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 LIVE! 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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7807786" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Well I'm trying to use the phrase as a somewhat generic label for the approach being advocated by Elfcrusher, iserith, Ovinomancer, Charlaquin and Bawylie in this thread. It's not monolithic across those posters, but there's a broad consistency that - in 5e D&D - checks are made <em>when called for by the GM in response to the player describing what his/her PC is doing, in an attempt to achieve something-or-other</em>. If the GM think there is no doubt about what would happen, and/or if there is no menaingful consequence of failure, then the GM doesn't call for a check.</p><p></p><p>Within this methodology, "Roll Perception" or "Roll for surprise" or "Make a knowledge check" and the like all sit somewhat oddly. Hence the discussions about the gargoyles, the rune-carved standing stones, etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not carrying a torch for any particular interpretation of the 5e rules. I agree with you that all these features seem like exceptions to "goal and approach" - to me they look like saving throws, as I posted not far upthread. But I'm not particularly suprised by the reply you got from iserith.</p><p></p><p>One issue here is that the rules define Abiilty Checks and Saving Throws in procedural terms rather than functional terms, so that there are some mechanical aspects of the game where the die roll is functioning as a saving throw but is procedurally characterised as an ability check - your <em>stay upright on the deck of a rocking ship</em> is a clear example, as is the opposed check to avoid being grappled. 3E had the same thing - hence the Grease spell becomes overpowered at higher levels because Balance checks function as a saving throw in the context of that spell but the mechanics of the game don't scale skill checks in the way they scale saving throws. In 5e it doesn't cause a numerical problem (because of different scaling rules) but causes the sorts of debates that are occurring in this thread.</p><p></p><p>Personally I regard this as weak design - a concern for legacy labels and procedures leading to confused functionality and needless break points. But it's been part of D&D at least since AD&D 2nd ed (though I think 4e had less of it, because of the way it scaled skill bonuses and didn't draw such a sharp distinction between checks, attacks etc, and had no notion of saving throws in the classic D&D sense).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7807786, member: 42582"] Well I'm trying to use the phrase as a somewhat generic label for the approach being advocated by Elfcrusher, iserith, Ovinomancer, Charlaquin and Bawylie in this thread. It's not monolithic across those posters, but there's a broad consistency that - in 5e D&D - checks are made [I]when called for by the GM in response to the player describing what his/her PC is doing, in an attempt to achieve something-or-other[/I]. If the GM think there is no doubt about what would happen, and/or if there is no menaingful consequence of failure, then the GM doesn't call for a check. Within this methodology, "Roll Perception" or "Roll for surprise" or "Make a knowledge check" and the like all sit somewhat oddly. Hence the discussions about the gargoyles, the rune-carved standing stones, etc. I'm not carrying a torch for any particular interpretation of the 5e rules. I agree with you that all these features seem like exceptions to "goal and approach" - to me they look like saving throws, as I posted not far upthread. But I'm not particularly suprised by the reply you got from iserith. One issue here is that the rules define Abiilty Checks and Saving Throws in procedural terms rather than functional terms, so that there are some mechanical aspects of the game where the die roll is functioning as a saving throw but is procedurally characterised as an ability check - your [I]stay upright on the deck of a rocking ship[/I] is a clear example, as is the opposed check to avoid being grappled. 3E had the same thing - hence the Grease spell becomes overpowered at higher levels because Balance checks function as a saving throw in the context of that spell but the mechanics of the game don't scale skill checks in the way they scale saving throws. In 5e it doesn't cause a numerical problem (because of different scaling rules) but causes the sorts of debates that are occurring in this thread. Personally I regard this as weak design - a concern for legacy labels and procedures leading to confused functionality and needless break points. But it's been part of D&D at least since AD&D 2nd ed (though I think 4e had less of it, because of the way it scaled skill bonuses and didn't draw such a sharp distinction between checks, attacks etc, and had no notion of saving throws in the classic D&D sense). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top