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

[Hriston]

Hmm, well, if you stopped telling them where on the map they are and just describe the nearby surroundings, then there's some fun challenge to the course correction, even if the players know they are lost.

How do you imagine that playing out? What would prevent the PCs from turning around and retracing their steps back to the last place they were in before getting lost, every time?

 

[MarkB]

How do you imagine that playing out? What would prevent the PCs from turning around and retracing their steps back to the last place they were in before getting lost, every time?

What's to stop them from doing it once they hit the next map hex? Unless every one of your terrain areas is deep valleys or dense forest, they'll be able to tell they're lost sooner or later, just from surrounding landmarks such as rivers, coastlines and mountains.

Ultimately, if you're going to run a campaign in this style, you need buy-in from your players. If they're happy to wander off the beaten path, take the road less travelled, find themselves at destinations they never knew they were heading for, then they won't have their characters turn back the moment they know, out-of-character, that they're lost.

If they don't like those things, then you're making them play a scenario they don't enjoy.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

How do you imagine that playing out? What would prevent the PCs from turning around and retracing their steps back to the last place they were in before getting lost, every time?

Usually retracing your steps would not really bring you to your goal.

Let's take your scenario of going through a forest and wanting to reach southeast end of it. After a failed roll you could narrate that they travel through the forest. You don't tell them where they are except they reach the end. My player would usually just say something like "Alright, we keep moving southeast until we reach the road."
Then I'd narrate something like "You travel southeast and eventually reach a river."
Then my players would start discussing: "Hmm strange, according to the map, we shouldn't reach a river." "Maybe we went the wrong way." "It could be the river over here look." "If that's the case, let's travel downstream, we should read the road then."
Already more fun.

(Note: My narration is simplified, I usually describe more.)

 

[5ekyu]

Fair enough, although I don't think there's much difference between rolling for a creature's DEX (Stealth) check versus a PC's passive Perception and rolling for the terrain's navigation DC versus a PC's passive Survival. The point is that it's a passive check because it involves hidden information. Obviously, a DM can run navigation checks without hiding information.

I go a different approach.

in my 5e based games, as GM, i roll no dice and the player's are always the active rolling side.

So if the pc is sneaking past a guard - the guard gets passive perception and the player rolls stealth.
If an npc is sneaking up on the pc guard, the player rolls perception.
If the PC shoots an arrow at the NPC, the player rolls attack vs armor class.
If the NPC shoots an arrow at the PC, the player rolls armor class.

Lierally i never touch dice when DMing.

 

[Hriston]

Guidance comes to mind as being borderline at best. Since a passive check involves no action on the part of the character, how would they choose to apply it to the check?

It also just feels like a weird fit. Passive checks represent a character's base level of competence when they're not actively pursuing a task, and a game that's centred upon exploration in which the characters take no active role in navigation just doesn't feel right.

I disagree that the "passive" in passive check implies any passivity on the part of the character. It simply means the check is made without the player rolling dice. It's still an ability check, so when guidance says you can "add the number rolled to one ability check", a passive check can be considered fair game by the rules. Clearly, I'm describing a player declaring that their character is actively navigating during a specific episode of travel. Because the declared action is one that is continuous over the course of the journey, and because I want to keep the outcome secret, I think a passive check is appropriate. If a player wants to apply the bonus from guidance to such a check, however, I think the duration of the spell is a problem. Very few journeys take under a minute.

 

[MarkB]

I disagree that the "passive" in passive check implies any passivity on the part of the character. It simply means the check is made without the player rolling dice. It's still an ability check, so when guidance says you can "add the number rolled to one ability check", a passive check can be considered fair game by the rules. Clearly, I'm describing a player declaring that their character is actively navigating during a specific episode of travel. Because the declared action is one that is continuous over the course of the journey, and because I want to keep the outcome secret, I think a passive check is appropriate. If a player wants to apply the bonus from guidance to such a check, however, I think the duration of the spell is a problem. Very few journeys take under a minute.

Guidance has a short duration, but it's also a cantrip, so it can be re-cast as often as necessary, if the character isn't otherwise engaged. While the ranger is leading the party through the wilderness, the cleric can be plodding along next to him, praying for guidance.

Besides, it's thematic. When better to use a spell called guidance than when you're trying to find your way?

 

[Hriston]

What's to stop them from doing it once they hit the next map hex?

That's exactly how it would go in my game because I resolve travel one hex at a time, so if there's uncertainty as to whether the party successfully travels in the desired direction and enters the adjoining hex that lies in that direction, a navigation check is used to resolve that. If the check fails, a different adjoining hex is entered. I always let the party successfully navigate a hex they've already explored, so retracing their steps would be trivial.

