D&D 5E Does (or should) the halfling “lucky” ability apply when the DM is making the roll?

[Hriston]

That's true, because in the situation where my players are lost but I tell them they are not, I would be lying to them and never lying to my players is one of my DM principles.

I don't see the benefit of putting my players in that situation. I can put them in the situation where they don't know if they are on the right or the wrong path and that seems sufficient to me.

You keep throwing around this veiled accusation of lying to the players. I don’t tell the players that the party isn’t lost. I tell them they’ve arrived in a new area. I don’t see how this is any different from not telling them whether they are on the correct path or not, or letting them be lost without them knowing it, which is the result that I said was excluded by your approach to which you then responded. It seems now that you do the exact same thing, but I have no idea how since you also say it’s lying, which you never do. For the record, I don’t lie to my players either.

Yes, I sometimes do rolls and don't tell my players what I roll for, too. That is for situations where rolls need to be done without players stating an actual action with a doubtful outcome.

Maybe you can give me an example because I’m not really sure what you’re talking about here.

The situation at hand doesn't change anything about how I handle the situation, it's always the same handling for me.
The result of a fail might differ depending on what my players want to accomplish, though. Making them come to a crossroads might just be a narration I come up with because they failed their survival checks and need some player input on what they do (because another principle of mine is to never make PCs do something the player didn't state). I might also use the map and put a circle on it with the circle's size depending on the survival roll's result and then ask them to tell me the hex field they want to move to. Whatever I think is currently most fun in the situation.

For me the discussion is more a matter of general handling. Because there can be an unlimited amount of different situations. And not only that. The players also have unlimited ways in how they state what they do and what they want to accomplish. So looking just at one specific situation often doesn't help much. You need easy to understand principles you can apply on the fly that make you feel confident that they are a good way to make everyone enjoy the game.

That’s fine, but the particular situation I’m interested in talking about in this thread is one in which the party is at risk of becoming lost depending on the result of the party navigator’s Wisdom (Survival) check, and whether keeping the result of that check secret so as not to tip off the players in the event of a failure is a valid method on the part of the DM. I think it can be, not so as to deceive the players, but rather to enhance the sense of the unknown.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

You keep throwing around this veiled accusation of lying to the players. I don’t tell the players that the party isn’t lost. I tell them they’ve arrived in a new area. I don’t see how this is any different from not telling them whether they are on the correct path or not, or letting them be lost without them knowing it, which is the result that I said was excluded by your approach to which you then responded. It seems now that you do the exact same thing, but I have no idea how since you also say it’s lying, which you never do. For the record, I don’t lie to my players either.

Since I'm not knowing what kind of player action you are imagining it's hard for me to tell what you mean with "They are lost an don't know about it".
If the player states "I follow the tracks", then they only move as long they see tracks. If you make them move without seeing tracks then you are making players do an action they didn't state.
If the player states "I'm searching for tracks", then there's no movement at all. They either find tracks or don't, but definitely can't get lost without stating further actions.
If the player states "I want to go back the path I came from", then on a fail the player might not be able to find which was the way he came from, but he will also just move until he feels no longer confident about it. He is lost in that case, but he will know it.

I mean in real life you will always know when you're lost, no? At least when I was lost I went from "I think this is the way" to absolute panic pretty fast.

Maybe you can give me an example because I’m not really sure what you’re talking about here.

Rolling for random encounters is the most common example of this.

That’s fine, but the particular situation I’m interested in talking about in this thread is one in which the party is at risk of becoming lost depending on the result of the party navigator’s Wisdom (Survival) check, and whether keeping the result of that check secret so as not to tip off the players in the event of a failure is a valid method on the part of the DM. I think it can be, not so as to deceive the players, but rather to enhance the sense of the unknown.

The thread asked about a particular situation, but I identified that the origin of the specific problem is a common mistake (which is hiding rolls). Not hiding rolls solves this specific problem and many other problems.

The situation in the opening post is also not specific enough to give a clear reply on how to handle that situation, since it depends on the action the player stated (see above).

 

[Hriston]

Since I'm not knowing what kind of player action you are imagining it's hard for me to tell what you mean with "They are lost an don't know about it".
If the player states "I follow the tracks", then they only move as long they see tracks. If you make them move without seeing tracks then you are making players do an action they didn't state.
If the player states "I'm searching for tracks", then there's no movement at all. They either find tracks or don't, but definitely can't get lost without stating further actions.

You keep bringing up examples of tracking. I'm talking about navigation, which is a distinct activity, although it's also covered by the Survival skill. An example of the type of declared action I'd expect to be resolved with a navigation check would be, "We're heading south-east across the Old Forest. Strider is leading the way to make sure we stay together and don't get lost."

If the player states "I want to go back the path I came from", then on a fail the player might not be able to find which was the way he came from, but he will also just move until he feels no longer confident about it. He is lost in that case, but he will know it.

I mean in real life you will always know when you're lost, no? At least when I was lost I went from "I think this is the way" to absolute panic pretty fast.

A couple things on this: First, if the party is following a path or a similar linear feature, I'd say there's no chance of becoming lost, same if they're retracing their steps into an area they've already explored. Second, of course you don't know you're becoming lost, otherwise no one would ever become lost. They'd stop and turn around and not get lost. People only realize they're lost after it has already happened, and by then it's too late.

Rolling for random encounters is the most common example of this.

Okay, I do that too. I have lots of random generation in my games. Sometimes I tell the players what I'm rolling for and sometimes I don't. Many times it is in response to player-declared actions, however, so I wasn't sure what you meant by "situations where rolls need to be done without players stating an actual action with a doubtful outcome". Actually, I don't see much difference between randomizing a creature's Dexterity (Stealth) check and other forms of randomization I introduce into the game. I could after all just set a DC to find a hidden creature, but I choose to roll because it make the game more interesting.

The thread asked about a particular situation, but I identified that the origin of the specific problem is a common mistake (which is hiding rolls). Not hiding rolls solves this specific problem and many other problems.

The situation in the opening post is also not specific enough to give a clear reply on how to handle that situation, since it depends on the action the player stated (see above).

I'm not keen on the DM rolling for the players either, but how do you feel about Lucky being applied to passive checks? I don't think it does.

 

[MarkB]

I'm not keen on the DM rolling for the players either, but how do you feel about Lucky being applied to passive checks? I don't think it does.

It's impossible for Lucky to apply to a passive check, because a passive check doesn't involve a roll on the part of the character. They are treated as having rolled a 10.

It's also worth noting that Survival checks for navigation are generally taken against a set DC - the DM decides how difficult the task of navigating the current set of terrain is, and the character rolls to beat that DC. Using characters' passive skills does not change that. If you're using characters' passive skills for navigation, then if their passive Survival score is equal or higher than your set DC they'll succeed every time, and if it's lower they'll fail every time.

If you change things up by using the characters' passive checks and making an opposed check against them, you're effectively treating the terrain as though it were a living opponent trying to outmatch them - much as would be the case with a creature using Stealth to hide from them.

The downside of this is, as you've correctly surmised, that you've given them the disadvantages of making random opposed rolls with none of the abilities they might have to mitigate those disadvantages. Under the circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to make some allowances - i.e. allowing a player who's earned a point of Inspiration to spend it to add +5 to their passive score for the check. Equally, you could apply the halfling's Lucky ability by choosing to re-roll your opposed terrain check if you roll a natural 20.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

You keep bringing up examples of tracking. I'm talking about navigation, which is a distinct activity, although it's also covered by the Survival skill. An example of the type of declared action I'd expect to be resolved with a navigation check would be, "We're heading south-east across the Old Forest. Strider is leading the way to make sure we stay together and don't get lost."

I'll assume here that what the player wants to accomplish is getting across the Old Forest (if I wasn't sure I would always just ask - I'd probably ask them why they said "stay together", I'd ask if they actually walk at some significant distance to each other - for now I assume they don't). Also I assume that there has been some discussion before and the player agreed on this strategy (because I usually don't let a single player declare "we" actions, in fact I'd ask every single player what he's doing while traveling, I'd also ask Strider how he wants to accomplish navigating through the Old Forest).

Going by those assumptions, I'd handle it similar to how I handle stealth checks: There's an immediate consequence after the roll.

So:

Player: "We're heading south-east across the Old Forest. Strider is leading the way to make sure we stay together and don't get lost."
DM: (decides for DC required to succeed, e.g. 13) Ok Strider, roll survival.
Strider: 9.
DM: "You start traveling through the forest with Strider leading the way. He has some trouble finding the right path. You eventually see an opening and head straight to it, but it seems this isn't the end of the forest, but rather a monster lair! You're getting attacked. Roll initiative."


Edit: I might ask you back, why do you think the situation where the players are lost but don't know they are is of any benefit to the adventure here? What would you do? They will certainly notice they aren't out of the forest, even though that's what they wanted to accomplish. Or do you tell them they made it through the forest even though they haven't? Certainly not. What else? Make them stuck inside the forest forever? Or let them roll survival until they succeed?

 

[Li Shenron]

With the Halflings Lucky racial trait, as a DM I would certainly do the reroll, because it has no cost.

On the other hand, the Lucky feat would be more tricky, because it has limited uses... so as a DM it should not be me making the choice, it should be the player. But if the check is secret, as I ask the player I have to spoil the secret at least partially...

 

[MarkB]

With the Halflings Lucky racial trait, as a DM I would certainly do the reroll, because it has no cost.

On the other hand, the Lucky feat would be more tricky, because it has limited uses... so as a DM it should not be me making the choice, it should be the player. But if the check is secret, as I ask the player I have to spoil the secret at least partially...

In this particular case, as I understand it, the fact that a roll is being made is not a secret - only the result of that roll. The players know that they're trying to navigate, and that the results of those efforts won't be known for sure until the next time they find themselves able to check their position by referring to known landmarks - which may, in dense terrain, be a session or two down the line if there are a lot of encounters along the way.

So the simple way for the DM to allow the Lucky feat without giving anything away is to ask the player in advance, "If I roll a 1 on your check, do you want me to spend a use of Lucky to re-roll it?"

Then, if the DM does roll a 1, he can make it obvious that he's re-rolling on the player's behalf and tell the player that they've expended a use of Lucky. The player knows that their character rolled a 1 and re-rolled it, but still nothing is given away, because they don't know the result of the re-roll.

 

[Reynard]

I'll assume here that what the player wants to accomplish is getting across the Old Forest (if I wasn't sure I would always just ask - I'd probably ask them why they said "stay together", I'd ask if they actually walk at some significant distance to each other - for now I assume they don't). Also I assume that there has been some discussion before and the player agreed on this strategy (because I usually don't let a single player declare "we" actions, in fact I'd ask every single player what he's doing while traveling, I'd also ask Strider how he wants to accomplish navigating through the Old Forest).

Going by those assumptions, I'd handle it similar to how I handle stealth checks: There's an immediate consequence after the roll.

So:

Player: "We're heading south-east across the Old Forest. Strider is leading the way to make sure we stay together and don't get lost."
DM: (decides for DC required to succeed, e.g. 13) Ok Strider, roll survival.
Strider: 9.
DM: "You start traveling through the forest with Strider leading the way. He has some trouble finding the right path. You eventually see an opening and head straight to it, but it seems this isn't the end of the forest, but rather a monster lair! You're getting attacked. Roll initiative."


Edit: I might ask you back, why do you think the situation where the players are lost but don't know they are is of any benefit to the adventure here? What would you do? They will certainly notice they aren't out of the forest, even though that's what they wanted to accomplish. Or do you tell them they made it through the forest even though they haven't? Certainly not. What else? Make them stuck inside the forest forever? Or let them roll survival until they succeed?

An attack is not the only possible outcome of the failed roll. They may well make it out of the forest, just not where they thought they would be.there are plenty of other options, too: they make it out where they intended, but took the long way round and lost days, or took the hard path and ended up fatigued.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

An attack is not the only possible outcome of the failed roll. They may well make it out of the forest, just not where they thought they would be.there are plenty of other options, too: they make it out where they intended, but took the long way round and lost days, or took the hard path and ended up fatigued.

Yes! It was just one example. Usually the outcome of a failed roll for me depends on what the players communicate to me beforehand (what they want to do, how they do it and what they want to accomplish).

The only relevant thing is that the roll has a direct consequence, so you don't run into the problem of having to hide rolls and then having your players guess if they succeeded or not.

A battle is often more interesting than time lost, though. Either time is of no relevance in the adventure or when it is of relevance it's usually not very fun to not get the "good ending" just because of a failed survival roll. Of course things like "the villain had more time to prepare so he now has more minions" works, but players will not be able to connect this to the consequence of wasting time usually, so not sure how fun that is.

 

[MarkB]

A battle is often more interesting than time lost, though. Either time is of no relevance in the adventure or when it is of relevance it's usually not very fun to not get the "good ending" just because of a failed survival roll. Of course things like "the villain had more time to prepare so he now has more minions" works, but players will not be able to connect this to the consequence of wasting time usually, so not sure how fun that is.

In a game that focuses on exploration, though, a failed navigation check isn't necessarily wasted time - it's just an unexpected destination. The PCs don't end up where they were expecting, but they still find themselves in a new place, facing new challenges.