The "Everybody Rolls" Conundrum [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JellyPooga

2017-01-13, 08:39 AM

So it's a thing in most roleplaying games that as soon as one Player rolls a die and fails (or succeeds, sometimes), every other player jumps on the 'wagon to "have a go", leading to many checks being irrelevant; someone's going to roll high, right?

Due to the whole bounded accuracy thing in 5ed, this frequently creates the problem of specialised characters losing spotlight to the relatively incompetent guy who just threw a dice at it because "it can't hurt to try".

This really only applies to certain things; namely those that have little or no consequence for individual failure. Knowledge checks are the first ones that come to mind (Arcana, History, etc.), but Perception is also common, as are feats of Strength (breaking doors, etc.) and I've even seen people trying it with social skills.

One solution (particularly for knowledge checks) is the "trained only" approach; "you can only know X if you're proficient in X skill". I've seen this argued against and I largely agree with the argument, particularly for DC's of 20 or lower. It does have its merits, but I'm not entirely satisfied with this approach.

Another solution is the "Teamwork!" approach. By aiding someone, you can give them Advantage on their roll. This gets at least one other PC involved in the roll and strictly speaking, this is often the "best" way to stack the odds in your favour. Unfortunately, in actual play it doesn't often turn out that way; forethought is generally a little known player-trait (in my experience). Usually it's a much more reactionary response of "that guy failed so now I'll have a go".

So what about Group Checks? Is there merit in enforcing the Group Checks rule for "band-wagoneering"? i.e. the first guy fails and everyone else shouts "I'll have a go too", to which you respond "ok, but you need at least half of those rolling to succeed in order for anyone to pass this check and you've already got one failure...".

To me, it makes sense. Group Checks are kind of presented as a way to help the players succeed; allowing the skilled or talented to "carry" the unskilled. Can't they also be used against them, though? I mean, some things are easier as a group, but others...well, really aren't. Especially if you're not implicitly trying to work together (i.e. by using the aforementioned "Teamwork!" method).

I can see a party standing there arguing over who's right about a History fact, for example; the Cleric (who had the best mod, but failed) isn't sure about it, so the party all jump on the 'wagon and roll. Group check time;
- The Wizard begins discussing the subject with the Cleric and they start making some progress (gets a success).
- The Rogue just thinks he's clever and ends up making snide remarks (had a reasonable chance, but failed).
- The Fighter remembers his Drill Sergeant telling a story about it, "back in the day" and it sparks off new discussion between the Cleric and Wizard (he "had a go" with his Int 10 and got lucky)
- The Barbarian is standing there being boorish and ends up going off on a tangent with some irrelevant saga (he "had a go" too, but with his -2 Int mod he predictably failed)

With 2 successes and 3 failures, the whole thing devolves into some big argument, with everyone talking over the top of one-another and getting nowhere. If the Barbarian or the Rogue hadn't "had a go", they would have succeeded. If they'd knocked heads and used "Teamwork!" instead, giving the Cleric (with his superior modifier) Advantage on his roll would have given them much better odds of success than throwing 5 individual attempts at it.

Or how about when the Barbarian fails his Strength check to kick in the door and everyone rushes in at the same time to "have a go"? They're as likely to get in one anothers way as they are to actually help each other by having an individual try;
- Rogue: "Hey! You tripped me!"
- Fighter: "Get out of the way, let me try"
- Wizard: "No no no, you're all doing it all wrong"
- Barbarian: *shakes head in despair*

Rolling a heap of dice at something is only a viable strategy if the failures don't count. If the failures become relevant by counting against the successes, then with Advantage working the way it does (i.e. no matter how many people help, you only ever get Advantage), this should encourage players to opt for the "teamwork" option rather than the "band-wagon" one.

So are enforcing Group Checks the solution to the "Everybody Rolls" problem? Would it make those DC:<20 checks somewhat more relevant?

Ninja_Prawn

2017-01-13, 08:47 AM

So are enforcing Group Checks the solution to the "Everybody Rolls" problem? Would it make those DC:<20 checks somewhat more relevant?

