Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8055233" data-attributes="member: 97077">I think the issue is trying to find some kind of causal connection between the failed check and the changed circumstances. There needn't be one, though causal results are easier to understand certainly. On a failed check, a task can either fail outright or succeed with a setback. (Those are the PHB options anyway. There are other options in the DMG.)Reasonable people can disagree on what a "meaningful consequence" is in context. As for your adjudication on the badly failed check, you are creating a problem of a disconnect between what the player sees on the die and what information they are giving which incentivizes "metagaming." That's going to be an issue for some DMs and players.Yes, per the rules, if the task is trivially easy or impossible, then the character just succeeds or fails, no roll. I wouldn't roll for the NPC in your example here. I would say what the NPC is doing and ask the player what his or her character does. What the character does may call for a roll or it might not, as per the standard adjudication.</blockquote>