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.

 

[Maxperson]

Sometimes the safe just can't be opened by the rogue. But until they try, I'm not going to reveal that information. After they fail, I'll use their result to determine if they know it's impossible.

See, I'm not going to call for a roll for that.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe, give me a thieves' tools roll to see if you can.
Rogue: "8"
DM: "You don't succeed. Do you want to keep trying?"
Rogue: "9 rolls later, 18! Finally a good number."
DM: "You fail and learn that you can't succeed."

Now you've(general you) wasted a chunk of limited play time on something that really didn't matter. Instead I'd say something like.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe. How long are you going to spend trying to get it open?"
Rogue: "5 minutes seems safe. Pun intended. Haha!"
DM: "Very funny. After 2 minutes of trying, you're certain that this safe is beyond your ability."

That entire exchange would happen in less time than it would take for the player to register a request to roll, pick up the die, roll it, and read me a number to see if he figures out that he can't open the safe. Let alone all the other exchanges in your method where you continue to describe failure and ask for more rolls until he rolls well enough to figure it out.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. That does not automatically follow from only rolling if there are meaningful consequences. Let's go back to the example with the safe.

The party has snuck in through the south door and the rogue is trying to get the safe open. They've seen it and are curious to see if anything is inside of it. Outside the closed north door are a pair of guards. What the group doesn't know is that if the safe door is not opened within 10 seconds of something entering the keyhole, there is a trap inside the lock that will make noise and alert the guards.

I'm under no in fiction or out of fiction obligation to inform the player of the consequences for failing to succeed on the attempt to get the safe open. I'm simply going to ask for a roll and go from there. There only has to be a meaningful consequence for failure. The players need not know what that consequence is before it happens.

 

[Oofta]

See, I'm not going to call for a roll for that.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe, give me a thieves' tools roll to see if you can.
Rogue: "8"
DM: "You don't succeed. Do you want to keep trying?"
Rogue: "9 rolls later, 18! Finally a good number."
DM: "You fail and learn that you can't succeed."

Now you've(general you) wasted a chunk of limited play time on something that really didn't matter. Instead I'd say something like.

DM: "Okay. You want to open the safe. How long are you going to spend trying to get it open?"
Rogue: "5 minutes seems safe. Pun intended. Haha!"
DM: "Very funny. After 2 minutes of trying, you're certain that this safe is beyond your ability."

That entire exchange would happen in less time than it would take for the player to register a request to roll, pick up the die, roll it, and read me a number to see if he figures out that he can't open the safe. Let alone all the other exchanges in your method where you continue to describe failure and ask for more rolls until he rolls well enough to figure it out.

I generally don't allow retries for something like picking locks or breaking manacles. If there is no significant time limit I may make the minimum result a 10. After the first attempt I'll let them know that they can't open it and that either it can't be picked or they simply aren't skilled enough.

The other alternative is that if there's no time pressure that they do the old "take 20" and assume they work on it long enough they'll eventually get the best result they can. I switch up a bit based on what makes the most sense and what will be more fun.

 

[clearstream]

No. That does not automatically follow from only rolling if there are meaningful consequences. Let's go back to the example with the safe.

The party has snuck in through the south door and the rogue is trying to get the safe open. They've seen it and are curious to see if anything is inside of it. Outside the closed north door are a pair of guards. What the group doesn't know is that if the safe door is not opened within 10 seconds of something entering the keyhole, there is a trap inside the lock that will make noise and alert the guards.

I'm under no in fiction or out of fiction obligation to inform the player of the consequences for failing to succeed on the attempt to get the safe open. I'm simply going to ask for a roll and go from there. There only has to be a meaningful consequence for failure. The players need not know what that consequence is before it happens.

Good example.

By "we" I mean to let in an ambiguity. At minimum, DM must be included in "we" (as DM calls for roll.)

Does "we" necessarily also include players? As your example illustrates, there might be times that to enable a groups preferred play, it does not. I am not saying that "we" necessarily includes players. It may. It may to some extent or in part. It may not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess the issue is that 'meaningful consequences' is pretty vague and subjective. Is not knowing what in the safe meaningful?

Not knowing what is in the safe is not a consequence of failure because nothing has changed. You are in the same game state whether you try and fail, or not try at all.

There are no right or wrong answers to this, its just a matter of preference.

But otherwise, yes: whether an actual consequence is meaningful or not is subjective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not knowing what is in the safe is not a consequence of failure because nothing has changed. You are in the same game state whether you try and fail, or not try at all.

Right. But there would be consequence for success, even if the safe was empty. If you succeed, you know it is empty, whereas before you didn't.

Also, I think a lot of perception/investigation checks are such that failure effectively doesn't change the game state. You didn't know the thing, and you still don't. But such checks are still commonly made, as on success you would learn something, even though sometimes what is learned might be rather trivial like that there are no goblins hiding nearby.

(I try to differentiate between low and high results on perception/investigation checks even if there isn't anything particularly interesting to be found. The former, is more "dunno, you don't notice anything," and latter is more like "you have scanned the area thoroughly and are all but certain that there is nothing hiding/hidden here.")

But otherwise, yes: whether an actual consequence is meaningful or not is subjective.

 

[Laurefindel]

I guess I just always see failure itself as a meaningful consequence. For instance, even if the safe is empty, the PCs won't know that until it is opened, but if they fail to open it, they won't know--and not knowing could have impact on what they do next.

Not knowing whether the safe contains what the players were looking for can definitively be a meaningful consequence in the right context. I don't think it is by default however. Usually, the objectives of the PC are multiple,

Keeping the safe example, PCs are rolling to succeed on...

• knowing for certain what was inside
• getting what is inside
• not attracting unwanted attention while doing so
• doing it quick enough not to jeopardize the rest of their activities/goals
• not get hurt or poisoned or trapped in the process
• not destroying what was inside in the process
• not spending more resources that anticipated doing so

Depending on context, some of the above may not be applicable or represent a meaningful consequence if failed, but oftentimes we don't roll for each of them separately. Thus a failure might be on any of the factors in play. [edit] Sometimes a roll might be asked simply to keep tension in the narrative and keep players on edge but neither success nor failure are consequential. The relevance of the roll is outside the actions of the PC and aimed at the players/game [/edit]

Oftentimes when I ask a PC to roll athletics to jump from one roof to another for example, failure doesn't result in a fall.

 

[Laurefindel]

But otherwise, yes: whether an actual consequence is meaningful or not is subjective.

and contextual

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

It's also that "no progress" is specifically held out in the rules as a result of a failed check.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not knowing whether the safe contains what the players were looking for can definitively be a meaningful consequence in the right context. I don't think it is by default however.

Sure, it is definitely context sensitive, but I would argue there should always be a context which implies meaningful consequences.

If there is not, and you feel that is the default, then in those situations what is the purpose of rolling the check?

Oftentimes when I ask a PC to roll athletics to jump from one roof to another for example, failure doesn't result in a fall.

But isn't falling a meaningful consequence? What does the failure result in?

That the PC simply doesn't jump?
They make the jump, but fall prone upon landing (succeed with a setback)?
Or something else?

This is where our rule about failing by more than 5 comes in, for example.

• Success: the jump is made.
• Fail by 1-5: the player is given the choice: success with a setback OR the PC stops short, realizing they won't make it, and doesn't leap.
• Fail by more than 5: the PC jumps, doesn't make it, and falls to whatever fate lies below.