Unless every one of your terrain areas is deep valleys or dense forest, they'll be able to tell they're lost sooner or later, just from surrounding landmarks such as rivers, coastlines and mountains.

Yes, and that sort of thing is just fine. I'm just looking for some variation in outcomes.

Ultimately, if you're going to run a campaign in this style, you need buy-in from your players. If they're happy to wander off the beaten path, take the road less travelled, find themselves at destinations they never knew they were heading for, then they won't have their characters turn back the moment they know, out-of-character, that they're lost.

If they don't like those things, then you're making them play a scenario they don't enjoy.

This is true of all playstyles, so I'm not sure why you're singling out mine. Part of my style, however, is to minimize the flow of metagame information on the DM side of things. I'm not interested in policing my players' use of such information, and I want them to be able to inhabit their characters without such distractions. That's why currently when a navigation check is failed, not only is the party lost, but the party also knows it's lost because that's information I'm giving out.

Usually retracing your steps would not really bring you to your goal.

No, but it would give you a sort of do-over, which I generally find undesirable. Your goal was to travel in a specific direction, which you could try to do from the new space, but you'd eventually have to correct for the mistake you made if you have a specific destination in mind. You may be right. I'd have to test it out in game-play to see if it works for my group.

Let's take your scenario of going through a forest and wanting to reach southeast end of it. After a failed roll you could narrate that they travel through the forest. You don't tell them where they are except they reach the end. My player would usually just say something like "Alright, we keep moving southeast until we reach the road."
Then I'd narrate something like "You travel southeast and eventually reach a river."
Then my players would start discussing: "Hmm strange, according to the map, we shouldn't reach a river." "Maybe we went the wrong way." "It could be the river over here look." "If that's the case, let's travel downstream, we should read the road then."
Already more fun.

(Note: My narration is simplified, I usually describe more.)

I'm a little confused by this example because it sounds like they don't know they're lost even though they've failed the check. They only notice they're lost when the landscape doesn't match up with their expectations. That's generally the sort of outcome I'm after, but I don't see how you've gotten there with a transparent navigation check.

 

[Hriston]

Guidance has a short duration, but it's also a cantrip, so it can be re-cast as often as necessary, if the character isn't otherwise engaged. While the ranger is leading the party through the wilderness, the cleric can be plodding along next to him, praying for guidance.

Besides, it's thematic. When better to use a spell called guidance than when you're trying to find your way?

If the cleric's player declares an action to continually cast and concentrate on the spell for the duration of the episode of travel, which would preclude the cleric from doing other travel-related tasks, including keeping watch for hidden threats, then I'd certainly allow the bonus to apply to the ranger's passive Survival score.

 

[Hriston]

I go a different approach.

in my 5e based games, as GM, i roll no dice and the player's are always the active rolling side.

So if the pc is sneaking past a guard - the guard gets passive perception and the player rolls stealth.
If an npc is sneaking up on the pc guard, the player rolls perception.
If the PC shoots an arrow at the NPC, the player rolls attack vs armor class.
If the NPC shoots an arrow at the PC, the player rolls armor class.

Lierally i never touch dice when DMing.

I'm going to pull this one quote out:

If an npc is sneaking up on the pc guard, the player rolls perception.
​

This wouldn't suit my playstyle because once I asked the player to roll a Wisdom (Perception) check, s/he would know there was something worth noticing even if the check resulted in a failure. I don't want my players to have to sift metagame knowledge if they don't have to, so any information I give them is considered information possessed by the character as well, if that makes sense.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm going to pull this one quote out:

If an npc is sneaking up on the pc guard, the player rolls perception.
​

This wouldn't suit my playstyle because once I asked the player to roll a Wisdom (Perception) check, s/he would know there was something worth noticing even if the check resulted in a failure. I don't want my players to have to sift metagame knowledge if they don't have to, so any information I give them is considered information possessed by the character as well, if that makes sense.

It's fairly common in my games for players to be asked to roll perception on entering an area, scene changes etc - it helps spotlight charscter's who are more observant than the others. I know some slam this as hating information, I call this showing abilities of the character.

But if you only ever call for checks when they matter for direct opposition and have issues with so-called metagsming, I can see making the player take the passive role in more scene resolutions than we do.

But for me, I have used PAR for multiple systems over like abt 15+ years and it has suited our style of play fine.

Many flavors of ice cream.