D&D 5E What are your biggest immersion breakers, rules wise?

[Garthanos]

Oh, and the most immersion breaking rule in the game is that every class is a wizard now.

Remember that was the complaint about 4e... no matter how unmagical what the exploit does you could only do it once per encounter so it was magical and you are a wizard. Its not at-will... must be magical

That cool as hell false opening you can do when you are working towards reaching paragon that suckers enemies to move barely ten feet to take ... totally magical

I know lets copy things that should be extraordinary skill use into spells like I don't know AD&D and make everyone spell casters including fighters... (or the current ranger)

 

[Garthanos]

Spells being described as super incredibly difficult but working absolutely reliably like clock work make me go hmm-mm but I ignore the flavor text because its blatantly and patently wrong and magic being really reliable is OK I just figure if the character was a normal Joe blow sorcerer he could do big long rituals and get something out and the hero is doing awesome by doing the impossible by doing it fast. If I obsess on that original flavor text it would mess with my immersion adding just a little different flavor like hero casters being different it rather fixes it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Edit: Deleted some text in which I was a jerk. What I should say is, I didn’t want to have the same argument again, I just wanted to understand your POV. I still don’t really grok what the specific issue is, but your last reply was more argumentative than I expected. Which is probably at least partial due to me being more argumentative than I thought I was being.

I appreciate that. Sorry if I came across as argumentative. Was there anything specific about my comment that bothered you? If my tone is sounding more confrontational than I mean it to, I’d like to try to fix that.

I’m getting the impression that “best effort” means something different to you than it does to me. But I’ll try to answer your questions.

Does it bother you when you roll a 2 on a single-opportunity check to pick a fairly simple lock, even though you’ve picked dozens of much harder locks in the past? If not, why is this different?

I would say yes, it bothers me, because for some reason the check is “single-opportunity.” Why? If I don’t pick the lock after 10 minutes or however long the DM decides the attempt makes, what’s stopping me from just spending that much time trying it again (and again, and again, until I succeed)?

Other than the swinginess of the d20, I just can’t figure out what is different about rolling for a day of activity vs rolling for a single attempt where you’ve only a “single attempt” worth of time to do the thing.

Nothing, if you’ve only got a single attempt worth of time.

I mean...an attack roll is literally an example of “best effort” resolution, right?

No, because if you miss, you can try again on your next turn. Whereas, under what I’m calling “best effort,” you can’t just attempt to pick the lock again on the next interval of time that lock picking takes. As I understand it, the argument in favor of that resolution style is “you already did try again, that check represented your best effort.” And that is immersion breaking to me, because I cannot understand how a 2 out of 20 could possibly represent my character’s best effort. My character is literally capable of doing much better, so what gives?

Your “attack” is game jargon for a series of strikes. It doesn’t take 6 seconds, or even 1 second, to make a single attack. I’ve fought with swords, and I can make 3 reasonably precise attacks, or an aggressive flurry of 4-6 designed to simply force the opponent to back up and come at me from a different angle (or if I’m lucky throw them off or set up an attack from a totally different angle). So,I can see a roll per day, but per “attempt” I just don’t see the difference in terms of immersion?

The net result of several sword strikes being represented by a single attack roll is not the thing I take issue with. I take issue with being told that I can’t take another several swings and get another attack roll, because the first one represented my best effort.

Of course, that never seems to happen in combat. For some reason, DMs who use “best effort,” only seem to apply it to skill checks.

But if it is clearly within your skill, and there isn’t any reason to believe you might fail over the course of an hour, and you’ve got that and more to try, it just shouldn’t be a roll, so the game/DM has to figure out how to handle a week of attempts without spending 30 minutes adjudicating roll after roll, virtually guaranteeing your success.

Right. I agree with this. The way to do that is to say “you (eventually) succeed.”

So, I can see something abstract like the downtime rules mechanics, making 3 checks with 1-3 proficiencies, with degrees of success and failure, chances for complications, etc. but, if the situation doesn’t warrant that, it’s just as consistent with how the game works to view the whole time spent trying as a check, and determining how long it takes, andif there are consequences for that, using that roll.

I’m having trouble following this.

Also, if your DM is saying, “sorry, you rolled a 2, you didn’t open the lock”, then they are running 5e DnD incorrectly. Full stop.

I wasn’t going to put it quite that bluntly because people who use this technique seem to object strongly to having it pointed out that it is contrary to 5e RAW, but yes, I agree. I also find it immersion breaking when DMs do that.

They should be failing forward, and adjudicating what price you have to pay for a frustratingly difficult success, and letting you work out why you had such a hard time with something that isn’t normally that hard for you.

I disagree. They should be allowing me to pay the cost or risk the consequence of failure to try as many times as I like. Or, if there is no cost or consequence, they should be narrating my (eventual) success.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I appreciate that. Sorry if I came across as argumentative. Was there anything specific about my comment that bothered you? If my tone is sounding more confrontational than I mean it to, I’d like to try to fix that.

I think the issue was that both of us were approaching our statements in an argument format, and I fell into that pattern as a result, and perhaps came across as challenging your POV rather than trying to figure it out.

I’m getting the impression that “best effort” means something different to you than it does to me. But I’ll try to answer your questions.


I would say yes, it bothers me, because for some reason the check is “single-opportunity.” Why? If I don’t pick the lock after 10 minutes or however long the DM decides the attempt makes, what’s stopping me from just spending that much time trying it again (and again, and again, until I succeed)?


Nothing, if you’ve only got a single attempt worth of time.

I think I communicated poorly here. I was asking about the difference between rolling poorly when the roll represents a single attempt, and there is no time for another try. For instance, “fail on a 1” houserules break my immersion completely when they cause my character with a modifier higher than the DC to fail, even though he is so good at the thing that he could do it in his sleep. The d20 is too swingy for that to model anything believable.

No, because if you miss, you can try again on your next turn. Whereas, under what I’m calling “best effort,” you can’t just attempt to pick the lock again on the next interval of time that lock picking takes. As I understand it, the argument in favor of that resolution style is “you already did try again, that check represented your best effort.” And that is immersion breaking to me, because I cannot understand how a 2 out of 20 could possibly represent my character’s best effort. My character is literally capable of doing much better, so what gives?

so, yeah, that isn’t what best effort resolution refers to as I understand it. It’s not that you did the best job that you are hypothetically capable of doing, it’s that the roll represents you total efforts. The best you did in that time was the die result.

So, the DM says, “okay make a check for a day of trying to get the lock open.”

You aren’t rolling to see how good you are in general, you are rolling to see whether you were able to perform at your top level, or if you just don’t have it that day. You’re rolling a single roll to represent many attempts.

It’s the same as an attack, in every way except the amount of time represented. Just like how some games will resolve a whole fight with one roll.

The net result of several sword strikes being represented by a single attack roll is not the thing I take issue with. I take issue with being told that I can’t take another several swings and get another attack roll, because the first one represented my best effort.

Of course, that never seems to happen in combat. For some reason, DMs who use “best effort,” only seem to apply it to skill checks.

Right, combat and out of combat resolution are always different in some ways. That can certainly lead to immersion issues related to consistency.


Right. I agree with this. The way to do that is to say “you (eventually) succeed.”[/quote] I disagree, but that’s fine. (For clarity, I think that “you succeed, and/but” with the “and/but” being determined by the die roll, is a better model)

I’m having trouble following this.

I wasn’t going to put it quite that bluntly because people who use this technique seem to object strongly to having it pointed out that it is contrary to 5e RAW, but yes, I agree. I also find it immersion breaking when DMs do that.

Right, if there is a roll there, it should be because the DM feels there is a consequence to rolling low.

In the example I gave, I was referring to the Xanathar’s Guide rules for downtime activities. Generally, if you want to mechanically resolve what happens as a result of spending the downtime gambling, you make 3 Ability checks with 1 or more proficiencies (skills, tools, etc). 1 success, 2 successes, and 3 successes all mean different things in terms of how the gambling played out.

This more closely models combat’s “many attacks in an Attack” method of resolution, but is also still pretty much a “best effort” resolution.

I disagree. They should be allowing me to pay the cost or risk the consequence of failure to try as many times as I like. Or, if there is no cost or consequence, they should be narrating my (eventual) success.

That’s what failing forward is, though.

Lastly, if your DM is treating that single die roll as immutable forever, they’re using that form of resolution wrong.

It’s meant to be your “best effort” within a specific span of time. Ie, “you didn’t crack it during the week of downtime you had, but you can try again next time you have some time to sit with it.”

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree, but that’s fine. (For clarity, I think that “you succeed, and/but” with the “and/but” being determined by the die roll, is a better model)

Oh most definitely... repercussions/implications ideally that lead into new stuff.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think I communicated poorly here. I was asking about the difference between rolling poorly when the roll represents a single attempt, and there is no time for another try. For instance, “fail on a 1” houserules break my immersion completely when they cause my character with a modifier higher than the DC to fail, even though he is so good at the thing that he could do it in his sleep. The d20 is too swingy for that to model anything believable.

so, yeah, that isn’t what best effort resolution refers to as I understand it. It’s not that you did the best job that you are hypothetically capable of doing, it’s that the roll represents you total efforts. The best you did in that time was the die result.

Right, I don’t have any problem with that per se. What I find immersion breaking is when only one roll is allowed, period, and “that one roll represented your best effort” is the excuse used to justify it.

So, the DM says, “okay make a check for a day of trying to get the lock open.”

You aren’t rolling to see how good you are in general, you are rolling to see whether you were able to perform at your top level, or if you just don’t have it that day. You’re rolling a single roll to represent many attempts.

So, assuming I have no time pressure and can just spend all day trying to pick the lock, I have no problem with the DM deciding that one check represents my efforts over the course of that day. What I do have a problem with is when I fail, and I say, “ok, can I spend the next day trying?” and they say “well you can, but the result won’t be any different. That attempt already represented your best effort.”

It’s the same as an attack, in every way except the amount of time represented. Just like how some games will resolve a whole fight with one roll.

It sounds like what you’re talking about is indeed the same as an attack. That is not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is different from an attack, in that unlike an attack, you can’t make another check at the very next interval of time the action takes (whatever that interval may be). Usually DMs who do this rule that you either have to take a different approach, or try again after your bonus to the check has increased.

Right. I agree with this. The way to do that is to say “you (eventually) succeed.”

I disagree, but that’s fine. (For clarity, I think that “you succeed, and/but” with the “and/but” being determined by the die roll, is a better model)

In that case, the action did have a consequence for failure - whatever follows “but” is the consequence. This is perfectly reasonable and doesn’t harm my immersion, though my preference is to determine the ”but” first and let the player decide to accept that risk or not, rather than having the player make the die roll blind and determine the “but” based on the results.

Right, if there is a roll there, it should be because the DM feels there is a consequence to rolling low.

Agreed.

In the example I gave, I was referring to the Xanathar’s Guide rules for downtime activities. Generally, if you want to mechanically resolve what happens as a result of spending the downtime gambling, you make 3 Ability checks with 1 or more proficiencies (skills, tools, etc). 1 success, 2 successes, and 3 successes all mean different things in terms of how the gambling played out.

Oh. Yeah, I’m not a fan of the XgtE Downtime rules, but not for reasons related to immersion. Using multiple checks to achieve one result just seems inefficient to me.

This more closely models combat’s “many attacks in an Attack” method of resolution, but is also still pretty much a “best effort” resolution.

Ok, so it seems like you’re using “best effort” to mean “use one roll to determine the results of an extended action,” which is not what I was trying to express issue with.

It’s worth noting though, the 5e rules suggest that the average result of an action performed repeatedly over time should be represented by a passive check, not by a roll.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right, I don’t have any problem with that per se. What I find immersion breaking is when only one roll is allowed, period, and “that one roll represented your best effort” is the excuse used to justify it.


So, assuming I have no time pressure and can just spend all day trying to pick the lock, I have no problem with the DM deciding that one check represents my efforts over the course of that day. What I do have a problem with is when I fail, and I say, “ok, can I spend the next day trying?” and they say “well you can, but the result won’t be any different. That attempt already represented your best effort.”


It sounds like what you’re talking about is indeed the same as an attack. That is not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is different from an attack, in that unlike an attack, you can’t make another check at the very next interval of time the action takes (whatever that interval may be). Usually DMs who do this rule that you either have to take a different approach, or try again after your bonus to the check has increased.

I disagree, but that’s fine. (For clarity, I think that “you succeed, and/but” with the “and/but” being determined by the die roll, is a better model)

In that case, the action did have a consequence for failure - whatever follows “but” is the consequence. This is perfectly reasonable and doesn’t harm my immersion, though my preference is to determine the ”but” first and let the player decide to accept that risk or not, rather than having the player make the die roll blind and determine the “but” based on the results.


Agreed.


Oh. Yeah, I’m not a fan of the XgtE Downtime rules, but not for reasons related to immersion. Using multiple checks to achieve one result just seems inefficient to me.


Ok, so it seems like you’re using “best effort” to mean “use one roll to determine the results of an extended action,” which is not what I was trying to express issue with.

It’s worth noting, the 5e rules suggest that the average result of an action performed repeatedly over time should be represented by a passive check, not by a roll.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, in that case, I have never seen nor heard of the DM behavior you describe before. That sounds like a truly garbage DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, in that case, I have never seen nor heard of the DM behavior you describe before. That sounds like a truly garbage DM.

I’ve heard lots of DMs on these forums say that this is how they handle it.

EDIT: Case in point:

I wouldn't let you just try again because I am saying that is your "best effort" for that lock under those circumstances. Only by changing circumstances can you retry (or just auto succeed) which might be taking a short rest, a long rest, expending a resource, or even taking the chest to another location. I would make something up on the spot to determine what that might be.

In the case of rust, lets say, you might ask if the wizard can cast a grease spell on it and i'd give you another roll. Still fail? The grease isn't the same as machine oil you have in your workshop at home. Pretty much any chest you get back to your workshop is an auto-trap-find-and-open unless its very magical in my book.

I’ve also experienced it in actual play, though much less often since the switch to 5e. And I usually see it from DMs who cut their teeth on 3.x

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I disagree. They should be allowing me to pay the cost or risk the consequence of failure to try as many times as I like. Or, if there is no cost or consequence, they should be narrating my (eventual) success.

I agree with this, however "time between checks" for the same kind of check may be variable. For instance...say you are in a dungeon and you try to pick a lock of a chest and fail because you rolled a 2. Perhaps your character failed because they had a bad day. Perhaps they failed because they don't have quite the right tool for the lock on them. Or maybe they failed because the lock is jammed up and rusted shut.

Note that I don't have to have pre-written in my adventure notes "This lock requires the #7 hooked file to open" or "This lock is rusted and cannot be picked in the dungeon", making up a reason you failed to pick the lock is just something I, as the GM, would do in the course of a game. In each of those cases you would eventually get the chest open however the "wait time" for that to happen would be based on whatever popped into my head as the reason you failed on that initial 2 roll.

I'd only let you try again immediately if you were in rounds. When in rounds I consider one "attempt" as the same as a single attack with a sword. If you were out of rounds I wouldn't let you just try again because I am saying that is your "best effort" for that lock under those circumstances. Only by changing circumstances can you retry (or just auto succeed) which might be taking a short rest, a long rest, expending a resource, or even taking the chest to another location. I would make something up on the spot to determine what that might be.

In the case of rust, lets say, you might ask if the wizard can cast a grease spell on it and i'd give you another roll. Still fail? The grease isn't the same as machine oil you have in your workshop at home. Pretty much any chest you get back to your workshop is an auto-trap-find-and-open unless its very magical in my book.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They’re not natural language in this context, though. They are game terms, with specific rules meanings, which according to the rules on describing the effects of damage, don’t constitute anything more than minor superficial impact until half HP, and don’t constitute a direct hit until 0 HP.

Technically, officially, RAW, the description of HP loss is expected to vary from table to table. The DM is expected to narrate it in a way that makes sense to them, and what you are describing is just a default example.

Which is to say, the designers are perfectly aware that their rules make no sense whatsoever, and they're pushing the burden onto the DM to try and salvage them into a coherent narration. The designers, themselves, have no idea whether or not a consistent solution actually exists. They aren't even trying.