It takes some time to find and disarm a trap, so patrols can still find you.
If all you are doing is standing in the middle of the room looking around, it takes very little time. You will also find very few traps that way. Traps are typically hidden in and under things, so if you aren't taking time to search, you aren't going to see the trap in the desk.
Your point is to Strawman his argument? He never said the bolded part at all. Big extra benefit = big risk does not equal anything not specifically spelled out equals big penalty.
No it's not. If you fail to climb the cliff wall, failure is not the only penalty. The big crunch at the bottom is also a penalty. If you fail to disarm the trap, failure is not the only penalty. The trap going off in your face is also a penalty. If you try to persuade the king to do something by calling him an obscene name, failure is not the only penalty. Jail and/or the loss of your head is also a penalty.
Yes it does. At least in 5e. If there is no other penalty other than failing the roll, then there is no meaningful failure and there should be no roll at all. That's the rules.
"Yes it does. At least in 5e.If there is no other penalty other than failing the roll, then there is no meaningful failure and there should be no roll at all.That's the rules."
Actually, that's not "the rules" just an interpretation of them.
Back in the PHB, its even more specific for ability checks - defining two general options for failing to meet the DC
No Progress
Some progress with setback.
Of course the setback can be a penalty but that option also requires some progress, and the other option is simply "no progress" with no penalty mentioned.
So, one of the core definitions of ability check resolution would be succeed and fail with failure being just "no progress" if the GM felt the some progress with setback was not appropriate.
That's not at all supporting a reading of "If there is no other penalty other than failing the roll, then there is no meaningful failure and there should be no roll at all."
In the DMG on ability checks it give advice for a lot of different things but it starts with a paragraph about how its "often appropriate" to just let a task ducceed without either check or even reference to ability scores. It then gives two examples of what they mean by that- walking across the room and ordering an ale. That paragraph ends with the line "only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure"
Now by even casual reading, all of that paragraph is tied together. It's all tied in with those examples of the kinds of things it is referencing. The bog simple things nobody is gonna ask for a check for - not a universal rule that applies to all actions.
Second, meaningful consequence does not mean penalty. Certainly a penalty csn be a meaningful consequence but it's only a small subset.
Third, the next paragraph and bullet list provides a broader rule or guideline for when to call for a roll.
It covers two points - basically can it fail and can it succeed. If it can fail and can succeed then it recommends making some kind of a roll.
For retries, it goes into a little more detail hinging on whether the GM judges retry as possible or plausible to succeed and the issue of resources like time.
But, these rules do not require a penalty on failure in order to make a toll or as a consequence of making a roll.
So, it's not "the rules" that every failed check must carry a penalty or even a meaningful consequence in 5e. That is simply an interpretation based on what seems to be a selective reading of the rules and ignoring or refusing to take into account the examples.
Last edited: