Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7807377" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>Your comment makes me think that the working definition of "goal and approach" in this thread is getting fuzzier again. The rules of 5e emphasize that when players declare actions, it's best to specify both a goal and an approach. Nothing in the 5e rules suggest that that pattern should apply to 5e's other resolution mechanics, like saving throws.</p><p></p><p>So I agree that saving throws don't adhere to "goal and approach", but under the broadest definition of that term in the 5e context, there is no reason to expect them to.</p><p></p><p>I realize that inconsistent usage of the phrase "goal and approach" has been a challenge for communication in this thread, but your post (and other recent posts by a variety of posters) appears to be going further and conflating the phrase with PbtA-style resolution mechanics. Those games' rules specify a uniform resolution mechanic (which can be usefully compared and contrasted with "goal and approach") whereas 5e's rules specify a variety of resolution mechanics (only one of which explicitly involves "goal and approach").</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't agree with your assertion that 5e's rules call for ability checks to only be made as a result of player action declarations. Yes, <em>when</em> players are declaring actions, the rules say they should state their goal and approach and then the DM should then determine whether to call for a roll. But I don't see any support in the rules for the claim that all ability checks must follow this pattern.</p><p></p><p>Numerous elements throughout the rules suggest otherwise. Examples:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ability checks can be used to resolve monster actions in addition to PC actions (PHB: "An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training.")</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The rules call for certain active ability checks to be used defensively (e.g. when PCs/NPCs/monsters without special grab abilities initiate grapples, the target makes a contested active ability check).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The rules specify that passive Wis (Perception) checks are used defensively when resolving opponents' Dex (Stealth) checks.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ability checks can substitute for saving throws to see if a character avoids a new hazard (e.g. "stay upright on a rocking ship’s deck" Dex (Acrobatics) example in the PHB).</li> </ul><p>All of these examples are cases where the rules explicitly call for or permit ability checks in situations other than the resolution of player action declarations. (And the impact of the Role of the Dice section of the DMG is also important, but that's less clear-cut.)</p><p></p><p>I completely agree with you that players providing a goal and approach when declaring actions is called for by the rules of 5e. But I can't agree that the rules offer any support for your much broader claim that ability checks are the exclusive province of player action declarations. A DM choosing to limit ability checks that way is totally fine and (with the possible exception of defensive ability checks) entirely in keeping with 5e's rules. But from my standpoint you are overstating the limitations the rules put on ability checks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7807377, member: 6802765"] Your comment makes me think that the working definition of "goal and approach" in this thread is getting fuzzier again. The rules of 5e emphasize that when players declare actions, it's best to specify both a goal and an approach. Nothing in the 5e rules suggest that that pattern should apply to 5e's other resolution mechanics, like saving throws. So I agree that saving throws don't adhere to "goal and approach", but under the broadest definition of that term in the 5e context, there is no reason to expect them to. I realize that inconsistent usage of the phrase "goal and approach" has been a challenge for communication in this thread, but your post (and other recent posts by a variety of posters) appears to be going further and conflating the phrase with PbtA-style resolution mechanics. Those games' rules specify a uniform resolution mechanic (which can be usefully compared and contrasted with "goal and approach") whereas 5e's rules specify a variety of resolution mechanics (only one of which explicitly involves "goal and approach"). I can't agree with your assertion that 5e's rules call for ability checks to only be made as a result of player action declarations. Yes, [I]when[/I] players are declaring actions, the rules say they should state their goal and approach and then the DM should then determine whether to call for a roll. But I don't see any support in the rules for the claim that all ability checks must follow this pattern. Numerous elements throughout the rules suggest otherwise. Examples: [LIST] [*]Ability checks can be used to resolve monster actions in addition to PC actions (PHB: "An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training.") [*]The rules call for certain active ability checks to be used defensively (e.g. when PCs/NPCs/monsters without special grab abilities initiate grapples, the target makes a contested active ability check). [*]The rules specify that passive Wis (Perception) checks are used defensively when resolving opponents' Dex (Stealth) checks. [*]Ability checks can substitute for saving throws to see if a character avoids a new hazard (e.g. "stay upright on a rocking ship’s deck" Dex (Acrobatics) example in the PHB). [/LIST] All of these examples are cases where the rules explicitly call for or permit ability checks in situations other than the resolution of player action declarations. (And the impact of the Role of the Dice section of the DMG is also important, but that's less clear-cut.) I completely agree with you that players providing a goal and approach when declaring actions is called for by the rules of 5e. But I can't agree that the rules offer any support for your much broader claim that ability checks are the exclusive province of player action declarations. A DM choosing to limit ability checks that way is totally fine and (with the possible exception of defensive ability checks) entirely in keeping with 5e's rules. But from my standpoint you are overstating the limitations the rules put on ability checks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top