Quick Fix for Everyone Rolling on Skill Checks

[BoutsofInsanity]

So I've seen this complaint rolling (Hah) around on the forums about every character being able to roll on specialized skill checks because of how bounded accuracy works. I've found a solution I like and want to share it with everyone.

Solution 1. Reframing the Narrative

First up, unless the DC is 15 or more, everyone should roll, this is because even a fighter who has enough experience can hit a DC 10 arcana check, if only because he has traveled and knows a little about magic. DC 15 and lower represents knowledge or skills that everyone who is an adventurer could reasonably have a chance to know.

Once the check reaches above 15, the characters who don't have that proficency need to roll to assist. Hitting a assist roll of 15 means the other character you are assisting has advantage. Which means they get to roll with their high bonus twice and are more likely to succeed.

Example: 1 Wizard, 1 Bard, 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue, and 1 Barbarian. Wizard and Bard are proficent in Arcana and have the higher abilities to roll on the knowledge check. The Wizard Rolls with the Fighter rolling to Assist. The Bard Rolls with the Rogue rolling to assist. The Barbarian rolls straight through. DC 21. The Barbarian has to Nat 20 to suceed.

Here is how you reframe the narrative no matter what happens to make sure the right people get the spotlight.

Wizard/Bard Succeeds: "The Fighter reminds you of when you told him about magical theory. You had forgotten this fact and it jumpstarts your brain down the path to success." Or, " Putting your heads together, the Wizard and the Bard begin talking magical theory. The discussion prompts the Rogue to remember a old thieves tale about a magical curse. Speaking up, the Rogue mentions it in the middle of the discussion. The Bard's eyes widen and he yells "OF COURSE" and remembers what he needs."

This is of Course how we want the traditional narrative to go. It doesn't mean that the player's character was worthless, it allows for the Fighter who has a passing knowledge to assist in a way that doesn't hog the spotlight from the character with the expertise.

But if the Barbarian Suceeds...

Natural 20, the Barbarian passes the check. (20+1 from int = 21). "The Barbarian remembers a tale told long ago from his tribe, combined with his working knowledge of watching the Wizard and Bard work their magic, puts togther the solution to the puzzle. Struggling with the foreign nomenclature of Arcana, he communicates to the Wizard/Bard the idea he has. It's rough, a little confusing, but essentially answers the problem. The Wizard smacks himself in the head, it was so simple, but now he knows exactly what's going on."

This way, the narrative isn't broken, those who are specialized, aren't having their charactes upstaged by a nobody, what is happening is the team is coming together to solve a problem, and are helping the specialist workout a solution. This can work for any check, everyone there is a professional adventurer, they have seen some ****. Once the DC get's out of anyone's but the specialists range, everyone should be rolling to Assist the the Specialist to increase her chances of sucess. This keeps in line with the narrative structure of the game.

The Second Way is to just not allow it. But I think that can limit some characters the fun.

I hope this helps some people. Have great games gamers!

[ad_hoc]

The Second Way is to just not allow it. But I think that can limit some characters the fun.

I hope this helps some people. Have great games gamers!

It's more about whether there is a consequence for failure.

If the entire party rolls and they only need 1 success it is probably better to just declare success and move on with the game.

[Jarlhen]

There's no reason for this fix, no offense intended. This is one of those situations where you either allow it or you don't. If you allow it it doesn't matter how you frame the narrative. The heart of the issue is that it's unfair that someone who has no specialization can figure something out that a person who has dedicated their life to it has won't understand because of complete randomness. Doesn't matter if you re-do the narrative, the players still know that it was the fighter who rolled high enough to know what the wizard didn't.

Also, a person who has been traveling and stuff will have no reason to know things it hasn't experienced. And if it has experienced something they wouldn't roll anyways. Unless maybe to recollect something, which is more of a straight up intelligence check (memory) rather than skill check.

Around my table it's not about DC anyways. It's about what the character could reasonably know. In other words, it's up to me the DM to decide whether someone would have a chance of knowing this or that. That's, imo, the best way to run this.

