D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

It's not the same outcome, because with success you're in combat with somebody prone. With failure you're in combat with somebody standing. And if you hadn't tried you wouldn't be in combat.

Now, I suppose it could be argued that both outcomes are worse than doing nothing at all, but presumably this wouldn't have happened unless that player had decided this wasn't true.

And, really, this is (also) a semantic game, because knocking somebody prone uses an attack action, so what really happened here is the DM gave the PC a surprise round. If he failed with his shove it's still a wasted turn.

When you start seeing everything as a semantic game then you've lost some perspective.

Anyways, the point your making is that IF combat ensues due to the prone attempt then being in combat with a standing opponent is different than not being in combat with a standing opponent.

I can't argue there. Now consider the same example where combat doesn't ensue due to your attempt to knock the opponent down. What is the meaningful consequence of failure in that case?

 

[FrogReaver]

And even if you don't want to agree with that, the same principle applies out of combat: clearly there was SOME reason he wanted to shove him prone, and the DM let him take some kind of action. So if the shove failed he has then squandered his chance to do something for free, outside of combat.

And, finally, if this isn't a high stakes situation...if there really is no consequence for failure because, say, he was shoving a friend into a snowbank for a joke...then there's no need for a roll.

If there isn't any consequence for failure, the rules for knocking someone prone are still the same. It's still an opposed check. It's hard to argue you are playing by the rules when you want to avoid doing something the rules would say to do. Not that there's anything wrong with not playing by the rules, but you have been pretty adamant (or at least those on your side have been), that your way is by the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

When you start seeing everything as a semantic game then you've lost some perspective.

Yeah, well, when you start trying to devise hypothetical examples with the intent of proving that somebody else is playing the game wrong, you've also lost perspective.

Now consider the same example where combat doesn't ensue due to your attempt to knock the opponent down. What is the meaningful consequence of failure in that case?

As I said in my (several) edits, if this is a low-stakes thing, why are we rolling dice?

Sorry: I started this thread to learn; I'm hardly the zen master here. So sometimes I have to think though these scenarios a little bit.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, well, when you start trying to devise hypothetical examples with the intent of proving that somebody else is playing the game wrong, you've also lost perspective.

Then let me clear this up right now. There isn't a right or wrong way to play the game. That doesn't mean we can't talk about any perceived or possible cons for using your method of playing the game. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the places where it appears to fall apart, especially when you are advertising it like it's flawless and without any issue whatsoever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If there isn't any consequence for failure, the rules for knocking someone prone are still the same. It's still an opposed check. It's hard to argue you are playing by the rules when you want to avoid doing something the rules would say to do. Not that there's anything wrong with not playing by the rules, but you have been pretty adamant (or at least those on your side have been), that your way is by the rules.

Before I answer, please tell me: are you seriously claiming that if a player wants to use a combat rule in a zero-stakes, non-combat situation (such as the aforementioned shoving a friend in a snowbank) it's literally breaking the rules for the DM to just say, "Yeah, ok, you succeed."

Really?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then let me clear this up right now. There isn't a right or wrong way to play the game. That doesn't mean we can't talk about any perceived or possible cons for using your method of playing the game. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the places where it appears to fall apart, especially when you are advertising it like it's flawless and without any issue whatsoever.

I started this thread with the premise of "Hey, this is hard to implement in some situations."

You may apologize in your next post. Thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

I started this thread with the premise of "Hey, this is hard to implement in some situations."

You may apologize in your next post. Thanks.

I addressed that when I entered the thread. I offered suggestions about how to accomplish that without criticizing your playstyle. The discussion moved past that, so don't throw up your thread intent after the thread has been off that topic for 200+ posts and you've been going off topic right along with it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Before I answer, please tell me: are you seriously claiming that if a player wants to use a combat rule in a zero-stakes, non-combat situation (such as the aforementioned shoving a friend in a snowbank) it's literally breaking the rules for the DM to just say, "Yeah, ok, you succeed."

Really?

I was, but when you put it that way I shouldn't be.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, Max, took me a while to get back to this.

No worries!!

First, a consequence can be good or bad, but it has to be something that is the result of something else. So if the game state is the same after a failed attempt, there is nothing that resulted from the failed attempt, so pretty much by definition there is no consequence.

See, I disagree. In another thread I just gave an example to @Oofta. If you are attempting to build a wall to keep out a barbarian horde and you fail the roll, no progress has very significant consequences. The horde is going to ride in now and chop you up. There is no setback there as the wall didn't become worse. The wall just failed to move forward.

There are many, many situations where a failure to move forward will have meaningful consequence. The circumstances around the attempt will determine that, not the failed roll itself.

Upthread FrogReaver proposed that if you can't try again, the game state has changed because now you don't have that option. And I agree, that is a consequence.* But not really a useful one, because the purpose (or my purpose) of having a consequence is to give the player a risk:reward calculation to make. And (assuming the odds aren't going to change in the future, which was also discussed) it's not really a "risk" to use your one shot, because not trying has the same value as not being able to try.

This is tied into my above example. The game circumstances will determine when you are unable to try again. Going back to the wall and the incoming barbarian horde, you would be unable to try again as the horde would be riding over your face during the second attempt.

 

[Maxperson]

I finally made a breakthrough this morning. That bit I bolded? It's wrong.

And I can prove it.

There is never a fail condition on any opposed check, only success conditions. Opposed checks, like a stealth check, cannot be failed. I don't stop hiding because someone rolled a higher perception, I'm still hiding. They just succeeded on their perception check. Or, put it another way, if two characters are arm wrestling, one character does not stop arm wrestling because the other character rolled a higher Athletics check.

Your failed your proof roll.

You can fail a stealth check. You can step on a twig and make noise. You can wear bright orange while attempting to hide in a white room. If you roll so poorly that there is no roll to see you, it's automatic, you've failed. That's the easy example that overcomes your proof.

The more complicated on is that in an opposed check the roll of your opponent is the DC for success, so it doesn't matter if you haven't stopped wrestling. You've failed to successfully wrestle against your opponent who just pinned you.

And of course your proof is a Strawman, as @iserith did not specify opposed checks. He said ability checks, which of course leads to the next fallacy in that argument of yours which I'm too tired to remember the name of. You're starting off trying to disprove ability checks in general and then use specifically opposed checks to do so. That proof will automatically fail on its face since it's conflating ideas.

So, no, there are conditions where ability checks are called for even if there is no meaningful consequence of failure.

Yes. Those conditions are called house rules.