Missing Rules

[Maxperson]

Tell me then, what meaning you think the failure had.

Scroll up. It's there in a few different posts now.

Lack of change does not remove meaning from the situation, but lack of change PER SE does not add meaning.

Cool beans. Added meaning is not a requirement. Only that there be meaning.

I’m saying that failing to achieve your goal PER SE is not a meaningful consequence of failure. You do know that per se means “by itself”, right? In this example, failure does have a meaningful consequence - specifically, you get Spears thrown at you. Failing to get wherever you’re trying to climb BY ITSELF is not a meaningful consequence. You need ogres throwing spears to give that failure meaning.

Um, you do realize that I said that not every failure would qualify as having meaning, right? I mean if you're going to be a smart ass about it, you should probably at least know what you are talking about.

 

[ad_hoc]

For example, Fighter Bob is being chased by hungry zombies. He takes a wrong turn and ends up facing a chasm 18 foot wide chasm. Unfortunately he only has a 15 strength, but he is proficient in Athletics. He backs away from the edge, takes a beep breath and runs and jumps with all his might.

This is fine. Bob can even do it if he isn't proficient in Athletics.

In my game I tell Bob's player to make a DC 25 Athletics check. Bob's player decides to spend that inspiration she's been holding on to...

Hold the phone. DC 25?

1) Might as well just say 'no'. Bob needs to be level 5+ to have a shot at succeeding and even then only on a 20.

2) For just an extra 3 feet? DC 25 is 1 step down from the hardest possible check. The long jump record is over 29ft. Adding on a couple extra feet would be DC 10 in my game. Doubling it to 30ft would be the DC 25.

 

[Reynard]

Unusually being the key there. If you are just going to say yes to every time they ask to jump farther, it's no longer unusual. Also, that rule does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within the context of Page 6. To declare an action you describe what your PC is doing and then the DM adjudicates it. "I use athletics to jump farther" is not a description of what your PC is doing. It's a statement of intent, sure, but a description it is not. So you are breaking the rule on Page 6 if you accept that. That's fine, but it's effectively a house rule to do so.

I think you are ascribing meaning to the word "describe" in this context. Moreover, you aren't quoting a rule, you are quoting an explanation of how the game works. Further, the following paragraph after "The Player describes what his character is doing," says absolutely nothing about how descriptive a player must be or whether the DM has to consider any factors at all beyond her own judgement. In other words you are telling other people they are running their games wrong based on a pretty narrow interpretation of the text in the book.

 

[Reynard]

This is fine. Bob can even do it if he isn't proficient in Athletics.

Sure, but I mention it to show he has a better chance than he might otherwise.

Hold the phone. DC 25?

1) Might as well just say 'no'. Bob needs to be level 5+ to have a shot at succeeding and even then only on a 20.

2) For just an extra 3 feet? DC 25 is 1 step down from the hardest possible check. The long jump record is over 29ft. Adding on a couple extra feet would be DC 10 in my game. Doubling it to 30ft would be the DC 25.

It doesn't matter. I could have said 10. The entire point was in one game, there is zero chance of success and in mine there is a chance of success, however slim or great. That's the difference in DMing philosophy we are discussing, not the specifics of the numbers (which I just pulled out of thin air).

Also, Bob is 14th level, so there. And before you ask, yes, the zombies are *that* tough.

 

[SkidAce]

As Iserith pointed out, simply saying that you want to use athletics to jump farther fails to give the DM anything to adjudicate. There is nothing he can use to set the DC or grant automatic success on.

How many feet extra the player's desired jump is gives you something to adjudicate.

1 extra foot may be easy, +30 feet near impossible.

i.e. the standard distance is the automatic success, farther gets harder and harder.

 

[Umbran]

That's fine, but it's effectively a house rule to do so.

"That's fine, but it is a house rule..." is at the same time one of the least effective, and most dismissive, phrases you can put into a discussion of games.

 

[ad_hoc]

Also, Bob is 14th level, so there. And before you ask, yes, the zombies are *that* tough.

Do you increase DCs as the character's level?

 

[Oofta]

Where?

Second bullet under the Strength/Athletics

You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump.

Fair enough. Then at my table, they would fail. It’s farther than they could normally jump, so trying anyway does not have a reasonable chance of success, and therefore fails without a roll. Personally, I would prefer to tell the player as much, and give them the opportunity to back out, just as I prefer to tell players DCs before they commit to an action, but to each their own.

Then in my opinion you are ignoring the second bullet under Strength/Athletics.

You are. You’re using your own best judgment to determine if a player’s described action has a reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure, cost or consequence of failure, and setting a DC accordingly. You just came to a different conclusion about the chances of succeeding in the goal “jump further than I can” by the methods “try harder” than I would.

True. I don't think there will ever be one ruling for this. I like the more "loose" rules system that underpins 5E, but there are places where you just make the ruling that makes the most sense for you and your table.

 

[Reynard]

Do you increase DCs as the character's level?

I feel like you might be missing the point of the example.

 

[smbakeresq]

This is exactly the one-true-wayism I am talking about. You are making an assertion that is patently untrue -- demonstrably even, given we have quoted the rules and guidelines. The choice to say a character cannot make an Athletics check to extend jump without convoluted explanations distance is a valid one, but it isn't a thing that is required.

For example, Fighter Bob is being chased by hungry zombies. He takes a wrong turn and ends up facing a chasm 18 foot wide chasm. Unfortunately he only has a 15 strength, but he is proficient in Athletics. He backs away from the edge, takes a beep breath and runs and jumps with all his might.

In iserith's game, Bob is dead.

In my game I tell Bob's player to make a DC 25 Athletics check. Bob's player decides to spend that inspiration she's been holding on to...

Both ways are right, but mine is more right for me.

While neither is wrong both are absurd. With a 15 STR it’s just absurd to rule you can always jump 15’ but a little further is impossible. It is likewise absurd to say a 15’ jump is DC 0 but 18’ is a DC 25, it shouldn’t scale that fast.

You don’t jump and then hit a wall and drop straight down either at a certain distance.

Don’t want to push it, but it should just be DC=feet attempted, and your distance jumped is your roll + athletics score. Your minimum is your athletics score, 1 shouldn’t be a failure since it just means you jump less, which has its own consequences.

This way everyone knows it and it’s clear, just look at the grid your playing on.