[Ruslan]

Well, there are many different ways to play D&D. "Roll DC 15, if you succeed, receive infodump" is certainly a valid one. But I like the OP's narrative control a little better. It's not just about the fail/succeed result, it's also (a little bit) about getting there. So I'm not at all averse to the idea of playing a little narrative minigame to get there.

it doesn't matter how you frame the narrative
A valid approach, but certainly not the only one. I know a lot of people who say how frame the narrative does matter, and also people who might even say that how you frame the narrative is the only thing that matters. Each approach has some validity.

[Tanarii]

The heart of the issue is that it's unfair that someone who has no specialization can figure something out that a person who has dedicated their life to it has won't understand because of complete randomness. Doesn't matter if you re-do the narrative, the players still know that it was the fighter who rolled high enough to know what the wizard didn't.
The heart of the issue is that it's unfair to allow someone that has one mechanical bonus to do something when someone who has a different mechanical bonus can't.

It doesn't matter if you redo the narrative, if the Int 8 Cleric with Religion proficiency at first level gets to roll, but deny it to the Int 16 wizard / EK / AT, the players will still know it was the character who knows nothing except religion (low Int, bonus on one skill) that did it instead of their brilliant characters who has read everything (high Int score).

The potential problems with 'reasonably know' as a standard for who gets to check starts when DMs start stereotyping based on character class or having proficiency, especially if it doesn't match the player concept of what they reasonably know. But IMO if a group wants that, it's already covered by the "Background Proficiency" variant in the DMG: anybody that qualifies can make a check (ie DM judgment on if a check is needed, if it's rolled/passive/group, and DC, and who is involved in the check), but if the player & DM decide a character can reasonably would know about something, they get their proficiency bonus.

[BoutsofInsanity]

And this is such a subjective subject of debate I agree with everyone's reasoning. Because everyone plays the game differently. I just wanted to offer another rational, or another way to look at a potential conflict that might help some DM's or Player's feel better about the Barbarian Rolling Arcana and suceeding.

Hell there are Narrative Examples in fiction about characters who traditionally don't do magic, knowing about magic. It's similar with dealing with Vampires in fiction right? Running Water, Stakes and Garlic are things traditionally, an adventurer might know about. Even if they aren't a Cleric. If you are rolling in Ebberon, I would hope that a fighter would have some basic knowledge about magic, even if they dont' practice it.

Again, there are multiple solutions to this "problem". I just wanted to offer one, and if it helps one person have a better time at a gaming table, then I have suceeded.

When I DM, some checks are "you have no idea how any of this works, you can't even begin to figure out to help". To, "You will need Arcana to figure this out". And the Fighter Player goes, "Can I roll to assist?" And I say sure. Reasoning because, it still allows the player to actually play the game, and the net gain in enjoyment from attempting to assist, to versus the net gain of pleasure from having an enforced realism is more at my table then the other option.

Their are two games going on at a Dungeons and Dragons table. The actual narrative of the adventure, and the actual challenge of playing a board game with friends. And balancing those two things against eachother is the hardest struggle you can have.

[Jarlhen]

The heart of the issue is that it's unfair to allow someone that has one mechanical bonus to do something when someone who has a different mechanical bonus can't.

It doesn't matter if you redo the narrative, if the Int 8 Cleric with Religion proficiency at first level gets to roll, but deny it to the Int 16 wizard / EK / AT, the players will still know it was the character who knows nothing except religion (low Int, bonus on one skill) that did it instead of their brilliant characters who has read everything (high Int score).

The potential problems with 'reasonably know' as a standard for who gets to check starts when DMs start stereotyping based on character class or having proficiency, especially if it doesn't match the player concept of what they reasonably know. But IMO if a group wants that, it's already covered by the "Background Proficiency" variant in the DMG: anybody that qualifies can make a check (ie DM judgment on if a check is needed, if it's rolled/passive/group, and DC, and who is involved in the check), but if the player & DM decide a character can reasonably would know about something, they get their proficiency bonus.

First off, D&D is based on not being able to do some mechanics. That's just the game we play. I can't cast spells because I'm not a wizard. I struggle with heavy armor because I'm not proficient in it. I can't wild shape because I'm not a druid. It's literally the game. Your example seems entirely irrelevant. Intelligence doesn't mean you know everything about everything. And we're talking about specific issues here. If the cleric is a specialist on religion and the mage isn't it doesn't matter how smart the wizard is. That's how things work not just in the game but in real life as well. It's definitely not unfair.

And the only problem with "reasonably know" is if the DM doesn't know the characters. And that's fair enough, not all DMs take the time to know the characters before playing. I think it's a DMs job to do so, but I know plenty that hasn't and it has worked out fine. But assuming they do there's no problem whatsoever with that approach. The DM will know. The PCs can make a case for why they might know, and based on what the DM know they may rule. It's got nothing to do with class. And yeah, it is covered, which is another reason for why I don't think OPs twist is necessary.

[Ruslan]

Intelligence doesn't mean you know everything about everything.In D&D, it does mean exactly that. For each point of Intelligence bonus, you get +1 (ie. 5%) to your chances to recall anything that's related to knowledge skills (Religion, Nature, Arcana, History).



If the cleric is a specialist on religion and the mage isn't it doesn't matter how smart the wizard is. A +3 bonus is a +3 bonus, no matter if it comes from proficiency or ability score. That's the rules. Saying a +3 from proficiency is different from +3 from ability score is a viable approach, but it would be a house rule, which you seem to have invented on the spot, and are arguing based on that.

[RSP]

Just my approach:

Similar to the OP, I imagine, I dislike that skills are more random than character based in 5e's bounded accuracy; a DC 15 knowledge check will most likely be made by someone in a 5-person party, even if none have proficiency.

Now, any adjustment on this is very DM-playstyle-based; if your the type that loves adding in narrative, play the game the way it's written, and continue creating imagery to go along with the die rolls (for if no one passes that Knowledge check, you have no reason to add your narrative).

However, if you prefer just adding info on successful checks, such as, "does anyone know the weakness of this shadow creature?"
DM: "Everyone give me a DC 15 Religion check and I'll let you know." I'd suggest the following if you, like me, feel this shouldn't just be automatic because one of your X number of players is bound to succeed on the roll each and every fight:

Knowledges and took proficiencies require proficiency to be used (or, are made at disadvantage if you're more lenient). Really, you shouldn't be able to craft a sword if you've never seen a smithy before.

Skills that reasonably require some experience or learning, but do involve elements of common sense (such as tracking with Survival) are made at disadvantage if you don't have the skill.

Skills (or checks) that are more instinctive (like noticing something with Perception or Insight, or avoiding a grapple with Acrobatics) are rolled like normal.

Again, just my way of trying to make rolls less about luck and more about character's abilities. Understandably, these won't work for everyone.

[Tanarii]

If the cleric is a specialist on religion and the mage isn't it doesn't matter how smart the wizard is. That's how things work not just in the game but in real life as well. It's definitely not unfair.Well, generally speaking, PC Clerics and Wizards are specialists in being Adventurers. Not in religion or arcana. Of course, some come very close to being specialists ... those who have Expertise effectively are.

Other than that, yeah, I do personally feel it's unfair if you do it regularly. Because the system assumes that characters get to make Ability checks to do things. If you are regularly denying them that based on "are you proficient" or "are you a wizard" because you have a personal pre-concieved notion of what that means ... actually, that's totally fine. :smallwink: Just make sure your players know in advance, because you're making their ability scores far less powerful.


And the only problem with "reasonably know" is if the DM doesn't know the characters. And that's fair enough, not all DMs take the time to know the characters before playing. I think it's a DMs job to do so, but I know plenty that hasn't and it has worked out fine. But assuming they do there's no problem whatsoever with that approach. The DM will know. The PCs can make a case for why they might know, and based on what the DM know they may rule. It's got nothing to do with class. And yeah, it is covered, which is another reason for why I don't think OPs twist is necessary.I run too many sessions with far to many rotating players & characters to get trapped in that kind of thinking. I think it's a DMs job to present the world for the players to have their characters interact with, and adjudicate the results of character actions. How we chose to do that is up to us as a DM, based on what we want to accomplish in our game, and what makes an interesting and fun game for the players (including ourselves), and to adjudicate in a way that the players understand and find fair. (Note: in case it's not clear, I think both ways of doing it meet this standard.)

