D&D 5E I reject your reality and substitute my own!

[Mort]

So how many abilities actually allow a player to do this to the DM?

I can think of 3 of the top of my head :

1. Portent - the obvious one that allows the diviner to stick in one of his rolls;

2. The lucky feat;

3. The urchin ability to take only half the time in navigating a city. Quite powerful in the right hands!

Others?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So how many abilities actually allow a player to do this to the DM?

I can think of 3 of the top of my head :

1. Portent - the obvious one that allows the diviner to stick in one of his rolls;

2. The lucky feat;

3. The urchin ability to take only half the time in navigating a city. Quite powerful in the right hands!

Others?

So, after you posted this in the other thread, I thought some more about it, and only 3 really counts for this. 1 and 2 both don't change the fiction, they change the resolution of something already in progress. I can't use portent to summon a secret door in the wall in front of me, to lean on the old standby of narrative games, I can only use it for something the GM has determined is already uncertain. Same with Lucky. The urchin ability, on the other hand, may very well summon secret doors, if in a limited fashion.

 

[MarkB]

Plenty, I should think.

"Being an elf" comes to mind.

"Oh, you put me to magical sleep? Yeah, I don't do that."

"Oh, that saving throw I just failed was against a charm effect? Yeah, I get to roll that again."

 

[Mort]

So, after you posted this in the other thread, I thought some more about it, and only 3 really counts for this. 1 and 2 both don't change the fiction, they change the resolution of something already in progress. I can't use portent to summon a secret door in the wall in front of me, to lean on the old standby of narrative games, I can only use it for something the GM has determined is already uncertain. Same with Lucky. The urchin ability, on the other hand, may very well summon secret doors, if in a limited fashion.

Well certainly not nearly as much sure.

But they can change the dictated outcome of an event, so affect the fiction just enough to count IMO.

 

[CleverNickName]

Regarding the Lucky feat, I don't think it works quite that way. I mean, it can turn a miss into a hit sometimes, but it won't make a trap appear on a chest if there wasn't one to be found in the first place. This actually happened in my game.

The rogue was searching a chest for traps, and rolled really low...like a 2 or something. I responded, "The chest doesn't appear to be trapped." Which would have been the truth no matter what he rolled...the chest wasn't trapped.

"I am going to use my Lucky feat," the player said, and rolled again. "Yeah, nat-20!" he shouted. "Now I'd like to disarm the trap!"

"The chest doesn't appear to be trapped," I repeated.

"But I rolled a nat-20!" the player insisted. "I totally found the trap!" It never occurred to him that there was never a trap there for him to find. When I explained that to him, he accused me of wasting his Luck points.

 

[Mort]

Regarding the Lucky feat, I don't think it works quite that way. I mean, it can turn a miss into a hit sometimes, but it won't make a trap appear on a chest if there wasn't one to be found in the first place. This actually happened in my game.

The rogue was searching a chest for traps, and rolled really low...like a 2 or something. I responded, "The chest doesn't appear to be trapped." Which would have been the truth no matter what he rolled...the chest wasn't trapped.

"I am going to use my Lucky feat," the player said, and rolled again. "Yeah, nat-20!" he shouted. "Now I'd like to disarm the trap!"

"The chest doesn't appear to be trapped," I repeated.

"But I rolled a nat-20!" the player insisted. "I totally found the trap!" It never occurred to him that there was never a trap there for him to find. When I explained that to him, he accused me of wasting his Luck points. -smh-

Thai is accurate.

The first 2 really only probability, the third ACTUALLY can alter reality.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I mean, Wish. Most high level spells in some fashion, but especially that one. More regularly, Shield and Counterspell.

Most of the background abilities "just work". It's kind of my problem with them as presented. While it's satisfying to have an ability work that says "you automatically do X", it's not very interesting for an adventure. Sage says you know where to learn something you don't know offhand. Outlander says you never really get lost. It's just odd. I'd like a bit more depth there, I think. Not a lot, but a little.

 

[Stephen Shomo]

I hate all backstories I almost always find them to be an annoying disruption.

 

[robus]

The rogue was searching a chest for traps, and rolled really low...like a 2 or something. I responded, "The chest doesn't appear to be trapped." Which would have been the truth no matter what he rolled...the chest wasn't trapped.

