D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[Flamestrike]

If you mean never call for multiple where one single roll failure means the failure of them all, then I agree.

If you mean never call for multiple rolls where the accumulation of rolls influences the outcome without one failed roll automatically resulting in failure, then I disagree.

The former (one failed roll automatically kills the whole attempt) just means that each additional roll ratchets up the difficulty. You're better off just raising the DC and making it a single roll.

The latter (each roll result influences the ultimate outcome but does not individually mean automatic success or failure) is indicative of an extended process and offers one greater ability to determine degrees of success or failure, which can be very relevant to some tasks/checks.

Were in agreement with point 1 (compound checks should be avoided).

You can make an argument for and against such checks in point 2. Why roll 10 times to determine success when one roll does it just as well? For checks that indicate a degrees of success and failure or determine time taken to succed, higher results on a single roll can model this just fine.

Consider 10 rolls to craft a set of full plate (with each success or failure adding or reducing the time taken, and a net of 50 percent or more successes required) is one such example.

Why engage in such a convoluted system, when I can just resolve it with a single roll - a higher result granting a shorter crafting time, or a better suit of armor? We wind up with the same result, but the resolution is much simpler.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Exactly what kind of skill system are you running here. I do not roll a check to find out how well I perform. I roll a check to find out if I succeed or if I fail, just like a roll an attack to find out if I hit or I miss.

It's true that D&D does not use a degrees-of-success system. It's a very simple system, and it's always just been pass/fail. Many people consider it to be a weak point with the game as a whole.

That being said, it's a very simple system, and it doesn't do abstract goals at all. The only thing it can give you is success/failure at a task. You can try to open a locked chest, but the roll only determines whether you unlock it or not; that roll does nothing about any traps that might be on it, or a pressure switch that destroys the contents after your tampering, or even the chest being simply empty - regardless of whatever your goal was that prompted you to try and pick the lock in the first place.

In this case, the character had a distant goal, and an immediate task that he thought might lead to that goal. He succeeded in the task, but that didn't immediately also accomplish the goal, due to unforeseen factors that he had no control over. It would have been railroading to forbid the player to make an attempt, though; trying is certainly something that the character has control over, even if the DM knows that the ultimate goal is beyond reach for now.

 

[MechaPilot]

Were in agreement with point 1 (compound checks should be avoided).

You can make an argument for and against such checks in point 2. Why roll 10 times to determine success when one roll does it just as well? For checks that indicate a degrees of success and failure or determine time taken to succed, higher results on a single roll can model this just fine.

Consider 10 rolls to craft a set of full plate (with each success or failure adding or reducing the time taken, and a net of 50 percent or more successes required) is one such example.

Why engage in such a convoluted system, when I can just resolve it with a single roll - a higher result granting a shorter crafting time, or a better suit of armor? We wind up with the same result, but the resolution is much simpler.

Why roll more than once when you can roll just once instead? I see four main reasons why people might want to do this:
1) Multiple rolls are less swingy, reducing how much of a role the luck factor plays.
2) Multiple rolls are better for measuring degrees of failure or success, which can be desired when a range of good and bad outcomes are reasonably possible/likely.
3) Multiple rolls can reflect changes in skill. A player who is making multiple rolls to craft a suit of armor may have a higher proficiency or ability modifier before the task is completed.
4) Multiple rolls can reflect situations where more than one score or skill is relevant. For example, a character who uses her knowledge of local history to inspire a crowd to be as great as the heroes of old who lived there could reasonably see both Intelligence (for information recall) as well as Charisma being relevant.

 

[Shasarak]

Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can or cannot do at their own tables when I'm not involved. I just said I hope you provide some warning so the expected content doesn't differ from what they're actually confronted with. You know, informed decision and all that.

That is alright, I probably would not pay you any attention if I thought you were trying to tell me what to do. I am just as entitled to me own Badwrongfun as anyone else.

 

[Shasarak]

Multiple rolls just reminds me too much of skill challenges to be given any serious merit.

 

[MechaPilot]

Multiple rolls just reminds me too much of skill challenges to be given any serious merit.

To each their own, but I've had good results with skill challenges.

 

[Shasarak]

It's true that D&D does not use a degrees-of-success system. It's a very simple system, and it's always just been pass/fail. Many people consider it to be a weak point with the game as a whole.

The DnD skill system is much like Democracy really. It is the worst system except for all the others.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why roll more than once when you can roll just once instead? I see four main reasons why people might want to do this:
1) Multiple rolls are less swingy, reducing how much of a role the luck factor plays.
2) Multiple rolls are better for measuring degrees of failure or success, which can be desired when a range of good and bad outcomes are reasonably possible/likely.
3) Multiple rolls can reflect changes in skill. A player who is making multiple rolls to craft a suit of armor may have a higher proficiency or ability modifier before the task is completed.
4) Multiple rolls can reflect situations where more than one score or skill is relevant. For example, a character who uses her knowledge of local history to inspire a crowd to be as great as the heroes of old who lived there could reasonably see both Intelligence (for information recall) as well as Charisma being relevant.

I get that, buts its just not enough of an advantage over a single roll resolution for mine.

In addtion to simplicity, the players know when they roll for something it has meaning, and if it succeeds it affects the narrative. All eyes are on the D20 if you know what I mean.

I guess I just find the extra hassle isnt worth it.

I dont often call for checks anyways. Its a common mistake in 5E to make players roll for stuff that they really shouldnt. Climbing a rope, swimming a slow moving river, or jumping a 5' pit for example. Or even just looking in the right area.

Holding back on rolls, and not being afraid of allowing automatic success really lets the PCs explore and investigate their environment more.

I find a lot of players will just announce 'I jump in the river' and then attempt to roll a d20 (to swim or whatever). When I step them and ask them 'What are you wearing, and can you hand me over a list of your equipment. Full plate and 100 lbs of coins? OK, no need to roll as its pretty much impossible to swim with that load and.. lets see... your spellbook will certainly be ruined, and your clothers will be wet. Its getting cold remember' they stop and think. You get players starting to announce that they strip off, protect their gear, test the current etc instead of falling into the 'roll' mentality.

 

[MechaPilot]

I get that, buts its just not enough of an advantage over a single roll resolution for mine.

In addtion to simplicity, the players know when they roll for something it has meaning, and if it succeeds it affects the narrative. All eyes are on the D20 if you know what I mean.

I guess I just find the extra hassle isnt worth it.

I dont often call for checks anyways. Its a common mistake in 5E to make players roll for stuff that they really shouldnt. Climbing a rope, swimming a slow moving river, or jumping a 5' pit for example. Or even just looking in the right area.

Holding back on rolls, and not being afraid of allowing automatic success really lets the PCs explore and investigate their environment more.

I find a lot of players will just announce 'I jump in the river' and then attempt to roll a d20 (to swim or whatever). When I step them and ask them 'What are you wearing, and can you hand me over a list of your equipment. Full plate and 100 lbs of coins? OK, no need to roll as its pretty much impossible to swim with that load and.. lets see... your spellbook will certainly be ruined, and your clothers will be wet. Its getting cold remember' they stop and think. You get players starting to announce that they strip off, protect their gear, test the current etc instead of falling into the 'roll' mentality.

We all have our own preferences with regard to running things. One of the things that I do with skill and ability checks is that I don't bother calling for a roll if the character's pertinent ability score is equal to or greater than the DC of the check: if you need to make a Strength check of 15 to climb a wall and your Strength is at least 15, you just do it, no roll required.

 

[Flamestrike]

We all have our own preferences with regard to running things. One of the things that I do with skill and ability checks is that I don't bother calling for a roll if the character's pertinent ability score is equal to or greater than the DC of the check: if you need to make a Strength check of 15 to climb a wall and your Strength is at least 15, you just do it, no roll required.

Not a bad system. Also used in Dragon Warriors (an old RPG available in paperback format that contans one of the best series of adventures ever written).