Since I have such large groups of rotating players, there's no possible way I could know the characters in enough depth to make adjudication calls based on class, although I certainly *could* do it based on proficiency. It's just a personal opinion that I don't feel it's fair to players that have invested in their ability scores have those suddenly made worthless .. but I also think it's not the intent for DMs to do that very regularly.

Edit:

Intelligence doesn't mean you know everything about everything.In D&D, it does mean exactly that. For each point of Intelligence bonus, you get +1 (ie. 5%) to your chances to recall anything that's related to knowledge skills (Religion, Nature, Arcana, History).Basically, this.

[RickAllison]

The solution I would see for this is setting a bonus floor for certain checks. For example, understanding a heavily theoretical bit of magic. The resident dumb Barbarian may have enough experience dealing with magic based on friends and enemies to remember observable things, but I might set a +3 floor for Arcana to understand more esoteric knowledge. The method behind that bonus is left to the character, they just need to have it some way. Anyone can try to jump a gap using Athletics, but it might take someone who is overly fit or experienced (+4 floor) in order to accomplish this elaborate series of jumps. Anyone can try to catch someone in a lie with Insight, but only a master (+5 floor or more) can detect the falsehoods through loopholes on this tax form.

Do all these seem rather odd tasks to consider? Yes, yes they are. This is because any task the DM calls for is NOT one that should use this system. If the DM is calling for a skill check, it is an improvised use and anyone should be able to try for it. These would be the checks that players call for, trying to find any or alternate solutions to a problem. These are bonus checks, ones that provide additional benefits than are necessary to complete an objective. Anything that is required should be available to all.

[DiceDiceBaby]

I like the proposal!

My version is that I allow ALL skills to have Passive checks (think Perception, but also for all other skills), and that if a PC dedicates more time than the six seconds it takes to make a check in a stress situation, they should be able to do it with little difficulty.

It makes no sense to impose a Strength check to a Barbarian with 20 STR and a Wizard with 10 STR to break out of Manacles (DC 20 Strength Check), unless they are about to be executed and need to do it right now. If they are in a prison cell and have time to escape, the Barbarian with 3 minutes could break out of the Manacles, no roll needed (I assume he kept making rolls until he eventually got a 20), while the Wizard can't do it.

[Tanarii]

If the DM is calling for a skill check,DMs call for Ability checks, potentially also with a specific skill proficiency bonus applying. Not skill checks.

I mean, that may seem like a minor nitpick and I'm sure you were just using it colloquially, but that's really the basis for the entire point I'm trying to make here. So I couldn't help myself. :smallamused:

[Ruslan]

The solution I would see for this is setting a bonus floor for certain checks. For example, understanding a heavily theoretical bit of magic. The resident dumb Barbarian may have enough experience dealing with magic based on friends and enemies to remember observable things, but I might set a +3 floor for Arcana to understand more esoteric knowledge. The method behind that bonus is left to the character, they just need to have it some way. Anyone can try to jump a gap using Athletics, but it might take someone who is overly fit or experienced (+4 floor) in order to accomplish this elaborate series of jumps. Anyone can try to catch someone in a lie with Insight, but only a master (+5 floor or more) can detect the falsehoods through loopholes on this tax form.While I like this idea in theory, it might be difficult to work out in practice, without [some] players feeling like the DM is out to get them. Imagine a Rogue with +1 Arcana (only due to Int bonus) and a Wizard with +5 Arcana (+2 prof, +3 Int). Whenever the DM sets the floor to anything between those numbers, the Rogue is going to feel like the DM is biased and is excluding him from having even a chance.

And it doesn't seem like there are particular rules for setting the floor, so this could just further reinforce the perspective of DM bias.