D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[5ekyu]

I totally agree that we each bring our own values, and each of our thresholds for what counts as interesting or meaningful can vary. I feel like I sprinkle that caveat into many of my posts.

And maybe you could have expressed that sentiment less dismissively?

As far as it relates to that answer to that post, no.

I was replying and noted specifically to a portion of a post that wasnt sbout consequence of failure but whether and how the issue of a problem existing between player sees roll and character action etc exists.

It was specifically not about or intended to address your views on how much consequence needs to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting thought, perhaps harkening back to "check for surprise". Some of this conversation has me thinking that a necessary part of making D&D more like PbtA/BitD is changing when we require the roll (and the attendant expectations of how play unfolds). Adopting the "to do a thing, do it" approach. So, you want to sneak up on the guard...you do. The only mechanical question to answer is "do you surprise him? (enough to have advantage or whatever)" You don't roll until it is critical/consequential for some reason. Climb the wall? Sure, no check. Climb the wall in time to meet your contact?...make a check.

It’s understandable that you may have missed this given how quickly this thread moves, but this is precisely what many of us do. The goal isn’t necessarily to make D&D 5e more like PbtA, but if it helps to think about our techniques this way, that’s a step in the right direction.

I don't really see how saving throws fit with "goal and approach" at all. Or maybe it would be better to say that they look like a fairly uncontroversial exception, and then whether a particular table uses a more expansive approach to saves (including these sorts of Perception checks, or even knowledge checks as "save vs ignorance") seems more a matter of taste than a fundamental cleavage in resolution methodologies.

That’s an accurate observation. I think a lot of us who use the set of techniques that we’ve been calling “goal and approach” would agree that saving throws are an awkward fit at best. They, along with lore recollection, are one of the places you see the most variation in how different “goal and approach” DMs handle them. I’ve often considered bringing back NADs, like from 4e. Mostly I just describe what the character can perceive about the thing that’s forcing the save, tell them they have a split second to react, and ask what they do.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've always wondered how those WotC thieves "evade"d a fireball, and yet remained in the dead center of the explosion.

Personally, I just let the thief move out of the area of the explosion.

In effect, spells and abilities that force checks in my game grant the target(s) a free reaction, with which they can take whatever action they think will help them avoid the effects of the triggering spell or ability.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Personally, I just let the thief move out of the area of the explosion.

In effect, spells and abilities that force checks in my game grant the target(s) a free reaction, with which they can take whatever action they think will help them avoid the effects of the triggering spell or ability.

You know, I really like this. Especially when playing on a grid. It raises all kinds of questions, like do you get a saving throw if you can't move? Does hiding behind a friend count? Do you provoke opportunity attacks? Etc.

Fun. I don't use many house rules, but I'm going to consider this.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know, I really like this. Especially when playing on a grid. It raises all kinds of questions, like do you get a saving throw if you can't move? Does hiding behind a friend count? Do you provoke opportunity attacks? Etc.

Fun. I don't use many house rules, but I'm going to consider this.

Glad you like it!

For me, you still have to abide by any restrictions on you actions or movement, so if you can’t move, you can’t move out of the way of a fireball, and yes movement will provoke opportunity attacks. But, if you can come up with a different action that might protect you from the blast, you can potentially still get a save for that. Whether or not hiding behind your friend would work depends on the nature of the effect you’re trying to avoid; I resolve the reaction the same way I would any other action, evaluating chance of success and failure, and calling for a save if the action has both (consequences are kind of a given in this case). Technically I don’t think hiding behind a friend would work with fireball because it spreads around corners, but I would probably allow it anyway because I like to err on the side of allowing a save. Of course, if your friend is also in the radius, they’re going to have their own reaction, so standing behind them might not be the best approach.

EDIT: I should note (and this will probably drive the PC/NPC rules symmetry crowd up the wall), I use this specifically for when PCs are targeted by NPC spells/abilities that force saves. When the PCs force the NPCs to make a save, I just make the roll. The way I see it, when you cast a spell, it should do what it says it does, no more no less. I don’t want my players to have to worry that if they cast fireball the monsters might reposition themselves and automatically succeed for half damage. The free reaction is a PC-specific privilege.

