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

[Rya.Reisender]

I wonder how you reconcile this with your rule to never hide rolls. One of the purposes for a passive check is for the DM to determine success or failure secretly. What I'm considering for navigation is contesting the navigator's passive Survival with a roll on behalf of the terrain. More difficult terrain types get advantage on the roll. "Clear" terrain types, such as a plain, have disadvantage. The result determines whether the party is successful in moving in the desired direction and, if lost, whether they know they're lost. Would you consider this hiding a roll?

Yeah, you made me realize that I didn't explain that properly. What I really do is to not roll at all until the result has an immediate consequence. In case of stealth for example, I wouldn't roll the moment the enemy hides. Instead I roll when the only two possible outcomes are: The enemy surprise attacks the group OR the group notices the enemy. That way there's no need to hide the roll.

I wouldn't consider using passive values as hiding the roll. But I prefer letting my players roll because I think it makes them enjoy the game more. I only apply passive values if it's either directly stated in the rules (passive perception) or if my players do the same thing continuously.

I already said how I'd resolve following tracks earlier:
1. Describe what the PCs perceive.
2. Wait for the player to declare the action.
3. Determine DC (or use the one stated in the adventure path if available)
4. Ask the player to do a survival roll.
5. On success, tell the truth. On fail, tell he doesn't know / can't figure it out.

Some other DMs on here also have another approach which I personally don't like but that definitely also resolves the issue: "Failure is success at a cost"
So if they want to follow the tracks, they will succeed at it no matter what, but a failed roll for example makes them waste time, or run straight into some monster lair on their way.

 

[Umbran]

According to the 1st Ed DMG...

Do not eat Thanksgiving dinner at this person's house. To roast the traditional turkey, they have probably referenced a 1970s McDonald's employees handbook for operating the shake machine....

 

[ad_hoc]

I wonder how you reconcile this with your rule to never hide rolls. One of the purposes for a passive check is for the DM to determine success or failure secretly. What I'm considering for navigation is contesting the navigator's passive Survival with a roll on behalf of the terrain. More difficult terrain types get advantage on the roll. "Clear" terrain types, such as a plain, have disadvantage. The result determines whether the party is successful in moving in the desired direction and, if lost, whether they know they're lost. Would you consider this hiding a roll?

I will roll creature's stealth in the open. Rolls only happen when they are needed. They pass and notice them. Or the party fails and the enemy creatures do something (well usually at least 1 or 2 of the PCs notice them, the others only too late). There is never roll and then silence at the table.

The same thing with navigation. If there is a roll that means something happens.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, you made me realize that I didn't explain that properly. What I really do is to not roll at all until the result has an immediate consequence. In case of stealth for example, I wouldn't roll the moment the enemy hides. Instead I roll when the only two possible outcomes are: The enemy surprise attacks the group OR the group notices the enemy. That way there's no need to hide the roll.

This excludes the possibility that an unnoticed creature avoids the encounter, which is similar to how your approach to navigation excludes the possibility of being lost without knowing it. I don't really hide the roll when making a DEX (Stealth) check for a monster either, but I also don't announce the roll. I compare the result to the players' passive scores and leave them guessing what the roll was for if there's nothing immediately salient to describe to them.

I wouldn't consider using passive values as hiding the roll. But I prefer letting my players roll because I think it makes them enjoy the game more. I only apply passive values if it's either directly stated in the rules (passive perception) or if my players do the same thing continuously.

I like the players to make their own rolls too. The exception to this is passive checks. Navigation during a journey can be considered a task done repeatedly as well.

I already said how I'd resolve following tracks earlier:
1. Describe what the PCs perceive.
2. Wait for the player to declare the action.
3. Determine DC (or use the one stated in the adventure path if available)
4. Ask the player to do a survival roll.
5. On success, tell the truth. On fail, tell he doesn't know / can't figure it out.

I think we're coming at this from different angles. You seem to be calling for a check to resolve a player's attempt to determine the correct path to take from a number of options presented by the DM, one of which is the correct one or, in the case of following tracks, leads to the creature being tracked. I'd actually treat that as a different activity from navigation, which to me is more abstract and involves guiding the group in a certain direction or through a certain area. I call for a check to determine whether that attempt is successful when that is in doubt, and the level of resolution I prefer to use is on a time-scale of half a day's journey because it dovetails with the timing of random encounter checks I make. If a PC was at a crossroads or something, I would just ask the player to pick a direction rather than making any kind of check.

Some other DMs on here also have another approach which I personally don't like but that definitely also resolves the issue: "Failure is success at a cost"
So if they want to follow the tracks, they will succeed at it no matter what, but a failed roll for example makes them waste time, or run straight into some monster lair on their way.

The DMG provides such an approach to navigation in which one of the consequences of a failed check is to spend 1d6 hours getting back on track. This is too abstract for my taste. It’s unclear just where the party is for that time, and that’s because it doesn’t matter. They never really leave the path between point A and point B. It just takes them longer to get there.

I, on the other hand, prefer to run a game in which it is possible that a lost party never gets back on track because it is truly open ended. “Point B” is wherever you end up.

