D&D 5E Starter Set: Excerpt 3 (actual)

[Nellisir]

What's the point of making a skill check if there's no consequence? ... Only letting them roll once makes little sense.

The consequence is the door remains locked. If you don't roll, how do you determine if the door remains locked or not?

 

[Agamon]

The consequence is the door remains locked. If you don't roll, how do you determine if the door remains locked or not?

That's like saying if you don't make a Ride check to ride a horse down a quiet, bare trail, the consequence is the trail remains unridden.

Failure needs to be meaningful. Failing to unlock a door means the door stays locked, the result being you need to try again. So then roll again to see if you succeed or fail. And then again if needed and again. This is not useful to the game at all. Just say the rogue tries to open the lock and he either does because he can or doesn't because he can't.

If he's under time restraint, yeah roll, because if he fails, the clock ticks closer to something horrible happening. If there's a trap that goes off if he fails, then roll, because something bad happens when he fails.

Rolling dice just to roll dice seems unnecessary.

 

[Nellisir]

If he's under time restraint, yeah roll, because if he fails, the clock ticks closer to something horrible happening. If there's a trap that goes off if he fails, then roll, because something bad happens when he fails.

You must adventure in some pretty chill dungeons. In mine the clock is always ticking closer to something horrible.

 

[Agamon]

You must adventure in some pretty chill dungeons. In mine the clock is always ticking closer to something horrible.

I admit, there is some pacing in my adventures. There isn't undue stress on the PCs 100 percent of the time. If you do run games like that, then rolling for every action might be needed if every action precedes potential death.

 

[Emka]

I feel having the players roll at least once does have a purpose: player engagement.
Sure if there's zero zero zero consequence a skill roll can be omitted (like riding a horse or opening a heavy door). But in case of eg a lock giving the players one and only one roll gives them not only something to do actively but also makes them think about using it efficiently. The players will think of ways to improve their chances through eg Aid Another. If they fail they might have a way to "earn" a retry through some clever thinking.

It also gives each player a place in the spotlight. Sure you can just tell them if they can open the lock or not but having the Rogue actively roll and succeed (cause he/she dumped a lot into Thievery or because the bought that deluxe thieves tools) it gives that player a sense of purpose and rewards proper planning. And if the Rogue fails, the burly Fighter might step up and suggest brute force and the spotlight shifts to him.
Sure the above is mostly cosmetic and a bit of a placebo at times but autofailing or succeeding takes all that away IMO.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I usually only get them to roll once. If it's a task that they'd just keep trying, there's no reason for them to roll again, you can just assume that the initial roll suggests how much trouble it was for them.

Success with consequences. In the lockpicking example, if they failed and would just try again (and it's good for the story that they get though the door) then I would make it take a long time or make noise or some other thing that makes it seem like it was a lot of work for the character.

 

[Uchawi]

Hopefully we will see something in standard or advanced rules to add in skill consequences, when it is not obvious like springing a trap or falling off a cliff. The first consequence can be time, followed by negative modifiers, depleted resources, risk of losing a tool, etc. You can even add consequences of not being able to try the skill again until a certain condition is met, i.e. class level, new tool, new knowledge, etc.

 

[Hussar]

A question about the cone effect. If you are actually playing with a battle map, how do you determine if the cone hit something in a square or not? I mean, is it enough to just cut through 10% of the square? Or are they going to go back to pixelated cones and circles?

I really hope not.

 

[Marius Delphus]

A question about the cone effect. If you are actually playing with a battle map, how do you determine if the cone hit something in a square or not? I mean, is it enough to just cut through 10% of the square? Or are they going to go back to pixelated cones and circles?

I really hope not.

Marius's Handy Dandy Partial Square Rule

Less than 25% of square: save for no effect, or +5 to existing save.
Less than 50% of square: save for half effect, or +2 to existing save.
50% or more of square: normal effect.

 

[Bryk]

Failed lock pick...

No one rules as DM if you fail by more than 5, then your lockpick breaks in the lock preventing further attempts? Seems like an easy solution. So if you fail by less than 5, sure feel free to try again. Makes sense, doesn't it????