I would say: no. Group checks are useful for a few very specific things (like group stealth), but they don't solve this problem. Making failure matter and not calling for rolls when it's likely that *someone* will succeed if they all try are the best solution(s).

So, for example, a barred door will eventually give if the barbarian keeps kicking it. You shouldn't need to roll for that unless there is a cost for failure. If they're in combat and each roll costs an action, failure suddenly matters and you will almost certainly not see the other PCs piling in with "let me have a go," because the cost of all of them focussing on the door while monsters are on the prowl is too high. They need to hold the monsters off until the barbarian breaks the door. So the 'conundrum' disappears thanks to the encounter design.

MrStabby

2017-01-13, 08:49 AM

For things like knowledge checks just make the rolls secret. Everyone can contribute a view but the accuracy of the view corresponds to the total. Then based on frequency of bits of information being given or reliability of the source and plausibility of the results the party can decide what to believe.

Aett_Thorn

2017-01-13, 08:53 AM

When I DM, I use a combination of "you can give the smart people advantage (or a boost) to their check" or the "As long as you come about it a different way, you can make a check" approach.

The former is for things like breaking down a door or remembering some historical fact. Sure, only the strong guy has a chance to break the door reasonably, but there's no reason that others couldn't try to assist him (as long as there is space). Two people running at a door to knock it down is better than one, after all. And how many times have you been struggling to remember some key fact, someone says something extraordinarily dumb about it, but it finally trips your memory somehow. "Silence! I'm trying to recall the correct tonal notes used by the Triklin clan of dwarves to lock their forges." "Oh, the Triklin clan? Are they the ones that evolved into fish?" "WHAT? That's the stupidest thing I've ever hear...wait, that's it, It's an F-sharp chord!"

The other is for more social/puzzle related checks. One guy tries to Intimidate the tavern owner into giving up a piece of information using brute strength. Check fails. Other guy comes in and tries to Intimidate them based on threats against his family. I allow another check. But if the second guy tried to Intimidate on brute strength like the first, I'd say no.

The only cases where I allow everyone in the group to roll is usually for investigation checks. Everyone is searching the room? Everyone rolls. Mainly because it's likely they are all searching different areas of said room. But usually that means I ask them where they are searching (east wall, west wall, the crates in the corner, etc.)

Spectre9000

2017-01-13, 08:54 AM

I think you're missing something. There's a table in the PHB listing the DC for tasks by difficulty. Someone that's not proficient in a thing isn't going to get a 25 or 30 roll. Also, in 5e a natural 20 doesn't auto-succeed in ability checks. This means, if it's something easy (DC 10) then everyone in the group can easily succeed. If it's a 25, it's very hard, and only those proficient really have a chance. A DC 30 largely means only those with expertise have a realistic chance of succeeding.

Also remember, they only need to roll if there's a chance for multiple outcomes. If they can't possibly succeed, or if they can't possibly fail, there's no need for a roll.

JellyPooga

2017-01-13, 09:15 AM

Making failure matter and not calling for rolls when it's likely that *someone* will succeed if they all try are the best solution(s).

What about, for example, a DC:15 History check? It's by no means guaranteed that any given character will definitely pass it. It's supposed to be pretty tricky! There's also a chance that someone will pass, even with a poor modifier. When 5 players roll at it ("have a go"), it's practically guaranteed that someone will, rendering the check irrelevant in the first place. "Not calling for a roll" isn't the solution to this if you want there to be a consequence of failure (i.e. not getting the information), but by allowing everyone to roll you might as well just give it to them.

Then based on frequency of bits of information being given or reliability of the source and plausibility of the results the party can decide what to believe.

Great for stuff you have planned. Not so great for things you're making up on the fly. If a Player asks about something and you throw out an off-the-cuff DC, it's often hard enough coming up with one answer let alone several if the party decides to band-wagon it.

When I DM, I use a combination of "you can give the smart people advantage (or a boost) to their check" or the "As long as you come about it a different way, you can make a check" approach.

"Teamwork!" is what I'm trying to encourage over "Band-wagoneering", so yeah, I'm totally on board with that. I'm not sure about the "different approach" thing. I agree that some things do just require a different approach to get a new roll (social scenes particularly), but that doesn't really help the knowledge check problem. I prefer to be permissive when I run a game, so when a Player asks "can I try too?", I don't like to say "no" because, well, there's often no good reason to.

I think you're missing something.

If they can't possibly succeed, or if they can't possibly fail, there's no need for a roll.

It's not the impossible or automatic DC's or checks I'm concerned with here; it's the mid-range ones in that 10-20 range that I want to be in some doubt, but I might as well not include if everyone "gets a go".

Falcon X

2017-01-13, 09:16 AM

I'm pretty sure the PHB addresses this. Group checks involve having a single leader and someone else providing the help action.
Essentially, it is saying that two people can try the action before it's failed, but at the leader's ability score/proficiency.

That's off the top of my head. Can anyone back that up?

Willie the Duck

2017-01-13, 09:17 AM

Simplest answer I have is to rule that in a situation where adding more people to a problem will not make the solution easier, simply roll once with the highest modifier from amongst the group and that's it.

Think of it this way--the entire reason that they did the passive perception was because the whole 1d20+stealth vs. 1d20+perception just added the illusion of fairness, but really just threw two dice at a problem that can be solved by one. The same is true in this instance. There's one problem, and it can be solved by one dice roll. Either the group the group thinks up the solution to the riddle on the wall, or it doesn't. It has a good chance because there's a wizard with a high Int and proficiency in arcana, so it's 1d20+7, but it's not also 3 1d20s and a 1d20+1 alongside. That's throwing additional dice into the situation for no reason.

JellyPooga

2017-01-13, 09:24 AM

Simplest answer I have is to rule that in a situation where adding more people to a problem will not make the solution easier, simply roll once with the highest modifier from amongst the group and that's it.

That's throwing additional dice into the situation for no reason.

It's an easy answer, but misses one thing; Players like throwing dice!

It's daft, I know, but half the problem is the fact that Players will try and roll dice at every opportunity and telling them "shut up, sit down and put your dice away!" is...well, a bit harsh and breeds sulky players! Getting them to put their dice away of their own volition by imposing consequences is the trick and I think the "enforced Group Check" might just do that :smallwink:

Ninja_Prawn

2017-01-13, 09:31 AM

What about, for example, a DC:15 History check? It's by no means guaranteed that any given character will definitely pass it. It's supposed to be pretty tricky! There's also a chance that someone will pass, even with a poor modifier. When 5 players roll at it ("have a go"), it's practically guaranteed that someone will, rendering the check irrelevant in the first place. "Not calling for a roll" isn't the solution to this if you want there to be a consequence of failure (i.e. not getting the information), but by allowing everyone to roll you might as well just give it to them.

With this sort of thing, where the maths says "it's practically guaranteed that someone will" know the history, well... that's what happens when you get a lot of people in the room. If I stood up right now (I'm at work, in an office) and shouted "hey, does anybody know who was Prime Minister in 1955?" I'm sure someone would know. So while you "want there to be a consequence of failure," there isn't a realistic chance of failure, so it's irrelevant.

In a game, the options I'd favour are:

Let everyone roll, anyone who beats the DC knows - this can sometimes lead to a bit of character development where you figure out how the character knows what they do. If no one beats it, give the person who rolled highest partial information.
Just tell them without rolling, handwaving it as "some of you have heard that..."
Do it as a passive check, give the information to anyone who is over the DC. If no one meets the DC but you need the information out there, figure out a way to give one of them advantage based on their background.
I guess I'm lucky in that most of the players I DM for will voluntarily rule themselves out from knowledge checks if they don't think their character would know something.

Crusher

2017-01-13, 10:12 AM

My usual choice is to only let people proficient in the skill even attempt if the DC is about 15 or higher. Waiting for a DC 20 check before putting on that caveat makes it too difficult for even the skilled characters to pull it off.

A character with a +7 at a skill is pretty capable at that skill, but still only has a 35% chance of succeeding on a DC 20 check. So, waiting for a DC20 check to give them their "time to shine" kind of sucks because they're going to fail that clutch moment most of the time.

