D&D 5E 5th ed D&D general impressions from a new player and DM.

[TheSword]

Not sure if it’s come up. I do ask for a perception check if players search irrespective of opportunity for success. Otherwise players know if you ask them to roll, there is something to find. There are probably other examples.

[Edit] I also ask for a stealth check if someone sneaks even if there is no one to hear them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not sure if it’s come up. I do ask for a perception check if players search irrespective of opportunity for success. Otherwise players know if you ask them to roll, there is something to find. There are probably other examples.

[Edit] I also ask for a stealth check if someone sneaks even if there is no one to hear them.

I'm not a fan of the phantom roll. The rules say to "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. (DMG p 237)". If the players say their PCs are searching an area, for example, and there is really nothing there, then it's either no roll (auto-succeed in competently searching the area) OR it's a roll where, on a failure, the PCs succeed with setback (they indeed search the area and find nothing out of the ordinary, but it has taken more time than expected and/or makes more noise than expected which triggers something else in the fiction).

 

[Oofta]

I'm not a fan of the phantom roll. The rules say to "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. (DMG p 237)". If the players say their PCs are searching an area, for example, and there is really nothing there, then it's either no roll (auto-succeed in competently searching the area) OR it's a roll where, on a failure, the PCs succeed with setback (they indeed search the area and find nothing out of the ordinary, but it has taken more time than expected and/or makes more noise than expected which triggers something else in the fiction).

But if there is no roll (and personally I tend to use investigation, but that's a different issue) then they absolutely know there was nothing to find. A lot of time that's okay but in a mystery based campaign? As a player I do not want to know that I can check that suspect (or at least that area) off the list with no question. YMMV.

 

[TheSword]

I'm not a fan of the phantom roll. The rules say to "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. (DMG p 237)". If the players say their PCs are searching an area, for example, and there is really nothing there, then it's either no roll (auto-succeed in competently searching the area) OR it's a roll where, on a failure, the PCs succeed with setback (they indeed search the area and find nothing out of the ordinary, but it has taken more time than expected and/or makes more noise than expected which triggers something else in the fiction).

So if your table uses option one your players know that if you ask for a roll.

In option 2 you are punishing people for searching and interrogating the fiction. Remember any given check has a decent chance to fail for a character.

I get that the system checks are generally not taken unless needed. I just think these are exceptions.

 

[clearstream]

I hear you about the DMG. I honestly can’t imagine how it was decided that the FIRST thing a new DM would want to learn is cosmologies and how to create planar adventures.

For any new DMs out there, the DMG should be read according to your interests, not in order of page number!

 

[clearstream]

I'm not a fan of the phantom roll. The rules say to "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. (DMG p 237)". If the players say their PCs are searching an area, for example, and there is really nothing there, then it's either no roll (auto-succeed in competently searching the area) OR it's a roll where, on a failure, the PCs succeed with setback (they indeed search the area and find nothing out of the ordinary, but it has taken more time than expected and/or makes more noise than expected which triggers something else in the fiction).

One line of thought on this is that a roll that cannot succeed automatically fails. The meaningful consequence is uncertainty.

 

[Oofta]

So if your table uses option one your players know that if you ask for a roll.

In option 2 you are punishing people for searching and interrogating the fiction. Remember any given check has a decent chance to fail for a character.

I get that the system checks are generally not taken unless needed. I just think these are exceptions.

Is option 2 really "punishing"? If I understand correctly - they attempt to do something that has no chance to succeed. To me, the action of that attempt can be reflected in a die roll.

This is situational. If there's a shear wall and someone wants to climb I'll just be sure that I'm clear: this is a shear wall, you won't be able to climb it. Maybe they thought they could if their athletics score is high enough or maybe I just forgot they have slippers of spider climbing.

Oh, and the text usually quoted to justify the "no roll" theory seems to cherry pick:

​

Using Ability Scores​

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?

The stuff I bolded has been ignored by some people when making the case of don't ask for a roll. In the first case it's obvious there's no chance of failure because it's so simple, in the latter it's obvious there's no way it could possibly succeed.

That, to me, is different from making an attempt at something you may think is possible such as in this case searching a room. The DM knows there's no reason for the roll but in cases where the players don't know then the roll just reflects the effort taken.

 

[TheSword]

Is option 2 really "punishing"? If I understand correctly - they attempt to do something that has no chance to succeed. To me, the action of that attempt can be reflected in a die roll.

This is situational. If there's a shear wall and someone wants to climb I'll just be sure that I'm clear: this is a shear wall, you won't be able to climb it. Maybe they thought they could if their athletics score is high enough or maybe I just forgot they have slippers of spider climbing.

Oh, and the text usually quoted to justify the "no roll" theory seems to cherry pick:

​

Using Ability Scores​

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?

The stuff I bolded has been ignored by some people when making the case of don't ask for a roll. In the first case it's obvious there's no chance of failure because it's so simple, in the latter it's obvious there's no way it could possibly succeed.

That, to me, is different from making an attempt at something you may think is possible such as in this case searching a room. The DM knows there's no reason for the roll but in cases where the players don't know then the roll just reflects the effort taken.

I was referring to making noise or taking too long and potentially attracting a wandering monster as punishment to searching.

I want players to search, and yet I don’t want them to automatically know there is something there because I ask for a roll, even if they don’t find it.

The best solution is to probably just have them find something, no matter how trivial. Though I find that gets cumbersome with lots of searching.

 

[Oofta]

I was referring to making noise or taking too long and potentially attracting a wandering monster as punishment to searching.

I want players to search, and yet I don’t want them to automatically know there is something there because I ask for a roll, even if they don’t find it.

The best solution is to probably just have them find something, no matter how trivial. Though I find that gets cumbersome with lots of searching.

I see said the blind man.

There are times when I do hand wave things like searching or use a passive check just to simplify things. Since my games tend to be plot driven not location driven if they are searching a room it's because the room is somehow related to the plot.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So if your table uses option one your players know that if you ask for a roll.

In option 2 you are punishing people for searching and interrogating the fiction. Remember any given check has a decent chance to fail for a character.

I get that the system checks are generally not taken unless needed. I just think these are exceptions.

If the proposed approach and goal by the player meet the criteria, I'm calling for a check. How is that punishing them? It just reflects something about what they are doing in that scene is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.