D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[DND_Reborn]

I don't see it. By nature off adding a do or die to checks you are going to make sure you have the highest possible modifiers and avoid attempting anything outside of the stuff you specifically built for. The D20 is just too random otherwise.

I agree the d20 is too random. We have gone to 2d10 instead, which takes out the linear distribution. We also did 3d20 (take the middle) which works well, and a hybrid 2d20 (attacks have disadvantage, saves have advantage, ability checks are 1d20). Each system has its pros and cons.

Regardless, it means PCs who are built for task X should be the ones to do it. Other PCs can "help", granting advantage, if they could feasibly succeed as well. I don't want a PC to be able to do anything simply because the d20 IS so random!

But, being "specifically built for" IMO just means having proficiency in something or have a high ability modifier. If you also have both, you are really good at task X. Often IME the really good people will receive help from the decent ones, and with advantage the fail by more than 5 doesn't happen a lot--but it happens enough to show that PCs are fallible.

I like the idea of players making decisions in response to the world and the world responding in kind rather than trying to filler the world through their sheets of buttons to mash.

Sure, I agree completely. If the PC doesn't get proficiency in Athletics, for example, then why should they be able to swim? They can try to use just Strength, of course, but unless they are really strong will probably fail.

Finally, it should be noted that very easy tasks can't fail by more than 5 (unless you have a negative modifier!), and with just base proficiency an easy task will fail by more than 5 only 10% of the time. If two PCs can work together on that easy task, it is much less! Once you get to a hard task, the chance of failure is 60% with just proficiency +2 alone. But that works for me-- the task is HARD after all, and you have only base proficiency. IMO you should fail that more often than not. YMMV of course.

EDIT: I should add we use the Variant Rule for Automatic Success as well to reduce rolling when the task should be routine since we put a lot of emphasis on having proficiency (see highlighted section).

 

[Oofta]

...It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 5e, you don't really roll to open a safe

1. Per DMG 237, what you are really rolling for are consequences
2. Taken together with PHB 174, the results can be
   1. you open the safe (the consequence you want)
   2. you open the safe but with additional consequences
   3. you become engaged with some consequences

For emphasis,

• Per RAW, outcomes of ability checks in 5e - pass or fail - are ordinarily not inert. I'm not saying a dead-end couldn't ever come up in an interesting way, but that isn't the default.
• If a task is uncertain, but there are no meaningful consequences, the DMG rule is that they succeed in ten times the time.
• Following the procedure in RAW, consequences are known going in. They'll be those that are due to player choices and big picture elements: players and DM all get their say. That doesn't rule out unexpected twists, but those can still be principled - constrained by your situation, what's been described, and the game system.

...

Just wanted to add, I disagree with the basic premise here. I don't think the DMG says this. Obviously there's room for automatic successes (the example the DMG gives is the Variant: Automatic Success).

But the above ignores the example of what the DMG considers no consequence as indicated by the bolded.

When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.​

​

When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:​

​

• Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

​

It's not that the safe is empty (or the insight check to determine if someone telling the truth is lying) it's that the DM shouldn't bog down the game with checks for mundane tasks that in virtually all circumstances will be automatic. But even if you take the interpretation that there should always be consequences, sometimes the consequence is simply not knowing. Unable to open the safe? You don't know if it's empty or not. Roll a 1 on an insight check when trying to figure out if the shopkeeper is lying? Maybe he's just that good at deception. Roll a 20 on that insight check and you have a high modifier? You're pretty sure the shopkeeper is not lying unless there's magic involved.

I also have no idea where the idea that knowing consequences going in is RAW. I let players know what the consequences of failure will be based on what if I think the PC can reasonably know. If I know a lock is trapped and if a disable check fails the entire party is plane shifted to the Abyss, is there any logical reason the players would know the consequence if the PCs don't?

Last, but not least, I think it's generally a bad idea to parse meaning out of the DMG as if it were some legal document. Do what makes sense, do what keeps the game flowing and is fun for your group.

 

[Stoutstien]

Agree that removing a little of the swing from the D20 helps checks out a lot. I personally use a 3D20 system where you need 2 passes and -/+ 1 die for advantage/disadvantage. It favors moderate to good modifiers rather than maxing them out. Your rules do make a little more sense in context of that lol. I still don't like the idea of universal hard gates on checks I absence of game logic. I can see a failure to intimate an NPC to have a flat out prevention of further attempts or at least instantly change the direction of the scenes in response to that but the lock mechanism would need to be purposely built to jam for it to function that way. Not unheard of. I have a custom ignition switch that prevents my truck from starting even if you could bypass the column. Happy accident due to my inability to wire correctly.

