D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Umbran]

Goal (implicit): to roast all those clustered baddies
Approach: "I step forward 15 feet, so I am just in range, and then cast fireball, using a 4th level slot, centered exactly here on the battlemap."

The player's statement certainly has reasonable specificity. How is GaA falling apart here and why is it deemed awkward?

Because, in GaA, the approach is an in-game (or really, in-fiction) description of how the character wants to try to get it done, not a detailing of out-of-fiction rules that the player wants to apply. Unless "spell slots" and "spell levels" are known and understood by the character, they don't belong in the approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

When you make an attack or cast a spell though you are not describing what your character does and hopes to achieve in the fiction though.

Yes you are. If you are announcing an attempt to attack with sufficient specificity (who are you attacking? That’s your goal. what weapon are you attacking with? That’s your approach.) you’ve described what your character is doing. That’s about the degree of specificity that any action declaration demands. In the case of spells, the description is specified in the spell text. You’re saying magic words and/or performing magic hand motions and/or manipulating material foci to produce a specific magical effect, as specified in the spellblock.

You are directly invoking a mechanic. The DM is not deciding if it is uncertain or what the consequences are for failure or if a roll is needed and what kind of roll.

Then the DM isn’t fulfilling their role. When you announce intent to kill a goblin with your sword, the DM should evaluate if this action could succeed (if the goblin is magically invulnerable to harm from swords for some reason, it can’t), if it can fail (if the goblin is incapacitated or otherwise incapable of preventing you from killing them with your sword, it can’t), and if there is a consequence for failure (in combat there always is because on a failure you’ve wasted a resource - your one action per turn. Out of combat, there might or might not be.) If all three things are not true, there’s no need to roll dice, the outcome is obvious and can simply be resolved narratively. The rules define what ability is appropriate to roll if one is called for and whether or not to add your Proficiency bonus based on the approach, just like they do for ability checks and skills.

Spells are a bit of a different case, as there is almost never uncertainty that the approach (the execution of the particular components of the spell) will achieve the goal (producing the effects of the spell). Generally, it is certain to succeed, unless you are in an antimagic field or something, in which case it is certain to fail. Counterspell can make a spellcasting action’s outcome uncertain, if the spell being cast is a higher level than the counterspell. Once the effect is produced, sometimes the target(s) have a chance to avoid its effects, so they make a saving throw. Sometimes it’s uncertain if a spell will hit its target, so you make a spell attack roll.

 

[Superbeast20]

I think the idea of failure seems to have gotten broken apart into two different areas combat and story.

In combat success or failure is determined by rules and the roll of the dice. i.e. hit or miss, save or not. The success or failure is clearly defined and combat moves forward.

In story success and failure are found in the DM telling his story. Rolls are still used for skills but the success or failure depends on the DM running it.

For example, you need to move the plot forward, but still allow your players to fail skill rolls. That is a much trickier problem that can be handled many ways. But as far as stories go, failure is where some of the best stories come from.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because, in GaA, the approach is an in-game (or really, in-fiction) description of how the character wants to try to get it done, not a detailing of out-of-fiction rules that the player wants to apply. Unless "spell slots" and "spell levels" are known and understood by the character, they don't belong in the approach.

Spell slots or levels need not be invoked in the approach. They are part of the adjudication of the action:

Goal (implicit): to roast all those clustered baddies
Approach: "I step forward 15 feet, so I am just in range, and then cast fireball, centered exactly here on the battlemap."

The DM rolls the saving throw for the baddies (perhaps/probably asking the player for their spell save DC). The player rolls damage, adding any bonus from upcasting, and ticks off the spell slot on their character sheet. The DM applies the damage to the baddies accordingly.

I still don't see a conflict with GaA.

 

[5ekyu]

I would also say that "I make a stealth roll" with an implied "to get past the guards" usually tells the DM everything they need to know as well in the context of the game.

I don't see it as mechanics first either. If there's ever any doubt I'll ask for clarification.

Yeah, as stated before, many time already... in actual play the context of the scene and timing provides more info than a million forum posts seem to want to.

Solving the "problem" of the contextless mystery fatherless call for a skill check and such is just not worth me putting anything into it cuz it doesnt happen enough to be a problem beyond me saying "whazzat?"

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, as stated before, many time already... in actual play the context of the scene and timing provides more info than a million forum posts seem to want to.

Solving the "problem" of the contextless mystery fatherless call for a skill check and such is just not worth me putting anything into it cuz it doesnt happen enough to be a problem beyond me saying "whazzat?"

It's the same with combat. Sometimes a player will say "I attack the orc" and the DM has to clarify which one.

To use GAA terminology, the player just needs to convey their goal and approach in a mutually satisfactory manner. No need for a formal approach or phrase restriction.

 

[iserith]

When you make an attack or cast a spell though you are not describing what your character does and hopes to achieve in the fiction though.

"I attack the gnoll next to the wizard with my longsword - 'die, savage!'"

"Mialee signals to the group that she'll take out the gnolls in the trenches and casts a fireball to air-burst above them."

DM adjudicates.

The DM is not deciding if it is uncertain or what the consequences are for failure or if a roll is needed and what kind of roll. The mechanisms directly tell us these things. They are mechanics first. The impact on the fiction is specifically detailed and is not dependent on what you hope to achieve.

That the adjudication is slightly easier (if orc has defense, attack roll; if no anti-magic field, resolve spell) doesn't mean the same process isn't being applied.

 

[iserith]

Because, in GaA, the approach is an in-game (or really, in-fiction) description of how the character wants to try to get it done, not a detailing of out-of-fiction rules that the player wants to apply. Unless "spell slots" and "spell levels" are known and understood by the character, they don't belong in the approach.

There is no prohibition in this method to using the language of the rules to clarify what you want to do. There is no shortage of "gamespeak" at my table. You're just doing both a description, then talking about the action economy or particular class features (or the like) as needed.

Where I think people get confused is the prohibition on players asking to make ability checks. THAT is not okay because an ability check is judged as insufficient to tell the DM the necessary goal and approach in many cases. Plus, only DMs can call for dice rolls anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

Goal (implicit): to roast all those clustered baddies
Approach: "I step forward 15 feet, so I am just in range, and then cast fireball, using a 4th level slot, centered exactly here on the battlemap."

The player's statement certainly has reasonable specificity. How is GaA falling apart here and why is it deemed awkward?

It's not deemed awkward - the player expresses the "action of the character" by references to game mechanics being used... in this case the language of the game has "cast a spell" as the name of a game mechanic - an action. But the references to spell slots is clearly also a reference to game mechanics.

Much like say one might refer to making a knowledge check to recall info instead of having to say "thinking back to my studies in the dank stacks in the catacombs of Mount Oloff I try to recall the passages from Vedoric's tome of ancient bathing practices - troll edition as to see if there were..."

Would you view "cast third level fireball at this spot" as, more or less acceptable than "using my knowledge in arcana to recall about abc" or "make an arcana check about the runes?"



Bigger aside - I have to wonder - if the skill list was listed as verbs like the actions are, how much of the fixation over "thou shalt not call skills" would go away?

I mean "cast a spell" simply puts a choice of what to do "in the form of an action statement" (back to Jeopardy) by default.

Skills however list nouns.

So what if Perception was "noticing stuff" and stealth was "hidin'" and Arcana was "thinkin' back on magic stuff" etc etc etc.

 

[iserith]

Yes you are. If you are announcing an attempt to attack with sufficient specificity (who are you attacking? That’s your goal. what weapon are you attacking with? That’s your approach.) you’ve described what your character is doing. That’s about the degree of specificity that any action declaration demands. In the case of spells, the description is specified in the spell text. You’re saying magic words and/or performing magic hand motions and/or manipulating material foci to produce a specific magical effect, as specified in the spellblock.


Then the DM isn’t fulfilling their role. When you announce intent to kill a goblin with your sword, the DM should evaluate if this action could succeed (if the goblin is magically invulnerable to harm from swords for some reason, it can’t), if it can fail (if the goblin is incapacitated or otherwise incapable of preventing you from killing them with your sword, it can’t), and if there is a consequence for failure (in combat there always is because on a failure you’ve wasted a resource - your one action per turn. Out of combat, there might or might not be.) If all three things are not true, there’s no need to roll dice, the outcome is obvious and can simply be resolved narratively. The rules define what ability is appropriate to roll if one is called for and whether or not to add your Proficiency bonus based on the approach, just like they do for ability checks and skills.

Spells are a bit of a different case, as there is almost never uncertainty that the approach (the execution of the particular components of the spell) will achieve the goal (producing the effects of the spell). Generally, it is certain to succeed, unless you are in an antimagic field or something, in which case it is certain to fail. Counterspell can make a spellcasting action’s outcome uncertain, if the spell being cast is a higher level than the counterspell. Once the effect is produced, sometimes the target(s) have a chance to avoid its effects, so they make a saving throw. Sometimes it’s uncertain if a spell will hit its target, so you make a spell attack roll.

Beat me to it and very well done.