Ability Check Management

[Zokur1188]

Hi
Haven't DMed or played D&D in 25 years. I find myself with a group of young new players on our 6th week. It great, but I have a balance problem. The group warrior, for what ever reason, is proficient in history and has the highest perception in the group. He wants to roll on everything. He ends up detecting all the traps and knows all the lore to every place and monster. I need a way to balance the checks for the others in the group. He is playing correctly, but I think I need a plausible way to limit him without punishing.

[Sjappo]

What level are they? A warrior with an INT of 12 (presumably) and proficiency in History has a +3 modifier. He has a 70% chance to get a DC 10 check and a 45% chance to get a DC 15 check. You would expect him to fail about once every 2 tot 3 times.

History gives him no knowledge about monsters. Arcane, Religion and Nature govern that knowledge.

Some advice, if you're open to it. Call for roles after your description. "You see a great lumbering beast moving toward you. Anyone proficient in Nature may roll a check. DC 15." or something.

Trap finding is something weird. Traps with a DC under the passive perception of the most skilled character are instantly spotted. Traps with a DC higher than that are (almost) automatically triggered. Unless they are combing out the entire dungeon for traps. At which point you might warn then that that takes about 4 months. DnD 5 is not really very good at traps.

[Zokur1188]

History gives him no knowledge about monsters. Arcane, Religion and Nature govern that knowledge.
.
That makes sense, I have been using History for monster Checks. I was thinking a history on monsters and beasts not nature which makes more sense. They are level 4 now, wrapping up Lost Mines of Phandelver this weekend.

[Herobizkit]

As a general guideline:

Nature can be used for 'natural' creatures: humanoids (and their monstrous cousins, like Giants), beasts, fey
Arcana can be used for 'magical' creatures: magical beasts, aberrations, dragons, constructs, maybe also fey
Religion can be used for 'unnatural' creatures: undead, demons/devils, maybe also constructs

History can be used for general info: Were these creatures here before, any legends/stories about them, any specific/"named" creatures, and if you're generous, maybe a special detail to hint at something more (Ol' Jeb, local woodsman, swears that the big lizard thing that ain't no dragon [Jeb's seen dragons and t'aint no dragon] spat some kind of something that burned his skin.)

In all cases, players don't dictate when to use their Lore checks. The DM calls for them when they're appropriate. Players can ASK, mind. ^_^

[Sjappo]

That makes sense, I have been using History for monster Checks. I was thinking a history on monsters and beasts not nature which makes more sense. They are level 4 now, wrapping up Lost Mines of Phandelver this weekend.
In that case I would advice you to (re)read the section in the PHB concerning ability checks. You can play the game any way you like but WotC had some ideas how skills were supposed to work and what is covered by what skill. Like the things Herobizkit mentions regarding knowledge.

Still a lvl 4 PC, especially a PC with INT as a dump stat, should not be able to make INT skill checks reliably and consistently.

As an aside, my group has struggled with the whole knowledge thing as well. A party of four can be counted on to reliably make a DC 15 check if you allow all 4 PC's to make the check. Chances of all dice coming op 14 or lower is just 25%. To avoid that we have the following houserule in effect. We use that for more skill checks where all (or most) PC's are able to make the check and there is no penalty for having more PC's attempt the check.

1) if it is obvious that only one (or two) PC are in a position to make the check, due to visibility for instance, only that PC makes the check. No further checks are allowed (most of the time)
2) only the PC's with proficiency in a skill (and lvl 2 bards) make the check. The highest check counts.
3) If no PC has proficiency, the PC with the largest modifier makes the check.

You could make it a group check but we liked this rule better because it rewards players for choosing certain skills.

[INDYSTAR188]

Hi
Haven't DMed or played D&D in 25 years. I find myself with a group of young new players on our 6th week. It great, but I have a balance problem. The group warrior, for what ever reason, is proficient in history and has the highest perception in the group. He wants to roll on everything. He ends up detecting all the traps and knows all the lore to every place and monster. I need a way to balance the checks for the others in the group. He is playing correctly, but I think I need a plausible way to limit him without punishing.