 

[clearstream]

Just wanted to add, I disagree with the basic premise here. I don't think the DMG says this. Obviously there's room for automatic successes (the example the DMG gives is the Variant: Automatic Success).

PHB 174 specifies success-with-complication as a possible result of failing an ability check.
DMG 237 includes the rules for letting a check succeed without a roll, or succeed in ten-times the time.
Neither of those are marked variant or optional.

I also have no idea where the idea that knowing consequences going in is RAW.

DMG 237 says only roll when there are meaningful consequences. That implies that we must know if there are meaningful consequences before the roll. Think of the decision flow.

Last, but not least, I think it's generally a bad idea to parse meaning out of the DMG as if it were some legal document. Do what makes sense, do what keeps the game flowing and is fun for your group.

For sure. I'm advocating a close reading of the RAW because I believe the result of doing so is appealing. Not just as a study in rules interpretation (which actually it is, too, but I expect that to only satisfy me!)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I guess the issue is that 'meaningful consequences' is pretty vague and subjective. Is not knowing what in the safe meaningful? There are no right or wrong answers to this, its just a matter of preference.

 

[Oofta]

PHB 174 specifies success-with-complication as a possible result of failing an ability check.
DMG 237 includes the rules for letting a check succeed without a roll, or succeed in ten-times the time.
Neither of those are marked variant or optional.


DMG 237 says only roll when there are meaningful consequences. That implies that we must know if there are meaningful consequences before the roll. Think of the decision flow.


For sure. I'm advocating a close reading of the RAW because I believe the result of doing so is appealing. Not just as a study in rules interpretation (which actually it is, too, but I expect that to only satisfy me!)

The clarifying examples of walking across the floor or ordering a drink make it clear what they are talking about. Complications are different, I gave an example in my first post.

I agree that if there are consequences the DM needs to know what they are. Last week we were doing ... requisition of no longer needed supplies ... from an abandoned temple. The DM let the rogue know that there were dozens of small holes in the wall, but not what they would do. I can't imagine telling the player that if they failed on the puzzle gouts of flame would come out doing 3d6 fire damage requiring a DC13 dex save for half. It would make the game far less enjoyable for me.

Different play styles work for different people, I prefer that as a player my knowledge is limited to what my PC knows as much as possible.

 

[Krachek]

Agreed, and I parse that this way

• Safe empty, no traps, possible to open? No roll. (It opens.)
• Safe empty, but trapped? What does player describe?
  • Player describes opening safe? No roll, it opens and trap triggers. (There can be various arrangements of this.)
  • Player describes checking for traps? Roll for checking for traps!

As you see, we don't really roll for opening that safe, we only roll for consequences.

Our DM ask for perception check when there is a trap or any hazard.
He assume that our characters are aware, and we avoid the repetitive litany before each door, safe, stairway.

 

[Maxperson]

My take is currently that - per the rules just further down on DMG 237 - uncertainty alone ends up not really at issue. When the only cost is time, a character succeeds by spending ten-times the time. That results in cases where the outcome is in doubt, but you still don't roll because there is no meaningful consequence.

That doesn't result in a situation where the outcome is in doubt, though. If time is not an issue and you will eventually succeed, the outcome of success is not in doubt at all, so you don't bother rolling. You just narrate something like, "After a while you jimmy the lock open and..." An outcome is only in doubt if success or failure is not certain, such as jimmying open that same lock, but now you have 15 seconds before the patrol reaches you and you guys have to be through the door before they arrive.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed, and I parse that this way

• Safe empty, no traps, possible to open? No roll. (It opens.)
• Safe empty, but trapped? What does player describe?
  • Player describes opening safe? No roll, it opens and trap triggers. (There can be various arrangements of this.)
  • Player describes checking for traps? Roll for checking for traps!

As you see, we don't really roll for opening that safe, we only roll for consequences.

Except that I would add.

Safe empty, no traps, but need to open before the patrol arrives from down the hall, roll to open. Now there's a meaningful consequence to failure.

DM: "Try as you might, you fail to get the safe open and now you can hear the feet of the patrol a ways down the hall. You can make another attempt, but you aren't sure if you can do it before patrol reaches this spot. What do you want to do?"

 

[Shiroiken]

I gotta admit, a strict reading of RAW just doesn't work for me. It makes locks and manacles are completely pointless, since you can always overcome the DC 15 given one minute.

Instead, when I do call for a roll it represents your best possible attempt under the current circumstances. If you try to pick the lock of a safe, a failed roll means you lack the skill to do so. It doesn't matter how much time you have, you're just not gonna get it unless something changes. You can try something different to get into the safe, such as breaking it with a pick, but such a thing is going to take time, be loud, and possibly damage something inside. The same would be true of breaking out of a set of manacles or most tasks that don't have a direct consequence of failure.