D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Bolares]

Better to resolve whether the disguise is effective at the point where it matters in my view (in other words, where the meaningful consequences for failure are to be realized). Otherwise, you're in a situation where the player rolled poorly and wants to try again.

one could argue that its easy to spot a shoddy disguise, so the party or the player could easilly stop and try again for a better disguise, but as a gameplay decision I agree, roll when it matters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except that the players have no say in whether an ability check is called for or not, nor arguably should they even want to make an ability check since relying on a d20 isn't smart play. We should also not confuse the common use of words like "sleight of hand" with "Make a Sleight of Hand check." Those are not the same things, even if sometimes when the character engages in an act of sleight of hand, the player sometimes makes a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. Understanding that players don't "use skills" or "make skill checks" but rather describe what they want to do and leave the rest to the DM is important to understanding how this game works in my view and how it is different from a game that expressly puts the ask to make "skill checks" in the hands of the player.

Actually though, which games literally put the choice in the hands of the player? DW doesn't, nor 4e, nor 5e. I mean, BW maybe does, but now we're off in another direction at that point. In most systems, certainly in 5e, the GM is in charge of translating the fiction to the mechanics. I would read all of these games as intending an obligation of the GM to do so in 'good faith' but in the 5e case specifically I agree that only the GM can 'call for a check', because only the GM knows the hidden backstory which could bear on if success is possible etc. and without those conditions checks are not required (but you could still use them for the purpose of obfuscation).

 

[iserith]

one could argue that its easy to spot a shoddy disguise, so the party or the player could easilly stop and try again for a better disguise, but as a gameplay decision I agree, roll when it matters.

I think the way to look at it is not as how good the disguise is, but rather does this disguise fool the person or persons its meant to? That's when we test with an ability check.

 

[iserith]

Actually though, which games literally put the choice in the hands of the player? DW doesn't, nor 4e, nor 5e. I mean, BW maybe does, but now we're off in another direction at that point. In most systems, certainly in 5e, the GM is in charge of translating the fiction to the mechanics. I would read all of these games as intending an obligation of the GM to do so in 'good faith' but in the 5e case specifically I agree that only the GM can 'call for a check', because only the GM knows the hidden backstory which could bear on if success is possible etc. and without those conditions checks are not required (but you could still use them for the purpose of obfuscation).

In D&D 4e, skill checks are often initiated by the player who ask if they can make one. The rules say this and also encourage the DM to say "yes" to the request (though ultimately the DM still decides if one is called for). Contrast with D&D 5e where that isn't said at all. The player describes, the DM decides if a check is appropriate. Players don't ask to make them. At best they can just ask if a skill or tool proficiency applies to an ability check for which the DM has already called.

 

[Bolares]

I think the way to look at it is not as how good the disguise is, but rather does this disguise fool the person or persons its meant to? That's when we test with an ability check.

Oh, I agree with you! Just playing devils advocate because I can see my players whinning about it. "But I would have noticed the disguise was bad! (Whinning noises)"

 

[Bolares]

In D&D 4e, skill checks are often initiated by the player who ask if they can make one. The rules say this and also encourage the DM to say "yes" to the request (though ultimately the DM still decides if one is called for). Contrast with D&D 5e where that isn't said at all. The player describes, the DM decides if a check is appropriate. Players don't ask to make them. At best they can just ask if a skill or tool proficiency applies to an ability check for which the DM has already called.

Doesn't 5e explicitly say that players call an action and the DM decides what check is made?

 

[iserith]

Doesn't 5e explicitly say that players call an action and the DM decides what check is made?

Yes, players describe what they want to do and the DM narrates the result, sometimes calling for a roll. Players have it easy in 5e. DMs have to do all the work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think their later post suggested this is not what they meant.

I'm not so sure. I interpreted it as "only make the check when a check is really called for" but once that check is made, it governs the result at least until there is a "change of circumstance" that would indicate something new is needed. This is the meaning of "Let it Ride" as it is commonly used in game design circles. The intent of this approach is to avoid the "million checks and thus ultimate guarantee of failure" issue. If you have to make a separate check for every time someone sees your disguise, you're going to last 5 seconds in the market. Beyond that, the check result does become somewhat meaningful, you can say "I have a good disguise" or "I have a crappy disguise" and it means something. In terms of 5e's 'binary success or failure' basic mechanic, there are just different DCs for each NPC you encounter. The shopkeeper is fooled on a DC10, which your 14 result passed, but the lady's cousin can only be fooled on a 20, so he calls you out. It all makes good sense and seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the check rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, I agree with you! Just playing devils advocate because I can see my players whinning about it. "But I would have noticed the disguise was bad! (Whinning noises)"

That’s another reason to avoid treating d20 rolls as degrees of success. If you need an 11 and you roll a one it doesn’t mean your disguise was terrible, it means you had a 50% chance of failing to complete your goal, and you failed.

 

[prabe]

That’s another reason to avoid treating d20 rolls as degrees of success. If you need an 11 and you roll a one it doesn’t mean your disguise was terrible, it means you had a 50% chance of failing to complete your goal, and you failed.

I'm inclined to disagree. It is potentially useful to see how close your disguise came to fooling someone it was supposed to, to determine how to narrate that failure. It won't be useful for everything, all the time, of course--sometimes all that matters is success/failure.