I like to take character background into consideration. We're playing a module called Out of the Abyss in my group. One of the characters has an 'underdark scholar' background where his PC has been studying the underdark and its fauna, civilizations, etc for a long time. I have another player who just likes to roll but has no specific background supporting it all the time (an 'outlander'). I pick and choose the spots but sometimes I will tell the Outlander player that his character would be out of his/her depth in this situation because its not their natural environment and not something they've encountered. Other times I'll say this is something anyone can try to roll for because maybe its less esoteric.

[Tanarii]

Step 1: Read the suggestions/rules on the use of dice and Ability Checks in the DMG, in Chapter 8: Running the Game.

Step 2: Review the PHB rules on Perception, especially passive perception. There are sidebars for the Stealth skill, the Perception Skill. Also check the Adventuring chapter for rules on detecting threats while adventuring. And the Combat chapter for determining Surprise and using the Search action in combat.
In the DMG you can find rules for Secret/Concealed Doors and Traps, but they basically work the same way as the PHB rules on detecting threats while traveling.
In a nutshell:
You almost never need to roll an active perception check outside of spending an action to search in combat, or trying to locate a hidden object. Hidden creatures automatically use Passive Perception. So do secret doors, traps, provided you're in a party rank where you can see them and you're not occupied doing something like Navigating or Mapping or Foraging.

Step 3: Explain that not everything requires a check, and many things happen automatically without a check. Also that when a roll is required, you'll tell him and let him know what the DC you've set is. All he needs to do is tell you what he wants to do. He should never ask to roll on things.

Edit:
Step 4: There are no monster knowledge checks in 5e. Certain things about creatures might be learned by using appropriate lore skill, but there's nothing that gives statblock info or combat knowledge of things like resistances & powers & attacks. Unless you decide to use an ability check or skill check for it, which is your prerogative as a DM.

[JellyPooga]

Trap finding is something weird. Traps with a DC under the passive perception of the most skilled character are instantly spotted.

Be wary of using Passive Perception like this. In my opinion, it's not a case of "if the DC is under the highest PP in the group, the trap is automatically found". Same goes for secret doors. As Tanarii suggests, read the section on Passive Checks carefully. Then do it again. Now have a think about it and read it again. There are many situations where Passive Perception is not applicable and some (perhaps) unexpected ones where it is. I appreciate that this is a massive can of worms I'm opening up, so the best suggestion I can make is to read the rules and make your own judgement; there are many conflicting arguments on the subject, most of which have at least a decent grounding in the RAW.

Having said that, I find it implausible that the warrior (presumably you're talking about a Fighter?) in the group is capable of reliably detecting every trap/secret door and IDing everything through History checks. The numbers just don't add up. If he was a Rogue or Knowledge Domain Cleric, I might buy it; Expertise goes a long way.

The only way this might be possible is if you, as GM, are being a little too lenient. Just because a Player says "I got a 23 on my History check, what do I know?", doesn't mean that you, as GM, have to tell them every little detail. Where is his character from? What's his education? An orphan Cleric, raised in a church library in The West, will have a very different breadth of knowledge to a noble Fighter educated in the finest university in the sands of The South, despite having the same modifier to their History rolls. Similarly, you can just rule that no check is high enough; impossible knowledge is impossible, regardless of the roll. The Southern Desert Fighter might know a lot about Sand-Worms without having to roll a dice, but nothing of Wolves despite rolling a natural 20 on a Nature check, for example, because Wolves are unheard of where he's from, but Sand-Worms are ten-a-penny.

Be careful of giving your Players too much agency; you determine when a roll or check is made, not them. They can ask to roll, but they cannot demand to do so. The Fighter with good Perception, who's at the back of the group taking pains to cover the groups tracks, has zero chance of spotting the trap that the Rogue is about to walk into at the front of the group, for example. Even if the Fighter asks to roll Perception to spot the trap and warn the Rogue, you can say "no", because he's otherwise occupied.

You say you don't want to seem like you're "punishing" the character. I say do it. Give him a task or a situation he can't roll his way out of. Present the challenge and if he overcomes it, he'll feel godlike. If he doesn't, it'll create drama and the next time, he'll try harder and feel even better for finally coming up to par.

It's the eye of the tiger
It's the thrill of the fight
Rising up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor
Stalks his prey in the night
And he's watching us all with the eye of the tiger
Everyone likes beating a challenge. Easy victories are boring.

tl:dr - Don't be scared to tell your players they can't do a thing or to give them a little shove toward the railroad tracks. The worst thing you can do as GM is to let your Players run rough-shod over the adventure and always succeed at everything they please; down that road is a dull adventure because constant gratification is boring without the contrast of failure, for everyone involved.

[Ruslan]

That makes sense, I have been using History for monster Checks. I was thinking a history on monsters and beasts not nature which makes more sense. They are level 4 now, wrapping up Lost Mines of Phandelver this weekend.
If you want to throw him a bone, you can give him something like "you recall the story of the brave knight Sir Galahadicus, who defeated a monster such as this using <X>" once in a while. But definitely not for every monster they meet.

[Tanarii]

Be wary of using Passive Perception like this. In my opinion, it's not a case of "if the DC is under the highest PP in the group, the trap is automatically found". Same goes for secret doors. As Tanarii suggests, read the section on Passive Checks carefully. Then do it again. Now have a think about it and read it again. There are many situations where Passive Perception is not applicable and some (perhaps) unexpected ones where it is. I appreciate that this is a massive can of worms I'm opening up, so the best suggestion I can make is to read the rules and make your own judgement; there are many conflicting arguments on the subject, most of which have at least a decent grounding in the RAW.
What's weird is after all the discussing and debating and arguing and even occasional harsh tones taken, I think I end up agreeing with people that say you almost always use passive perception.

I just also think that it's very clear that everyone in the party doesn't always use it. The game appears to intend for the front party rank to be able to spot things when walking down a hallway, and for (most likely) anyone not doing critical party tasks to not get easily ambushed in the wilderness. But it also seems to assume that you'll use a marching order, so realistically in most dungeons only 2 people in the front will be spotting. And that people will, in fact, do those critical party tasks like mapping, navigating, and sometimes tracking or foraging.

I may be reading too much into it, but it's really seems like they just intended it to work with a traditional party system of a scout or two out front detecting all but the least subtle traps, with the main body not usually being surprised provided they're paying attention (and their Passive perception doesn't such).

Of course, the division of Wis (Perception) and Int (Investigation) makes for a slightly different interesting dynamic: Clerics and Fighter/Barbarian trained with Perception make good front rank party members in dungeons. When they see something that might be a trap, you can send in the Rogue or other Int /Investigation character to figure out what to do about it. That way if you don't want to have a scout far enough forward to count as a separate party for stealth, you can keep your heavies in front.

Edit: note that I clearly fall into the camp of perception lets you notice something is wrong/there, and investigation lets you get clues to figure out what to do about it. In other words, perception isn't the be all and end all, even if it works most of the time.

[djreynolds]

A dwarven fighter gets expertise basically in history checks concerning stonework.

Right now at 4th, your proficiency bonus is +2 and wisdom, lets say +2. So his passive perception is 14. In time, unless he takes observant or expertise or really buffs his wisdom, his perception scores will become less powerful and the cleric might get stronger or the rogue/bard

This is a good thing for the present and future. You want players to lean on each other. In time the warrior will focus on more combat stuff and will need to lean on others.

My fighters always focus on history, perception, insight, and athletics. And maybe some survival and medicine. The fighter should want a good wisdom score for saves and skills, otherwise they are no good as a guard or lookout. The fighter is the gate guard your rogue is trying to smuggle stuff by. History of battles fought should be a skill they were taught in fighter school.

But in time, the bard and rogue can excel in these skills. This is the flow of the game, and hopefully the casters will remember that they had to lean on the martial characters and return the favor as they increase in power.

A single class type without expertise, with a maxed out stat will never get higher than an 11 for a skill check at 17th level, or with observant, higher than a 26 at 17th level for a passive perception score, assuming a 20 in wisdom.