I feel the player’s pain and wonder why you had them roll in the first place, if there was no chance of failure?

 

[CleverNickName]

I feel the player’s pain and wonder why you had them roll in the first place, if there was no chance of failure?

The rogue said he wanted to search for traps, so I asked him to make an Investigation check. I didn't bait him or twist his arm; he asked to do it all on his own.

It would have been different if I had asked him to make the check, or if I had said "Hey, would you like to search that chest for traps? It looks awful suspicious just sitting there." But I didn't. I just told the group that there was a chest at the foot of this altar they had found, and he immediately went all Indiana Jones on it.

Plus he interrupted my room description to make that announcement, and it irks me when players do that. So I was already unsympathetic to his plight.

 

[Stephen Shomo]

The rogue said he wanted to search for traps, so I asked him to make an Investigation check. I didn't bait him or twist his arm; he asked to do it all on his own.

It would have been different if I had asked him to make the check, or if I had said "Hey, would you like to search that chest for traps? It looks awful suspicious just sitting there." But I didn't. I just told the group that there was a chest at the foot of this altar they had found, and he immediately went all Indiana Jones on it.

Plus he interrupted my room description to make that announcement, and that always irks me when players do that. So I was already unsympathetic to his plight.

I have make blind rolls for that sort of thing.

 

[ccs]

The actual answer to your question is NONE. Because I'm the DM & I control all the realities.

 

[ccs]

"But I rolled a nat-20!" the player insisted. "I totally found the trap!" It never occurred to him that there was never a trap there for him to find. When I explained that to him, he accused me of wasting his Luck points.

Ahh, my favorite type of trap!

 

[King Babar]

The rogue said he wanted to search for traps, so I asked him to make an Investigation check. I didn't bait him or twist his arm; he asked to do it all on his own.

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

PC: I search the chest for traps.
DM: After examining the chest for a minute, you find no evidence of it being trapped.

No check, because the PC can't technically fail and a low roll only leads to a false perception of failure, because the character thinks it's safe but the player, seeing the roll, thinks it's dangerous.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

I guess that depends on DM style.

Depending on circumstance, I might have a roll to detect a nonexistent trap. The failure would mean, "You are unsure if there is or isnt some kind of trap."

The player can then continue to cautiously interact, and when not triggering anything, assume there is no trap, or roll later to confirm there is no trap.

 

[J.Quondam]

It would have been different if I had asked him to make the check, or if I had said "Hey, would you like to search that chest for traps? It looks awful suspicious just sitting there." But I didn't. I just told the group that there was a chest at the foot of this altar they had found, and he immediately went all Indiana Jones on it.

Plus he interrupted my room description to make that announcement, and it irks me when players do that. So I was already unsympathetic to his plight.

Should've put a second chest inside the first chest.

 

[MarkB]

I guess that depends on DM style.

Depending on circumstance, I might have a roll to detect a nonexistent trap. The failure would mean, "You are unsure if there is or isnt some kind of trap."

The player can then continue to cautiously interact, and when not triggering anything, assume there is no trap, or roll later to confirm there is no trap.

Yeah, the RAW is "only ask for a check if the outcome is uncertain", but an equally valid approach is "only ask for a check if you want the players to think the outcome is uncertain."

 

[King Babar]

I guess that depends on DM style.

Depending on circumstance, I might have a roll to detect a nonexistent trap. The failure would mean, "You are unsure if there is or isnt some kind of trap."

The player can then continue to cautiously interact, and when not triggering anything, assume there is no trap, or roll later to confirm there is no trap.

True, but I think that can lead to a lot of metagaming and meaningless rolling.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

I might be wrong, but I don't think that's stated in the rules. It really boils down to preference...and I prefer the method that builds suspense and tension, and encourages the players to consider their actions carefully.

 

[Puddles]

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

PC: I search the chest for traps.
DM: After examining the chest for a minute, you find no evidence of it being trapped.

No check, because the PC can't technically fail and a low roll only leads to a false perception of failure, because the character thinks it's safe but the player, seeing the roll, thinks it's dangerous.

Surely that leads to this sort of play:
Player: I wish to search the chest for a trap.
DM: There is no trap, no need to roll.
- 5 minutes later -
Player: I wish to search this different chest for a trap.
DM: Make an investigation check.
Player: Err, 5...
DM: There is no trap.
Player: