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

[Maxperson]

No, you invented the trapped handle in this post:

And then insisted that I tell you how I would adjudicate an attempt to find this asinine trap by running a knife under the drawer in this post:

That second quote of mine didn't involve the handle, though. It was just a trap that wasn't under the drawer. Then in your response you went with the handle, but it could just as easily have been inside the drawer, behind it, or wherever. It didn't have to be the handle. If you went with handle because I mentioned nobs in a prior post, than I'll split it with you

In any case, if you require that I examine the spot of the trap(specific pixel), however I get there, and auto fail me if I examine all the other pixels and miss that one, then your method involves pixel hunting.

 

[Charlaquin]

That second quote of mine didn't involve the handle, though. It was just a trap that wasn't under the drawer. Then in your response you went with the handle, but it could just as easily have been inside the drawer, behind it, or wherever. It didn't have to be the handle. If you went with handle because I mentioned nobs in a prior post, than I'll split it with you

In any case, if you require that I examine the spot of the trap(specific pixel), however I get there, and auto fail me if I examine all the other pixels and miss that one, then your method involves pixel hunting.

I don’t require anything, I just don’t call for checks when the approach has no chance of succeeding at the goal. I’d rule the same if you said you shoved a sandwich into the keyhole. The trap not being detectable by sliding a knife under the drawer was part of the terms you set up, if you have a problem with that, blame the scenario you invented. I’m done engaging with this rhetorical trap, if you want an example of something that might actually happen in my games, read my response to @Umbran which @Swarmkeeper recently quoted.

 

[Mordhau]

There's nothing in D&D 5e that suggests players should be asking to make rolls. (It's also a bad strategy.) They can ask if a skill or tool proficiency applies to an ability check the DM has already asked for though.

Doesn't really change anything.

"Can I roll to brbe the guards?
Yes. Go ahead. Roll Persuasion."

Is really not substantively different to:

"I want to bribe the guards
Ok. Roll persuasion."

Or of course,

"I search for traps."

Which may result in the GM either asking for more detail or calling for a roll.

The issue is one of focus and framing.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, I'm so glad someone asked for specific examples. That always works out so well in these discussions.

I just wanted to know if I would auto-fail if I didn't hit the exact part of the object that has the trap.

 

[Charlaquin]

Doesn't really change anything.

"Can I roll to brbe the guards?
Yes. Go ahead. Roll Persuasion."

Is really not substantively different to:

"I want to bribe the guards
Ok. Roll persuasion."

True, because “bribe the guards” isn’t a complete action declaration under the adjudication method being discussed. A complete action declaration involves both goal and approach. If a player told me they wanted to bribe the guards, I would respond “I’m hearing that you want something from the guards and that your character is trying to get it by bribing them. What is it that you are hoping to get them to do by bribing them?” or something along those lines.

Or of course,


"I search for traps."

That one is incomplete in the opposite way. It includes a goal but not an approach. “I’m hearing that you want to find out if there are any traps here. What is your character doing to try and find that out?”

I explain to my players in session 0 that when called upon to act, they should describe both what they want to achieve and what their character does to try and achieve it, and advise that when in doubt, “I try to ______ by _____” is likely to include both a goal and an approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just wanted to know if I would auto-fail if I didn't hit the exact part of the object that has the trap.

Yes, if you try an approach that has no logical possibility in achieving your goal, you will fail without a roll. The same as if you tried to kill a goblin by sticking your tongue out at it. If that’s pixel-hunting, then we’re all guilty of it.

 

[Mordhau]

True, because “bribe the guards” isn’t a complete action declaration under the adjudication method being discussed. A complete action declaration involves both goal and approach. If a player told me they wanted to bribe the guards, I would respond “I’m hearing that you want something from the guards and that your character is trying to get it by bribing them. What is it that you are hoping to get them to do by bribing them?” or something along those lines.

That one is incomplete in the opposite way. It includes a goal but not an approach. “I’m hearing that you want to find out if there are any traps here. What is your character doing to try and find that out?”

I explain to my players in session 0 that when called upon to act, they should describe both what they want to achieve and what their character does to try and achieve it, and advise that when in doubt, “I try to ______ by _____” is likely to include both a goal and an approach.

No. The player can't necessarily know what would be a complete action declaration beforehand. It is up to the GM to decide if an action declaration is complete, or if they need more detail.

"I go to the shops to to buy potions" is not a complete action declaration either. You haven't said which door you're leaving the inn by, or if you will go right or left on the street outside, or whether you will stop and have a chat to the beggar by the door. In a dungeon the DM would normally insist on those details, in a city, they usually won't (unless there's something unusual happening like a riot or a zombie outbreak)

What it comes down to is whether you really want to spend time playing out a conversation with the guards or if you judge that everyone would really just rather move on.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

nevermind

 

[Charlaquin]

No. The player can't necessarily know what would be a complete action declaration beforehand.

It’s really not complicated to come up with a simple goal and approach, but that’s also why I advise using “I try to __ by __” when in doubt.

It is up to the GM to decide if an action declaration is complete, or if they need more detail.

Obviously.

"I go to the shops to to buy potions" is not a complete action declaration either.

Sure it is. It includes both a goal (get potions) and an approach (buy them at a shop).

You haven't said which door you're leaving the inn by, or if you will go right or left on the street outside, or whether you will stop and have a chat to the beggar by the door.

None of that is necessary, as long as goal and approach are clear, which they are in the potion shop example.

In a dungeon the DM would normally insist on those details, in a city, they usually won't (unless there's something unusual happening like a riot or a zombie outbreak)

Would they? News to me.

What it comes down to is whether you really want to spend time playing out a conversation with the guards or if you judge that everyone would really just rather move on.

No need to play out a conversation if you don’t want to. Just say what you want out of the guards and what you do to try and get it.

 

[Oofta]

I find calling for rolls only when there is a chance and consequence for failure helps preserve the tension, because the players know that when a roll is happening, it’s always a big deal. Whereas, if some rolls can’t fail or nothing bad happens if you do fail them, it reduces the tension of all rolls because for any given roll you don’t know if it actually matters or not.

But that’s just me. Different strokes for different folks and all.

NOTE: I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, just why I take issue with the approach.

If Olaf's (the fighter with a -1 to all appropriate checks) player happens to say the correct thing they automatically succeed, right? So in the case of contact poison* that they look at the handle or sprinkle some flour to see if it sticks they just succeed, correct? Exactly the same as Sly with their +15 in the appropriate checks.

That to me would not add tension, it would mean that I wouldn't ever bother building a PC that had a balance of combat and out of combat skills. I'd put something into the non-combat skills because once in a blue moon it will matter. But if I was Sly's player? I would feel like my choices to build a well rounded PC was a waste. I definitely wouldn't waste an ASI on the skilled feat which I have done in my home campaign.

I'm not picking on your example, but to me it's what I always keep going back to. If the player knows the DM and knows the "tricks" to find traps (because no DM is infinitely inventive) they'll automatically succeed most of the time. Of course I say this as someone that rarely uses simple traps but that's a different issue and a different thread.

Besides, if the rogue isn't available there's always the "Barbarian find trap" method. If I think the side table drawer is trapped, throw the table at the opposite wall until it breaks. Trapped door? Throw the bard at it.

*Does anyone actually use contact poison? I always thought it was kind of a silly, and what if my PC wears gloves?