D&D 5E Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)

[Charlaquin]

Technically true, but still semantics. The DC of of the check to examine that chest for traps. As I accept 'I examine the chest for traps' to be a valid declaration, it is the DC for that.

But what I’m getting at is that different approaches to checking for traps will require (or maybe not require) different checks, with different DCs, maybe even with different skills, and to determine that, I need to know what the character is doing.

 

[iserith]

But what I’m getting at is that different approaches to checking for traps will require (or maybe not require) different checks, with different DCs, maybe even with different skills, and to determine that, I need to know what the character is doing.

Correct, the DMG and XtGE both have situations where a given task will reveal a trap is present with either a Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) check. Which of those check applies will be determined by the action declaration the player makes. Those ability checks and skill proficiencies resolve different approaches to the same goal.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Here's a trapped chest from one of my adventures:

View attachment 145917
"Rubble chokes the way in. A large, skeletal hand appears to be erupting from the stone floor ahead, an overlarge iron-banded chest in its death grip emblazoned with a cycloptic eye. On each of the phalanges is engraved a single Common letter which, from left to right, are T, R, U, T, and H, twisting and writhing as if composed of roiling shadows."

Still not interesting?

Me (as player): "Oh! Let me see if I can figure this out... hmm...

No, don't check for traps! That's what the DM wants you to do! GAH! Ok, hear me out...

The letters in order already make a word. That's too obvious and too easy. I think there's a hidden message...

Ruth? Anyone know Ruth? No, ok. How about HURT. We need to hurt the fingers to solve it. Alright, barbarian. Time to shine!...

What do you mean you can't spell? Geeze, is everyone here a stereotype. C'mon, man!!"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But what I’m getting at is that different approaches to checking for traps will require (or maybe not require) different checks, with different DCs, maybe even with different skills, and to determine that, I need to know what the character is doing.

They're checking for traps! How? If they roll well, in a way that works, if they roll low, in a way that doesn't. Look, a trapped chest from DMG:

Poison Needle
Mechanical trap

A Poisoned needle is hidden within a Treasure chest’s lock, or in something else that a creature might open. Opening the chest without the proper key causes the needle to spring out, delivering a dose of poison.
When the trap is triggered, the needle extends 3 inches straight out from the lock. A creature within range takes 1 piercing damage and 11 (2d10) poison damage, and must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or be Poisoned for 1 hour.

A successful DC 20 Intelligence (Investigation) check allows a character to deduce the trap’s presence from alterations made to the lock to accommodate the needle. A successful DC 15 Dexterity check using thieves’ tools disarms the trap, removing the needle from the lock. Unsuccessfully attempting to pick the lock triggers the trap.

Plain DC 20 investigation check to detect, plain DC 15 thieves tools to disarm. The player isn't expected to specify the exact method of examining or disarming. Which is great, as I have no clue what either of those methods would be!

 

[iserith]

They're checking for traps! How? If they roll well, in a way that works, if they roll low, in a way that doesn't. Look, a trapped chest from DMG:



Plain DC 20 investigation check to detect, plain DC 15 thieves tools to disarm. The player isn't expected to specify the exact method of examining or disarming. Which is great, as I have no clue what either of those methods would be!

In order to understand the DMG's use of shorthand here, we have to take all the underlying rules into account: What needs to be true for the DM to call for a DC 20 Intelligence (Investigation) check in the first place?

First, the player declared an action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure (prerequisites for an ability check) and the DM determined that achieving the goal with the stated approach is hard to accomplish (hence the DC). Given that it is an Intelligence (Investigation) check, the character must have made deductions based on clues (as opposed to say, detecting the presence of the trap with keen senses which would instead be Wisdom (Perception)). So for that to be the case, the player must declare an action to that effect, being reasonably specific about how to even have a chance at success (rules for finding a hidden object).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In order to understand the DMG's use of shorthand here, we have to take all the underlying rules into account: What needs to be true for the DM to call for a DC 20 Intelligence (Investigation) check in the first place?

First, the player declared an action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure (prerequisites for an ability check) and the DM determined that achieving the goal with the stated approach is hard to accomplish (hence the DC). Given that it is an Intelligence (Investigation) check, the character must have made deductions based on clues (as opposed to say, detecting the presence of the trap with keen senses which would instead be Wisdom (Perception)). So for that to be the case, the player must declare an action to that effect, being reasonably specific about how to even have a chance at success (rules for finding a hidden object).

Yes. Such as: "I examine the chest for traps!" Frankly, at least in this specific instance not accepting that would be being an antagonistic GM.

 

[Oofta]

It’s not a matter of skill that affords Olaf’s player the opportunity to succeed without his character’s clumsiness getting in the way, it’s a matter of the decisions that player made. Giving weight to the player’s decision is my prime directive here. Also, who’s to say dexterity would even be involved if a check did need to be made? I imagine searching for traps would more likely involve Wisdom. Though, ultimately it depends on what Olaf does to try and find the traps. If Olaf wants to avoid risking failure due to his clumsiness, he ought to try searching in a way that doesn’t involve precision or nimbleness. Perhaps, if Olaf is a hardy fellow, he might consider simply opening the chest and counting on his high Constitution and HP to save him if it’s trapped. Or perhaps he could defer to someone better suited to the task, like Sly. These are the kinds of decisions D&D is all about.

I did misspeak about finding the trap. I usually use investigation because you're examining small details and have an understanding of how traps work. But that's a different topic, just something I discuss in session 0 if someone wants to run a rogue.

But let's say Olaf with his 8 dexterity (and let's say 8 intelligence because BDF) with a -1 to checks has the same odds of finding and disabling a trap as Sly who has a +15 to both and is a 10th level rogue so has reliable talent and can't get below a 10? Because of how the player describes what they're doing? What if Olaf's player had a rogue last time and knows how he always described it back in that campaign so they just say the same things?

Or let's say the DM has never seen a horse in their life. So Bob describes how they calm a horse by flapping their arms and squawking because birds are harmless. Kim who actually has a horse in real life, realizes this would spook the horse*. Should player knowledge make Kim better at calming a horse? How does the DM who's closest encounter with a horse was on a Merry-Go-Round make the call?

*I assume. No clue, I don't have a horse.

 

[Charlaquin]

They're checking for traps!

That doesn’t tell me anything about what’s actually happening in the fiction!

How? If they roll well, in a way that works, if they roll low, in a way that doesn't.

That’s a decision I would leave up to the player to make.

Look, a trapped chest from DMG:

Plain DC 20 investigation check to detect, plain DC 15 thieves tools to disarm.

Yes, if a player’s approach to checking for/disarming the trap requires a check to resolve, that’s what the DCs for those checks would be, if I was using that particular sample trap.

The player isn't expected to specify the exact method of examining or disarming. Which is great, as I have no clue what either of those methods would be!

Nor do I expect them to specify the exact method. Just to provide enough specificity that I can proceed with action resolution without having to make assumptions about their intent or narrate for them what their characters do.

 

[iserith]

Yes. Such as: "I examine the chest for traps!" Frankly, at least in this specific instance not accepting that would be being an antagonistic GM.

Again, you and presumably your players are fine loading a bunch of assumptions about what the character is doing into that action declaration. It fails the test of reasonable specificity laid out in the rules for others.

As well, it's not antagonistic in the slightest. In fact, it's meant to give more agency to the players and to avoid conflict between players and DM as to what the character is actually doing, especially as it relates to unfolding consequences!

 

[Oofta]

Good for them! They paid attention to the environment, noticed details about it, used those observations to inform their decision-making process, and came up with a solution that resulted in success. In my opinion, they earned that success. And they definitely won’t do so every single time. Players fail to pick up on cues all the time.

Which is the big disconnect. First, it's all about the player reading the DM. Second it rewards long term players. Being a newbie to a specific DM should not come with built in penalty for not being able to read the DM. IMHO.