 

[Hriston]

I will roll creature's stealth in the open. Rolls only happen when they are needed. They pass and notice them. Or the party fails and the enemy creatures do something (well usually at least 1 or 2 of the PCs notice them, the others only too late). There is never roll and then silence at the table.

What if it makes sense for the unnoticed hidden creatures to stay hidden? Surely you’re not going to make them take the suicidal action of revealing themselves to a well armed party of PCs just so something happens.

The same thing with navigation. If there is a roll that means something happens.

What happens at my table after a navigation check is the party enters a new area. Whether or not it’s the area they intended to enter depends on the result of that check.

 

[5ekyu]

Don't ever do hidden rolls. There are better solutions.

Especially in your example "rolling survival to see if the halfling gets lost", I don't even see the need to hide it in the first place. What would you do on a failure? Tell the halfling that he found the trail and but really make him follow the wrong one? Don't do that. Golden DM rule: Don't lie to the player.

Better:

Failure:
Player: "I want to follow the trail."
DM: "Roll survival."
Player: "1."
DM: "You travel deeper into the forest, following the trail. Eventually you realize you can't find any signs of a trail anymore and you've no clue where you are."

Success:
Player: "I want to follow the trail."
DM: "Roll survival."
Player: "20."
DM: "You travel deeper into the forest, following the trail. Eventually you reach a small hut."

As you can see in both cases there was no need to hide the result.

Failure:
Player: "I want to follow the trail."
DM: "Roll survival."
Player: "1."
DM: "You travel deeper into the forest, following the trail. Eventually you come to a river crossing but it is not the oner with the bridge you expected. Do you wish to make a dangerous crossing here and cut the corner to catch your planned path farther up (losing no time if you dont drown), try the somewhat treacherous up river hike (losing a bit of time at some peril) or double back to find where you missed and go the route you had hoped for (losing a lot of time but safer)?

progress with setback.



Always fun in the wilds.

 

[ad_hoc]

What if it makes sense for the unnoticed hidden creatures to stay hidden? Surely you’re not going to make them take the suicidal action of revealing themselves to a well armed party of PCs just so something happens.

If nothing happens then there is no game. Something should be happening. That is the game. Things happen.

What happens at my table after a navigation check is the party enters a new area. Whether or not it’s the area they intended to enter depends on the result of that check.

Yes, that's the event. Which area did they enter? What are the consequences of that? Now we have a scene where things are happening.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, you made me realize that I didn't explain that properly. What I really do is to not roll at all until the result has an immediate consequence. In case of stealth for example, I wouldn't roll the moment the enemy hides. Instead I roll when the only two possible outcomes are: The enemy surprise attacks the group OR the group notices the enemy. That way there's no need to hide the roll.

I wouldn't consider using passive values as hiding the roll. But I prefer letting my players roll because I think it makes them enjoy the game more. I only apply passive values if it's either directly stated in the rules (passive perception) or if my players do the same thing continuously.

I already said how I'd resolve following tracks earlier:
1. Describe what the PCs perceive.
2. Wait for the player to declare the action.
3. Determine DC (or use the one stated in the adventure path if available)
4. Ask the player to do a survival roll.
5. On success, tell the truth. On fail, tell he doesn't know / can't figure it out.

Some other DMs on here also have another approach which I personally don't like but that definitely also resolves the issue: "Failure is success at a cost"
So if they want to follow the tracks, they will succeed at it no matter what, but a failed roll for example makes them waste time, or run straight into some monster lair on their way.

i will just point out for the sticklers for terminology who may be watching.

5e

Success at Cost is the DMG optional rule under Using Ability Scores that applies when you fail a roll by 1-2. This can apply (if the optional rule is in play) to basically saves, attacks or ability checks - basically any roll.

The more basic rule about what not making the Dc on an ability check means is the one from the PHB and has no special name - its just how you handle failing to meet the DC as defined under Ability Checks in the PHB

"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

I only add this in case you did not intend to be specifically referencing by name the DMG optional rule.

 

[Dausuul]

If nothing happens then there is no game. Something should be happening. That is the game. Things happen.

Sure, something happens: The PCs enter the dungeon and face the next challenge. It's just that now there is a hidden enemy behind them, and that enemy will become relevant at some point in the future.

Not every die roll needs to have all its consequences fully resolved on the spot. Statelessness is for websites, not D&D games.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

This excludes the possibility that an unnoticed creature avoids the encounter, which is similar to how your approach to navigation excludes the possibility of being lost without knowing it.

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.

I don't really hide the roll when making a DEX (Stealth) check for a monster either, but I also don't announce the roll. I compare the result to the players' passive scores and leave them guessing what the roll was for if there's nothing immediately salient to describe to them.

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.

I think we're coming at this from different angles. You seem to be calling for a check to resolve a player's attempt to determine the correct path to take from a number of options presented by the DM, one of which is the correct one or, in the case of following tracks, leads to the creature being tracked. I'd actually treat that as a different activity from navigation, which to me is more abstract and involves guiding the group in a certain direction or through a certain area. I call for a check to determine whether that attempt is successful when that is in doubt, and the level of resolution I prefer to use is on a time-scale of half a day's journey because it dovetails with the timing of random encounter checks I make. If a PC was at a crossroads or something, I would just ask the player to pick a direction rather than making any kind of check.

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.