goal and what the character does to try and achieve it, just like they do here.

 

[Maxperson]

I know how checking for whatever trap I’ve designed works, and I have seeded my description of the environment with clues to indicate how to detect it. Just saying “I check the chest for traps” conveys no information about what you are actually doing, only what you are trying to accomplish,

I don't require my players to have to pixelbitch. If they want to tell me exactly how they are checking the chest, they might get a bonus to the roll or even auto succeed if there's a trap there, but "I check the chest for traps." is sufficient for me to know what the PC is doing. The PC is going to know the how of it(and it will involve touching).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That fails to honor the action declaration in my view. The player said the character touched the chest since that is assumed in the action declaration of "I examine the chest for traps." Now the DM is saying they didn't touch it. No bueno in my view. DM can't say what the character does.

Action declaration is to search for traps. Presumably in reality this process has several steps, starting with looking for anything obviously sus. Of course the character will not touch it if they notice the poison/death runes/whatever at this point.

The example shows orders of specificity for failure and for uncertainty. There's one more, too: automatic success. If the character specifically searches beneath the folded clothes in the top drawer, there is no need for an ability check since the outcome is certain - they find the key, no roll.

It doesn't say that. Nevertheless, sounds reasonable.

The example indicates that reasonable specificity is required and demonstrate that how a player describes an action has an impact on whether it's a success, a failure, or whether a roll is called for.

Right. And I argue 'I search the chest for traps' is sufficient to allow the investigation roll with the stated difficulty. And I think it is pretty clear that the bureau example backs this up. The idea that the trap would need more detail than that simply is not supported by anything.

Well, first, the goal of the player isn't to roll. It's to find the trap. Rolling is bad. Succeeding outright by removing uncertainty or the meaningful consequence for failure is the best strategy given how the game is designed.

Second, my traps are telegraphed. In this case (since I've used this trap before in a one-shot), I described it as "an oversized chest (50 lbs.) of exotic hardwood banded with iron is sealed shut by an oddly-shaped lock with an intricate design." Some players honed in on the lock and searched it specifically for a trap, some using light sources or the like to illuminate the keyhole to see the mechanisms inside. Nobody touched it. (I ran this for about half a dozen groups.) Depending on the approach, this was resolved with a Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) check.

So 'lock is ornate' is the telegraph, and they need to specifically look in the lock, not just examine the chest? I don't think this is in line of the bureau example, but I guess it makes sense. Then again, why not require that they say the specifically look for an needle in order to get to roll? Certainly you must admit that where one draws the line is rather arbitrary?

BTW. This is actually a pretty sensible trap. This is the sort of trap most players might indeed know to suspect, as it could exist in reality and is pretty well known type of trap. But a lot of traps are not like that.

I try to avoid saying anything about the character and describe only the result of their actions. There are a lot of DMs who are happy to hear a lackluster action declaration from a player and then fill in the blanks, assuming and establishing what the character is doing. And there are plenty of players that are happy to play that way. Not at my table!

Ultimately in a game where the player doesn't know whether they succeed or fail when making the action declaration it limits their ability to describe somewhat. But II really don't think this needs to lead to lacklustre action declarations.

But you know what. I'm going to agree with you halfway. I think relatively broad action declarations should generally suffice to get to roll. But if the player describes something more specific that happens to be particularly effective for the situation, they should get lower DC or an advantage.

 

[Maxperson]

So does the character touch the chest or not? Who gets to say what the character does?

Staring at a chest is not checking it for anything. If they are checking the chest for traps, they are touching it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't require my players to have to pixelbitch. If they want to tell me exactly how they are checking the chest, they might get a bonus to the roll or even auto succeed if there's a trap there, but "I check the chest for traps." is sufficient for me to know what the PC is doing. The PC is going to know the how of it(and it will involve touching).

Again with the “picelbitching.” I have been over and over why the phenomenon you’re referring to from point and click adventure games is not analogous to D&D gameplay at my table, can we please stop using this inaccurate, disparaging, and crass label for the way I DM? I understand you don’t run the game the way I do. You can express that without insulting the way I run the game in the process.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No, it's the same. You decided you swung your sword. You decided you searched the chest. The DM decides whether to narrate the sword miss as a miss with no contact, or an ineffectual contact. And with the search the DM can decide whether the search involves contact or not, and really, it must have contact or you aren't searching the chest at all. You're just staring at it and hoping.

 

[Maxperson]

Again with the “picelbitching.” I have been over and over why the phenomenon you’re referring to from point and click adventure games is not analogous to D&D gameplay at my table, can we please stop using this inaccurate, disparaging, and crass label for the way I DM? I understand you don’t run the game the way I do. You can express that without insulting the way I run the game in the process.

It's the same. If I need the player attempt to push the nob on the drawer, pull the nob, twist the nob, tap the nob in the middle, slide the nob up, slide the nob sideways, slide it down in order to convey to me how he's trying to find the trap, that's pixelbitching. All of those are potential ways to trigger a trap or find a secret compartment. And that just touches on the things you could try.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

“Check,” unlike “attack with sword” does not convey what the character is actually doing.

Yes it does. You can always demand more granularity. If you said to an actual fencing expert 'I attack with sword' that wouldn't tell them much. Like duh, you're in melee combat, obviously you're gonna attack with a sword, but is it a lunge, remise, passata sotto or perhaps something else? And that's still just broad strokes categories.

How skillfully the character does what, exactly?

Checks the chest for traps.

But you don’t need to rely on the roll to determine what the character did to try and achieve their goal of killing the gnoll. The player already told you, they swung their sword at it, and the roll determines if that works. If we knew what the character was doing to try and find out if the chest is trapped, maybe an Investigation check could determine whether or not that succeeds. Or maybe it wouldn’t need to. Not enough information to say at this point.

They check for traps, then they roll investigation. And the DMG even literally tells you the DC, so no need to even ponder that.

Let’s not overstate the complexity of the action here. We’re talking about a chest that was specifically described as shiny. It doesn’t take a galaxy brain to think of ways to try and test if it’s safe to open, nor to work out whether or not those ways are going to succeed.

Talked with my SO about this. They said contact poison would never occur to them as it seems absurd and implausible that it would last any reasonable amount of time. Which is true. This is not a trap that anyone ever would use in real life. But in D&D it can still be thing. And if player is playing a character who knows this sort of things, they shouldn't be penalised for understanding more about poisons than the GM who invented the trap.

They do not need to use specific words. They need to use any one of the infinitely many approaches they can imagine, and they can describe whatever approach they go with in whatever words they wish.

Yes. And they need to guess which approach you think would work. Note, not what actually would work, what you think would work!

Indeed, they would not. They would only need to clearly communicate their goal and what the character does to try and achieve it, just like they do here.

They search the chest for traps.