D&D 5E (2014) Consequences of Failure

[Charlaquin]

So let's take a step back. You don't have unlimited supply of the medicine and it only works half the time. You have one application. Your ally is the only one you know that currently has the disease in question.

Is a roll required, if so what is the meaningful consequence of failure that's needed before the roll takes place?

Yes, in that case a roll is required. The consequence of failure is that you have expended your one use of the medicine and your friend is still sick.

If no roll is required how do you determine whether the medicine works?

Like I said in the previous post, if you didn’t have an extremely limited supply of the medicine, then you would be able to successfully administer the medicine without a check, and we would determine whether it works based on the mechanical effects of the medicine. Since you’ve decided the medicine works 50% of the time, a roll on percentile dice would probably be the best, or at least the simplest mechanic to reflect that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It was a festival, not a carnival, and towns/cities often put out contests with prizes under those circumstances. I agree that a carnival wouldn't do it.



Not everything has to be so grand that it's memorable years later. In fact, if you make everything that grand, nothing is that grand. To be memorable, it has to stand out against typical game play, which means you need a lot of game play that won't stand out. The vast majority of ability checks are going to fall into the typical category.

Well, I'm off to Gateway 2019 for a day of convention gaming. I'm sure I'll have lots to reply to when I get back or tomorrow morning.

You misunderstand me. Not every scene has to be that grand. While the scene itself doesn’t have to be memorable, since it’s not I would rather not use dice. Use it as an opportunity to highlight the character’s strength through straight narration.

 

[Beleriphon]

Neat! I like that idea. What would you say if the wizard asks to try deciphering it again?

Not sure, I might suggest that they've made the best attempt they can at this time, they need to find something about the book to suggest new information that will help. Maybe the contents, original author, something they don't already know.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not sure, I might suggest that they've made the best attempt they can at this time, they need to find something about the book to suggest new information that will help. Maybe the contents, original author, something they don't already know.

Gotcha. That’s a tried and true way to handle multiple attempts. Personally, I’m not a fan of this method, feels too artificial to me. But if it works for you, nice!

 

[Oofta]

This cannot be answered as you have written it. As I patiently explained to you earlier, the circumstances around the check determine if the check has meaning or not. So give me a detailed set of circumstances surrounding a specific kind of lore check. Then I can answer this.

The check has meaning. If they succeed they gain progress towards their goal. If they do not, no progress is made. Although sometimes checks may not gain progress towards a specific goal, the only benefit may be to add color to the world or something I haven't figured out how to make useful yet in my campaign.

 

[Beleriphon]

leaves us in a spot where almost everyone agrees over the majority of the process, which explains to a large extent why we found it necessary to argue over minor issues like whether the check was made in the open or in secret, or whether wait until the critical moment just before failure, or go ahead and get the check out of the way and let it ride. It also leaves us in a spot where nothing much that is being said would deviate from Gygax's example of play in the 1e AD&D DMG.

Gotcha. That’s a tried and true way to handle multiple attempts. Personally, I’m not a fan of this method, feels too artificial to me. But if it works for you, nice!

Like I said, kind of depends. If I was working on this in an actual game rather than off the cuff scenarios I'd work with the player. After Elfcrusher asked about it as well I suggested the book has resulted in the character have disadvantage on saves vs potatoes, or something else relevant to the game. So sure, try again but Erlic is still negatively affected by potato magic, if fails again though we're pushing the failure state out another 24 hours.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, in that case a roll is required. The consequence of failure is that you have expended your one use of the medicine and your friend is still sick.

Your friend being sick is unrelated to the failure, he would have been sick whether you used the medicine or not. So the only consequence is that the medicine is expended. I see.

So taking what we just learned and applying it to lore recall, as long as lore recall takes time (even a second), then that time is a commodity you will never get back and that's the consequence of failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your friend being sick is unrelated to the failure, he would have been sick whether you used the medicine or not. So the only consequence is that the medicine is expended. I see.

So taking what we just learned and applying it to lore recall, as long as lore recall takes time (even a second), then that time is a commodity you will never get back and that's the consequence of failure.

Only if the time spent is a meaningful cost, which it may or may not be, depending on the situation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Only if the time spent is a meaningful cost, which it may or may not be, depending on the situation.

Was it established that using the last bit of that medicine was a meaningful cost?

 

[Charlaquin]

Was it established that using the last bit of that medicine was a meaningful cost?

Of course it’s a meaningful cost, if you run out you can’t use it to cure your friend.