D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

First of all, it’s not unusual for different actions to have the same difficulty. Second of all, there is never any uncertainty with fireball, unless someone tries to Counterspell it with a lower level spell slot than you’re casting it at, and in that case you do have to make a check to resolve that uncertainty. Otherwise, you say you’re casting it, it works without a check. That is precisely how it should function under G&A.

You said the important part right here: "There is never any uncertainty with fireball". Therefore it doesn't matter what your goal is or even what your approach is. It seems to me that if neither your goal nor approach matter then your not playing G&A.

It works exactly the same way any other action works. The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results, then narrates the results of the character’s actions.

When casting fireball the player states what they do. They don't state a goal or an approach and then have the DM tell them if they do it or not. That's a big difference.

Now, that process of the DM deciding what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results? What exactly that looks like depends on the actions the players take. Casting a spell happens to be an action that has a lot of very specific rules about how to resolve it. Most other actions are much more reliant on the DM’s judgment. But both fit just fine into the same action resolution framework.

Casting a spell is a mechanical action. It's not a goal and approach defined action. There's nothing about the goal or approach that ever matters for fireball.

 

[Charlaquin]

You said the important part right here: "There is never any uncertainty with fireball". Therefore it doesn't matter what your goal is or even what your approach is. It seems to me that if neither your goal nor approach matter then your not playing G&A.

...Maybe you should explain what exactly you think G&A means, cause this doesn’t track with my understanding of it.

When casting fireball the player states what they do. They don't state a goal or an approach and then have the DM tell them if they do it or not. That's a big difference.

I mean. They do. They say “I cast Fireball centered here,” and then the DM says what happens as a result. Just because you won’t need to make a roll for it unless someone attempts to counter the spell doesn’t mean it isn’t still following G&A procedure.

Casting a spell is a mechanical action.

It’s also a completely diegetic action, and therefore satisfies the requirements of the conversation of play.

It's not a goal and approach defined action. There's nothing about the goal or approach that ever matters for fireball.

Sure it does. If your approach doesn’t involve using the verbal and somatic components of the fireball spell and the manipulation of either a spellcasting focus, a component pouch, or a ball of sulphur and guano, it ain’t gonna work. That stuff’s just a given in the statement “I cast fireball.”

 

[Tony Vargas]

You said the important part right here: "There is never any uncertainty with fireball". Therefore it doesn't matter what your goal is or even what your approach is. It seems to me that if neither your goal nor approach matter then your not playing G&A.

It's just fading into the background. With G&A, you will sometimes declare actions that just work. Spells are just an example of that, they're privileged actions that always succeed.

When casting fireball the player states what they do. They don't state a goal or an approach and then have the DM tell them if they do it or not. That's a big difference.

The goal is to create a ball of fire downrage, the approach is to cast a prepared fireball spell.

Casting a spell is a mechanical action.

No more or less than attacking with a sword.

It's not that G&A isn't happening or is incompatible in those instances, just that it's key benefit: giving the player a structure to work with the ambiguity of action declaration and checks, is not needed, because those parts of the rules (spellcasting & weapon attacks) are already structured & formalized.

Of course, a weapon attack is still a check, and a DM would be within his rights to narrate failure (or success) of an attack he judges has no uncertainty (I shoot arrows at the sun! I crush the garden snail with my Warhammer!), or even a spell, for that matter (though he'd need a good reason).

 

[Charlaquin]

It's just fading into the background. With G&A, you will sometimes declare actions that just work. Spells are just an example of that, they're privileged actions that always succeed.

The goal is to create a ball of fire downrage, the approach is to cast a prepared fireball spell.

No more or less than attacking with a sword.

It's not that G&A isn't happening or is incompatible in those instances, just that it's key benefit: giving the player a structure to work with the ambiguity of action declaration and checks, is not needed, because those parts of the rules (spellcasting & weapon attacks) are already structured & formalized.

Of course, a weapon attack is still a check, and a DM would be within his rights to narrate failure (or success) of an attack he judges has no uncertainty (I shoot arrows at the sun! I crush the garden snail with my Warhammer!), or even a spell, for that matter (though he'd need a good reason).

Well said.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, if there are 5 other goblins in the blast radius, they’ll make saves too. If there are curtains in the area, they will be ignited, as per the rules text of the spell. I don’t understand what your argument is here.

My argument is that in the example you gave, the DM assumed the player/PC's goal was to fry the targeted goblin when in fact it could have been something completely different; and the goblin just provided a good targeting point.

First of all, it’s not unusual for different actions to have the same difficulty. Second of all, there is never any uncertainty with fireball, unless someone tries to Counterspell it with a lower level spell slot than you’re casting it at, and in that case you do have to make a check to resolve that uncertainty. Otherwise, you say you’re casting it, it works without a check. That is precisely how it should function under G&A.

This raises a whole other suite of issues that go beyond this specific discussion, around whether spellcasting should always be as 'certain' as 3e-4e-5e have it. For these purposes I've been treating it as certain, but that doesn't at all reflect how it works at my table.

 

[iserith]

My argument is that in the example you gave, the DM assumed the player/PC's goal was to fry the targeted goblin when in fact it could have been something completely different; and the goblin just provided a good targeting point.

This raises a whole other suite of issues that go beyond this specific discussion, around whether spellcasting should always be as 'certain' as 3e-4e-5e have it. For these purposes I've been treating it as certain, but that doesn't at all reflect how it works at my table.

It may be valuable to know exactly what game you're actually playing so there's a frame of reference for your viewpoint.

 

[Lanefan]

It may be valuable to know exactly what game you're actually playing so there's a frame of reference for your viewpoint.

More or less heavily modified 1e.

In this particular case, one of the modifications is that an aiming roll (similar to a to-hit roll) is required for placement of any AoE spell.

 

[iserith]

More or less heavily modified 1e.

I thought so.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

My argument is that in the example you gave, the DM assumed the player/PC's goal was to fry the targeted goblin when in fact it could have been something completely different; and the goblin just provided a good targeting point.

Simple. The DM does not need to assume anything (and @Charlaquin has mentioned many times on these forums that she does what she can to avoid assumptions as DM). If the approach and/or goal are not clear from the player’s declaration, the DM asks for clarification.

 

[Campbell]

So in the Fifth Edition game I am a player in I play a Mountain Dwarf Ancestral Guardian Barbarian. I have the following combat abilities :

• Rage with per day restrictions that I can enter as a bonus action. When I rage I do more damage and have resistance to all physical damage.
• I can make a reckless attack and get advantage all attacks for 1 round and have all attacks against me be at advantage.
• The last target I hit on my turn while in rage has disadvantage to attack anyone except me. Even if they do they the target has resistance to the attack's damage. In the fiction this is represented by my ancestors hassling the target.
• As a reaction whenever one of my allies take damage I can reduce it by 2d6. In the fiction this is represented by my ancestral spirits blocking the attack.
• Since I have Extra Attack whenever I take the Attack Action I get two attacks. With split movement I can move in between these attacks. I do not have to declare the second attack or my movement until the first is resolved.

I have no idea how I would even begin to interface with these mechanics in a diegetic manner. Several represent things that my character does involuntarily. Several represent things my character's ancestors do that outside the scope of a mechanics first approach I as a player should have absolutely no say in. I also make decisions based on game rationing that make no sense from an in character perspective (rages per day, who to attack last to trigger my ancestors). How do I declare multiple attacks with split movement in a fiction first way?