 

[Ratskinner]

It’s understandable that you may have missed this given how quickly this thread moves, but this is precisely what many of us do. The goal isn’t necessarily to make D&D 5e more like PbtA, but if it helps to think about our techniques this way, that’s a step in the right direction.

I'm curious, because it seems to me that this would require some houseruling here and there. (Or maybe, I would just prefer it, having played and run other systems.) What bumps have you run into, and how do you address them? (Like, I would change the skill list, for starters...especially the social skills.) Happy to be pointed at previous posts, too. 60+ pages is a lot to scroll through.

 

[Xetheral]

Right, I nearly put that in my post - if Gygax had added a "Surprise" column to the saving throw table nothing too fundamental about classic D&D would be different, and maybe the game would still be using a save for this purpose, and at least that particular bit of the discussion would not be so contentious.

I don't really see how saving throws fit with "goal and approach" at all. Or maybe it would be better to say that they look like a fairly uncontroversial exception, and then whether a particular table uses a more expansive approach to saves (including these sorts of Perception checks, or even knowledge checks as "save vs ignorance") seems more a matter of taste than a fundamental cleavage in resolution methodologies.

Your comment makes me think that the working definition of "goal and approach" in this thread is getting fuzzier again. The rules of 5e emphasize that when players declare actions, it's best to specify both a goal and an approach. Nothing in the 5e rules suggest that that pattern should apply to 5e's other resolution mechanics, like saving throws.

So I agree that saving throws don't adhere to "goal and approach", but under the broadest definition of that term in the 5e context, there is no reason to expect them to.

I realize that inconsistent usage of the phrase "goal and approach" has been a challenge for communication in this thread, but your post (and other recent posts by a variety of posters) appears to be going further and conflating the phrase with PbtA-style resolution mechanics. Those games' rules specify a uniform resolution mechanic (which can be usefully compared and contrasted with "goal and approach") whereas 5e's rules specify a variety of resolution mechanics (only one of which explicitly involves "goal and approach").

It doesn't though. Remember, my inquiry started when you said that you use a technique that has the DM call for a Perception check when the players haven't actually described what they want to do. Moving the roll to after the players' action declarations (where the rules say it should be), only asking for a check when there's a meaningful consequence for failure (which is when the rules say there should be a check, if there's an uncertain outcome), and then narrating the result of the adventurers action after the check (again, that's what we're supposed to do) prevents all of your concerns above from happening.

I can't agree with your assertion that 5e's rules call for ability checks to only be made as a result of player action declarations. Yes, when players are declaring actions, the rules say they should state their goal and approach and then the DM should then determine whether to call for a roll. But I don't see any support in the rules for the claim that all ability checks must follow this pattern.

Numerous elements throughout the rules suggest otherwise. Examples:

• Ability checks can be used to resolve monster actions in addition to PC actions (PHB: "An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training.")
• The rules call for certain active ability checks to be used defensively (e.g. when PCs/NPCs/monsters without special grab abilities initiate grapples, the target makes a contested active ability check).
• The rules specify that passive Wis (Perception) checks are used defensively when resolving opponents' Dex (Stealth) checks.
• Ability checks can substitute for saving throws to see if a character avoids a new hazard (e.g. "stay upright on a rocking ship’s deck" Dex (Acrobatics) example in the PHB).

All of these examples are cases where the rules explicitly call for or permit ability checks in situations other than the resolution of player action declarations. (And the impact of the Role of the Dice section of the DMG is also important, but that's less clear-cut.)

I completely agree with you that players providing a goal and approach when declaring actions is called for by the rules of 5e. But I can't agree that the rules offer any support for your much broader claim that ability checks are the exclusive province of player action declarations. A DM choosing to limit ability checks that way is totally fine and (with the possible exception of defensive ability checks) entirely in keeping with 5e's rules. But from my standpoint you are overstating the limitations the rules put on ability checks.

 

[iserith]

Numerous elements throughout the rules suggest otherwise. Examples:

• Ability checks can be used to resolve monster actions in addition to PC actions (PHB: "An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training.")

Which requires the monster take an action, which was the underlying point. It's just in the example that was under discussion it happened to be PCs, not monsters.

• The rules call for certain active ability checks to be used defensively (e.g. when PCs/NPCs/monsters without special grab abilities initiate grapples, the target makes a contested active ability check).

A player still has to state an action here as to how to resist the grapple or shove. The rules simply establish that, like an attack roll, there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure by default in this situation (unless DM decides otherwise).

• The rules specify that passive Wis (Perception) checks are used defensively when resolving opponents' Dex (Stealth) checks.

"Passive" doesn't mean "inactive." The character or monster is taking an action - remaining alert to danger, repeatedly. While many DMs do not require players to state that this is the case, I do (and think more DMs should do for the sake of consistency) because they could be taking other actions instead of that which may be useful in context (see Activities While Traveling) and because an ability check, passive or otherwise, necessarily means that the character or monster is doing something with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

• Ability checks can substitute for saving throws to see if a character avoids a new hazard (e.g. "stay upright on a rocking ship’s deck" Dex (Acrobatics) example in the PHB).

Player or monster still has to decide to do that. If the DM isn't giving the player the option, that's a Dexterity saving throw, not an ability check.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Glad you like it!

For me, you still have to abide by any restrictions on you actions or movement, so if you can’t move, you can’t move out of the way of a fireball, and yes movement will provoke opportunity attacks. But, if you can come up with a different action that might protect you from the blast, you can potentially still get a save for that. Whether or not hiding behind your friend would work depends on the nature of the effect you’re trying to avoid; I resolve the reaction the same way I would any other action, evaluating chance of success and failure, and calling for a save if the action has both (consequences are kind of a given in this case). Technically I don’t think hiding behind a friend would work with fireball because it spreads around corners, but I would probably allow it anyway because I like to err on the side of allowing a save. Of course, if your friend is also in the radius, they’re going to have their own reaction, so standing behind them might not be the best approach.

EDIT: I should note (and this will probably drive the PC/NPC rules symmetry crowd up the wall), I use this specifically for when PCs are targeted by NPC spells/abilities that force saves. When the PCs force the NPCs to make a save, I just make the roll. The way I see it, when you cast a spell, it should do what it says it does, no more no less. I don’t want my players to have to worry that if they cast fireball the monsters might reposition themselves and automatically succeed for half damage. The free reaction is a PC-specific privilege.

Maybe an option should be to just drop prone? It’s not ideal because you would have to wait until your turn to stand up again. But, if no other options are available...

Alternately, you could just take the damage, so that YOU get an opportunity attack against the monster trying to make its saving throw....

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm curious, because it seems to me that this would require some houseruling here and there. (Or maybe, I would just prefer it, having played and run other systems.) What bumps have you run into, and how do you address them? (Like, I would change the skill list, for starters...especially the social skills.) Happy to be pointed at previous posts, too. 60+ pages is a lot to scroll through.

Well, I don’t change the skill list, but I do change my thinking about how skills are used. The flow of the conversation in my games is that first I describe the environment or scenario, with an eye towards things for the players to react to, investigate, or otherwise interact with. I think of this as “asking the players ‘what do you do’ about something,” but you might think of it as a rough analogue to an MC Move. It’s not a perfect analogy because when I ask “what do you do (about)?” it isn’t necessarily always presenting a source of dramatic conflict that demands an immediate response. It might just be presenting one or more interesting environmental features. But the idea is still to give the players something to respond to, something to spur action. I ask that the players describe their actions in terms of what they want to accomplish (the goal) and how their character attempts to do it (the approach), and I evaluate whether the approach has a meaningful chance of succeeding at bringing about the goal, a meaningful chance of failing to bring about the goal, and a meaningful cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. If it has all three of those things, I call for an ability check, not a skill check. The player than has the opportunity to suggest a Proficiency they think might help them achieve their goal. This could be a skill proficiency, a tool proficiency, a language, or even a weapon or armor proficiency if they think it will help. I will assess whether I think the offered proficiency is applicable, erring on the side of being permissive, and if it is, they can add their Proficiency bonus.

So, yeah, one consequence of this process is that rolls are only called for when there are immediate consequences. Trying to sneak up to the unwary guard or whatever, you don’t have to make a check just to become hidden - if you meet the requirements to hide in the first place, there’s really no meaningful chance of failure. But when you try to sneak up to get the drop on him, that’s something that might succeed, might fail, and has meaningful consequences. That’s the time to make the check.

Now, if the guard is aware of your presence and you’re trying to lose him, that’s a different story. Becoming hidden is less certain, and there are more immediacy consequences in that case. But the point is, roll when it’s relevant, not before.