He also has anger issues. We know both. What is the exact armor class based on "The dragon is armored."? If you can't tell me, then it is also vague and you don't have all the information, just like when told about the baron's anger issues.
High.
I mean.....AC is a thing in the game. Anger class isn't. This is my point. mechanics exist for the combat in order to make things clearly understood. Otherwise, it would be like playing war with your friends in the backyard as kids. "I shot you!"- "NO! I shot you first!!"
No mechanics seem to have been deployed to resolve the insult. This is my point. The DM has decided by fiat that this is impossible, and so no roll is needed.
How does a player assess this kind of situation? The reasoning is hidden, and whether or not mechanics will even be used is unclear.
It's not infinite. That's just silly. The dragon has a high armor class. The baron has a high anger class. We know both and can make informed decisions about those things.
I disagree. Again, this is my point about the Baron's temperament....the PCs have been given unclear information consisting of narrative details that we cannot understand if or how they translate into game mechanics.
So when the DM says "The Baron is mad, and believes that his festivals of the sun keep his village safe, and he punishes the townsfolk who challenge him." Is this a cue for something the PCs are meant to overcome, such as a high AC? Or is this a cue that the Baron cannot be reasoned with at all? Is it a cue that great care needs to be taken in interacting with him?
You'll insist that it's the last. My point is that there's no way for the players to know that.
He can also just decide that you miss your swing. You only get to roll when the outcome is in doubt. You can declare your attack, then the DM narrates the outcome, calling for a roll if the outcome is uncertain(PHB page 7).
Yes, this is a big part of the problem.
Sure, why not? Do you think the PCs look like villagers?
No more than any other game where the DM is describing things. D&D doesn't lend itself to that mistake any more or less than those others. It's a person mistake, not a system mistake.
And every other game where a DM, or player for that matter, has to describe anything at all.
It's not just the description....I believe that a gap could develop in that way for many games, if not all.
It's that the players are so reliant on the DM or all iin game info. They have very little way to introduce anything of their own. Combined with potentially unclear mechanics.....mechanics that may not even be used....that's a potentially bad combo. It can be dealt with and avoided.....but it's something to be aware of.
Other come into effect at that point. The attempt was to jump the canyon, so the failure only = did not succeed in jumping over the canyon. However, since you are now suspended over air, the falling rules come into play.
Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge.
The DM absolutely narrates consequences.
5e doesn't have broken bones, though. There's no mechanism to even heal it. If you were to rule that the PC breaks his foot after a failed attempt to break down the door, are you going to just fix the foot after a night's rest? If not, how much time is it going to take? Wounds don't give penalties. Are you going to penalize the PC for the broken foot? He can't walk on it. He can't fight effectively with it. What's that penalty going to look like?
It's pretty clear that the DM is stepping outside of the rules to break the foot.
A penalty to speed of -10 feet and disadvantage on athletics checks until some kind of magical healing is applied, or until 5 long rests? I mean, that seems fairly reasonable, no? I'd personally prefer that a DM use his judgment in this way rather than to simply shut down certain actions with auto-fail.