I do not. For example, I say that 174 is silent on deciding 'when'. And that is literally true. My approach is to read what is there, and keep Occam's Razor always in mind.
Any distinction between what the rules empower a DM to do, and what the rules support a DM to do, is specious. A DM is supported to do the things the rules empower them to do.
I don't agree with that. I think that while that method may increase the number of times failure is meaningful, it still doesn't make all failure meaningful. Let's say that the party is in the middle of a plain at a big rock and they try to jump over the rock. If there is no danger or other time pressure, even if they can only try once each, where is the meaning in failure?
I'd agree with you on that case, and you gave a good example up thread. But really, the DM shouldn't be calling for checks at all for that rock, right?
I don’t think this is demonstrated in the text you’re drawing from to reach this conclusion. The text in question demonstrates the DM making an unchallenging action uncertain by establishing a challenge, not making an impossible action possible by modifying the circumstances.
Yes, but the text provides guidance on how to make that decision. Some ways a DM might decide to resolve an action are supported and others are not. Again, the text would not support the DM in ruling that a player must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check to cast a spell.
It does not ignore text elsewhere.
Yes, and there are many rules one must read to understand how to resolve actions. Those rules are clear that the DM calls for a check when the outcome of an action is uncertain, and if the outcome is something that the text says the player decides, then it isn’t uncertain.
@clearstream is right on this one. If the party cleric states an action there are three ways to narrate that.
FWIW that piece of text is neither rule nor guideline, It's indexical or editorial. I think we can see many kinds of text in the two core books we have been focusing onDoes not. It says it's guidance, which 5e treats exactly the same as rules. In 5e guidance and rules are completely interchangeable, so page 185 isn't lesser to anything else that's definitive. Hell, the DMG itself is completely guidance, so you're relying on guidance to tell you that something else is guidance.
That's not the point. The rock example is just to show that meaning is not inherent to failure itself, even if you can only try once. Where is one exception like the rock, there will be others. Since meaning is not inherent to failure, even under that model, you still have to look at other circumstances to figure out if there is meaning or not to failing the attempted action.
Sure, we can imagine a situation where being unable to succeed isn’t actually meaningful. The “one roll represents your best attempt” rule makes failure meaningful as long as success would be meaningful, because failure bars you from achieving the results of success by the method attempted. I believe this is why @Lanefan prefers their own guideline that a check should be called for if success or failure are meaningful, rather than the guideline found in the text of 5e that a roll should be called for if failure is meaningful.
Read the text holistically, adding that text to text on DMs role in the DMG.
The text endorses a DM to decide that something about this instance requires it. Perhaps a player wants to counterspell a specific spell, but not any others. In that case, an INT (Arcana) check can come into it.
Absolutely! When the outcome is uncertain, do X. As I and others have pointed out, 174 is silent on what makes an outcome uncertain. However, it is explained elsewhere that it's up to the DM to do so. That includes in cases where the outcome might normally be certain.
