When I'm DMing a game, sometimes I feel like my players are trying to get multiple saving throws out of me. For instance, on a string bridge, a wyvern lands on it and they need to make an acrobatics check to stay on. The monk fails and starts to fall, but he says can I make another saving throw to try and catch myself on the edge. Should this be allowed?
If the purpose of the die roll was clearly articulated to the players (that is to say, success = staying on the bridge, and failure = falling off the bridge), then I'm of the opinion that no additional saving throw/skill check should be granted. A failed saving throw or skill check means some sort of negative consequence willensue, not might ensue. Being allowed to roll again--as the monk in your example wants to do--entirely defeats the purpose of the original die roll.
EDIT: I see the monk asks about the possibility of catching "the edge." If the edge refers to the bridge, or any part thereof, then I stand by what I wrote above. If, however, "the edge" refers to the edge of the cliff or mountain, then I would say another roll of the die is reasonable if the monk was within a few feet of "the edge" when he fell from the bridge.
For a fall, one dice roll to lose balance, one more to try and retrieve the situation. I will warn a party in advance if falling means certain or likely demise.
The "Player Side" issue: should you allow players to "wheedle" extra saving throws out of you? Probably not. Jack_Jokeis correct "in spirit", once the DM has made a ruling you should be very reluctant to budge on a ruling, without good reason. Which means that the DM has be careful about making those rulings, because ...
The "DM Side" issue: should you have life-or-death situations boiling down to a single roll? Again - probably not. BigKahuna's suggestion to give the players plenty of time to find alternative solutions ( unless they're actually being surprised ) is an excellent one.
In short, in a perfect world, you should make reasonable rulings about how to adjudicate situations, giving the players a decent amount of leeway, but once you've made a ruling, stand by it if you can.
In your case: If you had - as Big Kahuna suggested - given the players a heads up that there was a Wyvern dropping toward the bridge, and the Monk character had declared "I'm standing my ground", you might have said "OK, you can try and stand your ground, but if you miss in an acrobatics check, you could go over the edge". Then, if the player didn't alter their plan of action, then they've implicitly accepted that "one die roll" risk.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Saving thows aren't really something a player can choose to make. In times like these, what I might allow is an ability check - Dexterity (Acrobatics) in this instance.
A lot of it simply comes down to the DM and the group. What sort of group do you have? Does the group want to have fun being badass heroes with little stress and difficulty, or do they want a bit of challenge and a tactical element to their session?
Personally, I try to avoid any straight-up second chances (unless they have a legitimate case, perhaps something I forgot or overlooked as part of the scene) , and instead sometimes offer a second chance with some added consequences.
An example of this could be that sure, if you roll a high acrobatics check then you can grab onto the edge, but you will be last in the initiative order we're now making and/or it will take all your movement to climb back up during the first turn. A harsher version would be that if you fail the acrobatics check, you actually manage to pull the bridge/some of the planks down with you when you grab out for the bridge - possibly causing other allies to also fall, or those parts of the bridge to crash down on top of the player, increasing the damage taken from the fall overall.
If I feel it's a little too powerful/generous to give them another attempt, but I like the idea of it/it's feasible, I'll probably go for the harsher version. This is similar to pushing rolls - a concept from Call of Cthulhu. You can try again but, if you fail a second time then the consequence is even worse.
I've occasionally allowed a Dex save to grab on at the last moment, but really when you think about it, that's exactly what the initial Acrobatics check is for. It's not to see if you start to fall, it's to see if you fall. Success doesn't necessarily mean you stat on your feet, it just means you didn't fall off of the bridge. A PC who makes the check might be clinging to the side of the bridge, despite having succeeded the roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I'm DMing a game, sometimes I feel like my players are trying to get multiple saving throws out of me. For instance, on a string bridge, a wyvern lands on it and they need to make an acrobatics check to stay on. The monk fails and starts to fall, but he says can I make another saving throw to try and catch myself on the edge. Should this be allowed?
If the purpose of the die roll was clearly articulated to the players (that is to say, success = staying on the bridge, and failure = falling off the bridge), then I'm of the opinion that no additional saving throw/skill check should be granted. A failed saving throw or skill check means some sort of negative consequence will ensue, not might ensue. Being allowed to roll again--as the monk in your example wants to do--entirely defeats the purpose of the original die roll.
EDIT: I see the monk asks about the possibility of catching "the edge." If the edge refers to the bridge, or any part thereof, then I stand by what I wrote above. If, however, "the edge" refers to the edge of the cliff or mountain, then I would say another roll of the die is reasonable if the monk was within a few feet of "the edge" when he fell from the bridge.
I agree with BigKahuna, 1,2&3
For a fall, one dice roll to lose balance, one more to try and retrieve the situation. I will warn a party in advance if falling means certain or likely demise.
There's really two issues here, I think:
In short, in a perfect world, you should make reasonable rulings about how to adjudicate situations, giving the players a decent amount of leeway, but once you've made a ruling, stand by it if you can.
In your case: If you had - as Big Kahuna suggested - given the players a heads up that there was a Wyvern dropping toward the bridge, and the Monk character had declared "I'm standing my ground", you might have said "OK, you can try and stand your ground, but if you miss in an acrobatics check, you could go over the edge". Then, if the player didn't alter their plan of action, then they've implicitly accepted that "one die roll" risk.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Saving thows aren't really something a player can choose to make. In times like these, what I might allow is an ability check - Dexterity (Acrobatics) in this instance.
A lot of it simply comes down to the DM and the group. What sort of group do you have? Does the group want to have fun being badass heroes with little stress and difficulty, or do they want a bit of challenge and a tactical element to their session?
Personally, I try to avoid any straight-up second chances (unless they have a legitimate case, perhaps something I forgot or overlooked as part of the scene) , and instead sometimes offer a second chance with some added consequences.
An example of this could be that sure, if you roll a high acrobatics check then you can grab onto the edge, but you will be last in the initiative order we're now making and/or it will take all your movement to climb back up during the first turn. A harsher version would be that if you fail the acrobatics check, you actually manage to pull the bridge/some of the planks down with you when you grab out for the bridge - possibly causing other allies to also fall, or those parts of the bridge to crash down on top of the player, increasing the damage taken from the fall overall.
If I feel it's a little too powerful/generous to give them another attempt, but I like the idea of it/it's feasible, I'll probably go for the harsher version. This is similar to pushing rolls - a concept from Call of Cthulhu. You can try again but, if you fail a second time then the consequence is even worse.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
I've occasionally allowed a Dex save to grab on at the last moment, but really when you think about it, that's exactly what the initial Acrobatics check is for. It's not to see if you start to fall, it's to see if you fall. Success doesn't necessarily mean you stat on your feet, it just means you didn't fall off of the bridge. A PC who makes the check might be clinging to the side of the bridge, despite having succeeded the roll.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?