D&D 5E Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)
- Thread starter BookTenTiger
- Start date
Even worse, I have a player in my current game who can get up to 7 attacks per round with action surge and bonus attack. Right now I can just tell them the target AC after the first round and they can roll ahead. That may be boring to some people, but there are only so many ways to describe "I swing my axe in an attempt to kill my opponent".
We do have descriptions, people shouting out epithets, table chatter and people going into details now and then. But every attack or even every round? No thanks.
Oh, I get you. I know the issues of Gygaxian-style searches and similar constructions.
My point is that Charliaquin's description is vague, and has room for a couple of different practices. I'd like to see a concrete example of what it meant.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
So about descriptions in combat and character's approach affecting the odds, we actually kinda do something like that. Instead of flanking we use cinematic advantage. But it usually isn't just that a cool or clever description gains an advantage, it is using the environment and usually involves some sort of gamble via a skill roll. (I.e. if you cool acrobatic stunt of swinging from the chandelier goes horribly wrong, you might end up landing on your face and getting a disadvantage on your attack rather than an advantage.)
But I think this is something people who like more detailed descriptions and those mechanically mattering would appreciate. But important thing here is that this is just extra a player could do, it is not something required to get to attack at all.
But I think this is something people who like more detailed descriptions and those mechanically mattering would appreciate. But important thing here is that this is just extra a player could do, it is not something required to get to attack at all.
Asking people to do it all the time sounds like trite repetition to me.
A lot of time it is "I attack" along with figuring out the best tactics and plan of attack. As a DM I frequently add in descriptive fluff or the players do when they can come up with something creative and appropriate.
While the focus of our games are not combat, I like to think I run fun and evocative combat scenarios. I don't think anyone was bored the other day when the Loup Garous (advanced werewolves) focused fire on the poor warlock and dragged her off into the woods or when the wizard had failed 2 death saves and the werewolves kept coming back because you need silver to stop their regen.
There was plenty of table talk, tension and fun. All without requiring people to add filler text.
Helpful NPC Thom
Adventurer
I think one of those best practices as GMs is to ignore the dice until they matter, and then get more finegrained. The player characters wander through the game world and do things. They don't make skill checks. They don't ask for skill checks. The d20s stay on the table and nobody touches them until the GM indicates a skill check is necessary.
Sidenote: What is up with players asking for skill checks anyway, or greedily pawing at their d20s for an opportunity to roll? The dice hitting the table means you have a chance of failure. You don't want to roll the d20 more than you need to!
Once the GM calls for a skill check, the game pauses. It's like "roll for initiative," but non-combat. Then it's time to drill down on the mechanical resolution. The scope of the game narrows briefly. The GM might call for more details as to what the player character is doing and his goals, then the GM determines the appropriate skill to roll and Difficulty Class.
With regards to combat: at some point, you gloss over the fluffy stuff because D&D combats drag on. No, I don't expect a paragraph-long description of your attacks as you lunge at the orc, parry his counterattack, and thrust your blade through his armor. Roll your three attacks vs. AC 15 and give me the damage total, please. The other players are waiting for their turns.
Sidenote: What is up with players asking for skill checks anyway, or greedily pawing at their d20s for an opportunity to roll? The dice hitting the table means you have a chance of failure. You don't want to roll the d20 more than you need to!
Once the GM calls for a skill check, the game pauses. It's like "roll for initiative," but non-combat. Then it's time to drill down on the mechanical resolution. The scope of the game narrows briefly. The GM might call for more details as to what the player character is doing and his goals, then the GM determines the appropriate skill to roll and Difficulty Class.
With regards to combat: at some point, you gloss over the fluffy stuff because D&D combats drag on. No, I don't expect a paragraph-long description of your attacks as you lunge at the orc, parry his counterattack, and thrust your blade through his armor. Roll your three attacks vs. AC 15 and give me the damage total, please. The other players are waiting for their turns.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Players don't get to decide to roll checks. They describe what they are doing, "I check for traps," not "I roll perception to find a trap." But yes, "I attempt to intimidate the orc" is enough. It would be nice for the player to roleplay more, but I don't need more to know what he's doing.
That is certainly one viable option. What people are talking about though is the negative side of "rolling as a last resort". Bob, who's barbarian has a -1 to appropriate checks, is more successful than Sally who has a +15 because Bob knows how the DM thinks and knows what to say.
Decisions made by the players absolutely matter in my game. The content of what they say during a diplomacy or intimidation scene makes a difference. How careful they are searching affects how long that search will take. But end of the day? I think PC skills should matter more than the player having better social skills and insight into what the DM expects.
@HammerMan had a great example of a player knowing to look at the hanging bar finding something hidden inside. The investment in skills was meaningless in that game, the only thing that mattered was knowing the DM.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
"Is your character just looking at the drawer? Sliding a knife along the seam? Jiggling the handle? In what way is your character interacting with the drawer that might allow them to determine the presence or absence of traps?"
That does. And it's a fairly gotcha to expect that. What if the trap is not along the seam? They miss the trap? If yes, then it's a gotcha level of detail being asked for, and the player is expected to be a trap expert that goes through every possible way to find a trap on the drawer. If no, then there's no real point for asking for that level of detail. The person is going to be able find the trap via the roll, even though they completely failed to find the trap through their description. Might as well just accept, "I search the drawer for traps."
Similar Threads
