D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Monayuris]

Yeah, my scenario with the monster ability is a little bit out there, at least for D&D. But I wonder how much mechanical impact it would actually have. Sure, "remembering" that this monster is vulnerable to your primary attack spell would be a huge bonus, but what if you fail and suddenly it's resistant or immune to it? So it's really a matter of where the DC lies.

Still, it's just not very D&D. I get that.

However, I think it would work well in the "closing the portal" scenario, provided the DM hadn't made closing the portal by some other specific means an integral part of the adventure. In other words, if the players are going off-script (as it were) just by trying to close it, the solution of making the Arcana check as you try to close it could be fun and memorable.

(And maybe even in some constrained or even unique circumstances it would work with monster abilities; I just wouldn't want it to be a regular thing.)

Sure. I just think it is a little bit of moving the goalposts (in either direction) to change a creatures resistance/vulnerability based on an ability check.

I'd have to think about the player who asks: "What is this creature's vulnerabilities?" I'm kind of on the fence on this... I kind of think if I can't think of what would happen if they fail the roll, why would I allow a roll to begin with. My assumption is that the skill check to make this identification is an action used in combat. The player forgoes an opportunity to act for the chance to succeed on an information recall.

This falls in line with my trinary approach...
1. take the risk and succeed gain knowledge on the creatures weakness,
2. take the risk and fail gain no knowledge and lose your turn,
3. don't take the risk and take your action.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure. I just think it is a little bit of moving the goalposts (in either direction) to change a creatures resistance/vulnerability based on an ability check.

I'd have to think about the player who asks: "What is this creature's vulnerabilities?" I'm kind of on the fence on this... I kind of think if I can't think of what would happen if they fail the roll, why would I allow a roll to begin with. My assumption is that the skill check to make this identification is an action used in combat. The player forgoes an opportunity to act for the chance to succeed on an information recall.

This falls in line with my trinary approach...
1. take the risk and succeed gain knowledge on the creatures weakness,
2. take the risk and fail gain no knowledge and lose your turn,
3. don't take the risk and take your action.

Yeah, if trying to recall information costs an action, then we've met the criteria. I'd still want the players to be fairly specific about what they want to learn, and how they are going about it. The nice thing about spending an action is that it gives more options other than "I think back to that time..." That is, you can study the creature, perform an experiment (always good to have a sack of gnomes handy), etc.

 

[Monayuris]

I used your quote to mostly point out that other people were arguing against the rules, not what is actually just a method for players to describe what they want to do. I advocate for both of those things together at the same time, but one of them is "mine" and one of them is "the rules." But people argue against them as if they are one thing that I or others made up. It wasn't necessarily directed at your argument. Sorry for any confusion there.



I'm not sure what the distinction you're making is here. You laid out the goal and approach above (bolded). That's all good and more or less what I'd expect my players to establish for their characters. There's no need for a check right now though if nobody's listening. It gets resolved when it matters. If they asked to roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check, I'd tell them "no."

Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood. So to clarify...

I almost always run dungeons that have a 'wandering monster' component. Usually a 1 in 6 chance of a potential encounter for every 20 minutes in the dungeon (I pull this from my B/X roots). So in my games there is always a possibility for an unscripted encounter that may come from this random roll.

My point about the baseline is that I offer the players a choice with regards to their standard operating procedure. They can move normal speed or they can move slow and stealth. If they choose stealth, I ask for a roll to establish their baseline stealthiness. I don't always know if there is any creature 'listening' because encounters are random. Instead I use their baseline rolls as a comparison against creature perception to determine context for potential random encounters.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, if trying to recall information costs an action, then we've met the criteria. I'd still want the players to be fairly specific about what they want to learn, and how they are going about it. The nice thing about spending an action is that it gives more options other than "I think back to that time..." That is, you can study the creature, perform an experiment (always good to have a sack of gnomes handy), etc.

I dunno about the specific thing. The whole point of a knowledge skill for me is so that I don't have to be overly specific.

PC MrKnowItAll: "Based on my life what do I know of this creature we are facing that might give us a tactical advantage"
DM: Roll a Nature check
PC MrKnowItAll: I rolled a 20.
DM: You know XYZ
PC MrKnowItAll: Thank goodness for all my time in the wilderness I've seen one of these creatures before!

 

[iserith]

Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood. So to clarify...

I almost always run dungeons that have a 'wandering monster' component. Usually a 1 in 6 chance of a potential encounter for every 20 minutes in the dungeon (I pull this from my B/X roots). So in my games there is always a possibility for an unscripted encounter that may come from this random roll.

My point about the baseline is that I offer the players a choice with regards to their standard operating procedure. They can move normal speed or they can move slow and stealth. If they choose stealth, I ask for a roll to establish their baseline stealthiness. I don't always know if there is any creature 'listening' because encounters are random. Instead I use their baseline rolls as a comparison against creature perception to determine context for potential random encounters.

I often use wandering monsters as well and its usually a 10-15% chance per time interval (which I vary, depending on the location, and it can change as the adventure site is cleared out). When a wandering monster is indicated, that's when I would ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check (particularly as it may relate to determining surprise), assuming they are still skulking about. But not before. That can lead to weirdness in my experience that then requires kludges to fix.

 

[Monayuris]

I'll just point out that now that the attacks have somewhat died out, this conversation is getting pretty interesting.

oh I hope I wasn't a part of the attack... lol.

Yeah this is a fascinating conversation that is very useful and productive. Thank you for bringing this up. This is an amazing discussion thread.

I'd offer anyone interested to check out this blog...

Index

Blog has gotten pretty big. . . I'm reorganizing the index to make it more useful (Updated 8/22/14) If you like the blog, subscribe to t...

hackslashmaster.blogspot.com

I have learned so much from it and I've objectively became a better DM by studying it. I hope this isn't construed as some schill or anything. It is a worthwhile read that has fundamentally affected me as a DM.

 

[Monayuris]

I often use wandering monsters as well and its usually a 10-15% chance per time interval (which I vary, depending on the location, and it can change as the adventure site is cleared out). When a wandering monster is indicated, that's when I would ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check (particularly as it may relate to determining surprise), assuming they are still skulking about. But not before. That can lead to weirdness in my experience that then requires kludges to fix.

Ah... for me: I require players to declare if they are stealthing or not as a standard operating procedure. That choice results in a stealth check, or lack thereof, that is applied to potential encounters.

How does this play out in your game? Do you ask for stealth checks only if you roll an encounter? How does this play in with movement in the environment? Does asking for stealth key players that an encounter is imminent? Does that matter to you?

 

[Campbell]

So when it comes to the way Stealth works with Initiative I really like how Pathfinder 2 handles it. Generally you roll Perception (which everyone is at least trained in) for Initiative, but if you were sneaking about you roll Stealth. You compare this to everyone's Perception DCs (Basically passive perception). If you succeed they are not even aware that you are there. They may still go before you if they roll high enough, but must act as if they have no clue you are there generally by Delaying.

 

[iserith]

Ah... for me: I require players to declare if they are stealthing or not as a standard operating procedure. That choice results in a stealth check, or lack thereof, that is applied to potential encounters.

It's likely to come up in the discussion of what the players are doing as they move about the dungeon, but it's generally not something I ask them about. They do have to declare it if they're doing it, as with anything. You probably have to apply some kind of additional rule though about not attempting to stealth again if they roll low though, right? If the heavily-armored cleric throws a 3 for a result, I can imagine players asking to try again and the DM feeling the need to deny it. Which can't happen in my resolution method.

How does this play out in your game? Do you ask for stealth checks only if you roll an encounter? How does this play in with movement in the environment? Does asking for stealth key players that an encounter is imminent? Does that matter to you?

I ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check if and when it actually matters, which is when (sing along everybody!) the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. You move a Slow pace while moving stealthily which affects how much ground you can cover per unit of time. Since wandering monster checks are tied to time, the slower you move, the more checks you get for the amount of area you cover compared to other paces.

A call for a Dexterity (Stealth) check is likely to clue the into an encounter of some kind occurring, or at least a situation where their stealthiness is being tested. But I don't see that as a problem.

 

[Lanefan]

A call for a Dexterity (Stealth) check is likely to clue the into an encounter of some kind occurring, or at least a situation where their stealthiness is being tested. But I don't see that as a problem.

I see that as a big problem, in that it's giving the players info their characters don't know and then expecting them to play as if they don't know it.

Any time they say they're being stealthy, get 'em to roll - if the roll isn't needed right then, either take it under advisement for later if-when it is or tell them that the first bit of sneaking has gone [badly-normal-well] based on the roll.

In general, meaningless rolls are important because they help disguise the rolls that actually matter, and thus prevent (or greatly mitigate) any metagaming.

Also - and not related specifically to the above quote or to you @iserith - I have to say I really do fail to see a problem with, when someone tries a knowledge check and blows it, simply saying "Nope, nothing" and moving on with the game.

Put another way and applied more generally, a continuation of the status quo is often* a valid outcome. You try to climb a wall and fail - you're still (or back) at the bottom. You try to make friends with the guard and fail - you're still not friends with the guard.

* - sometimes a continuation of the status quo is impossble e.g. trying to jump across a chasm.