Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7796504" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>Actually, that's not "the rules" just an interpretation of them.</p><p></p><p>Back in the PHB, its even more specific for ability checks - defining two general options for failing to meet the DC</p><p></p><p>No Progress</p><p>Some progress with setback.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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"</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Second, meaningful consequence does not mean penalty. Certainly a penalty csn be a meaningful consequence but it's only a small subset.</p><p></p><p>Third, the next paragraph and bullet list provides a broader rule or guideline for when to call for a roll. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But, these rules do not require a penalty on failure in order to make a toll or as a consequence of making a roll. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7796504, member: 6919838"] "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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?
Top