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

[Garthanos]

Can you extrapolate the reasoning here?

Because no, the rules don’t create that situation. At all.

Hell in 1e days i had manacles which created a mental disruption that generally prevented the focus needed to work magic or to concentrate on your deeper physical strength it was like being on a confusion inducing drug it messed everyone up without the erraticness/danger of actual drugs. (I could have made a reliable drug but this was a left over techno magic - not something those using it knew how to recreate)

 

[Lanefan]

If it is physically possible for your skills and your tools to disable the lock, then unless the consequences of failure actually change the conditions-- unless they make it impossible-- then there's absolutely no reason you cannot just keep working the lock until you succeed. You will succeed, eventually, unless your failure either makes the situation impossible or you give up.

The idea that if someone can't pop open a lock within the first six seconds of trying, they're physically incapable of doing it in any amount of time... that's baffling to me. What kind of "realism" is that?

The big (and IMO very wrong) assumption you're making here is that the succeed-fail roll only covers six seconds.

As far as I'm concerned the roll covers however long you decide to spend at it. And if you fail, then so be it.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you extrapolate the reasoning here?

What's the DC for breaking or lock-picking the manacles?* If it's under what the manacled PC can handle, by RAW escape is eventually guaranteed; and that's the sort of guarantee I really don't like. I'd far rather there be an element of luck involved, such that if ten identical people are held in ten sets of identical manacles then by sheer luck three can eventually escape but the other seven cannot, simply based on their rolls.

* - I don't know if 5e sets a default DC for getting out of manacles

 

[Oofta]

Can you extrapolate the reasoning here?

Because no, the rules don’t create that situation. At all.

Manacles require a DC 20 dexterity or strength check to break out of. Unless you have a negative to both, you'll break out in a couple of minutes if you can just keep trying.

Which would make manacles pointless.

 

[mortwatcher]

now that I think about it:
falling - if you fall 20 or 200 ft, you instantly take falling damage

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Manacles require a DC 20 dexterity or strength check to break out of. Unless you have a negative to both, you'll break out in a couple of minutes if you can just keep trying.

Which would make manacles pointless.

But that isn’t how the rules work. You get to make a roll. If you fail, you only ever roll again if the DM tells you to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What's the DC for breaking or lock-picking the manacles?* If it's under what the manacled PC can handle, by RAW escape is eventually guaranteed; and that's the sort of guarantee I really don't like. I'd far rather there be an element of luck involved, such that if ten identical people are held in ten sets of identical manacles then by sheer luck three can eventually escape but the other seven cannot, simply based on their rolls.

* - I don't know if 5e sets a default DC for getting out of manacles

5e doesn’t set any default DCs. The DMG has advice and a small chart for easy, moderate, hard, DCs, and the APs obviously has DCs for things.

And by the book, you get to make a roll if the DM asks for one. If the DM lets you reroll forever, eventually you'll succeed, and the rolls will, in total, represent how long it took. If the DM asks for one roll to represent your efforts over whatever time it takes to wear yourself out if you fail, then that’s it, and you can’t try again until you’ve rested a bit.

Or the DM could run it some other way. The RAW doesn’t tell the DM how and when to call for checks, it just gives advice.

 

[Oofta]

But that isn’t how the rules work. You get to make a roll. If you fail, you only ever roll again if the DM tells you to.

Hence my "if you can just keep trying" which some people are stating is the "correct" ruling on skill checks. I agree with you on this scenario, you get one shot unless told otherwise.

 

[Lanefan]

But that isn’t how the rules work. You get to make a roll. If you fail, you only ever roll again if the DM tells you to.

OK, so now I'm confused.

You say here that the rule is one roll only unless the DM grants another (much like 1e does it; and my preference). Others are saying the rule is you can keep trying - and thus keep rolling* - until you either succeed or prove the task is beyond you, and that the DM is bound by this (much like 3e's Take-20).

Which is it?

* - or force the DM to just narrate success or failure based on her knowledge of the DC vs your ability to beat it.

 

[Yaarel]

I havent had any problem with skills. I guess it is because of the Yes/No/Maybe style.

The players must say exactly what they are doing. HOW.

If it seems plausible, it is likely to autosucceed. Only if there is doubt about whether it might work or not, is there a skill check.

Also no issues about picking locks. But hypothetically, they would need to state how they are doing it, like, I use a lock pick from the thieves tools kit. If that didnt work, they would need to come up with an other plan, maybe the mechanism is jammed and knocking it loose might allow an other attempt. Or just pry it open with something like a crowbar. Or just break the door down.

Whatever it is, they have to say what it is. And doing something that didnt work the first time is less likely to succeed a second time (DM narrative adjudication).