On the other hand, they'll succeed 60% of the time at a DC15 check. The problem is that the rest of the party, 5 non-proficient Barbarians with 8's for INT, collectively have a 68% chance of succeeding. So, at DC15, the rest of the party is more likely to succeed on the check than the skill-monkey, and at DC20 the skill monkey will fail most of the time. Frustration all-around for the skill-monkey. IMO, setting the cut-off at DC15 (especially for things like knowledge and proficiency skill checks) is the way to go.

If the DC is under 15, I just let everyone roll. My assumption is that *someone* will succeed, but the players like rolling dice, so its more fun for everyone to roll and see who succeeds (which is sometimes very entertaining. The half-orc barbarian clearly "loosened" the stuck jar for the halfling cleric!) than just announce that the party auto-succeeds (unless we're short on time).

Edit - That having been said, I've just started DMing a new campaign, and there are a number of spots where I'll be foreshadowing big reveals to come much later. If the character ask the right questions (they probably won't, but you never know) at those times, there's almost no way for me to react a to a perception roll without giving way too big a hint about something I don't want to divulge for a while.

In situations like that, instead of asking for a roll, I'll try to nonchalantly roll myself behind a screen. It does get them suspicious, but not as much as them rolling a "1" or a "20" and me giving virtually any answer that won't be shown to be extremely misleading down the road. Sort of along the lines of "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Tanarii

2017-01-13, 10:17 AM

Fishyninja

2017-01-13, 12:41 PM

"Oh, the Triklin clan? Are they the ones that evolved into fish?" "WHAT? That's the stupidest thing I've ever hear...wait, that's it, It's an F-sharp chord!"

Surely you me an F-carp chord!

I'll see my slef out.

Going back to OP, Only way I've seen this dealt with is allowing players to assist giving them advantage. Again unless there need to be a specific reason for lots of rolls I would say if the first roll (regardless of aid) or not fails, then they have to think of another tactic (i.e. of brute force hasn't worked move onto magical means or something else).

Ruslan

2017-01-13, 12:51 PM

Option 1: Just provide information to whoever is proficient. No rolls.
DM: You see a glowing orb - who's proficient in Arcana?
Susan: Miralissa is.
DM: Miralissa recognizes the orb as a <whatever>
Joe: Does Grog know anything else about it?
DM: Lacking arcane training, Grog doesn't.

Option 2: Trained-Only checks. Declare in advance that, in knowledge skills, high DCs (for example: above 15) are out of reach of untrained characters. Only Miralissa can roll.

Option 3: Passive checks. Just like Passive Peception, players have Passive Arcana, Passive Religion, etc. Anyone with Passive Arcana 15 or higher knows it. Anyone without doesn't.

Option 4: Embrace the status quo. Fluff it neatly.
Susan: I rolled 2 for Miralissa's Arcana.
Joe: I rolled 19 for Grog's Arcana.
DM: As the wizard scratches her head, the barbarian recalls a tribal legend his elders were whispering around the campfire ...

For feats of strength such as breaking doors: there are only 3 outcomes of dealing with a door:
1. Break it on first try thus possibly surprising whoever's on the other side.
2. Break it, but not on first try, thus ruining any chance at surprise.
3. The door is too strong to be broken, even if the entire party works together.

Whenever a party comes to a door, I check my notes. Unless (in very rare cases) we're dealing with case (3), I give them exactly one chance to roll to break it down. If they succeed, it's case (1) - door broken on first try. If they fail, it's case (2) - door broken eventually. There are no rolls beyond the first.

N810

2017-01-13, 01:00 PM

Well you could cater that a success means depending on what player succeeded with their roll and how skilled they are...

The party finds a glowing orb; (arcana roll)

(-1) Barbarian: rolls a 15, He knows it's shiny so it's probably magical and therefore dangerous.

(+3) Druid: rolls a 17, the trees tell him that they fear magic the orb.

(+7) Wizard: rolls a 19, it's an orb of fireballs, and has 3 charges a day.

Tanarii

2017-01-13, 01:07 PM

Option 1: Just provide information to whoever is proficient. No rolls.
DM: You see a glowing orb - who's proficient in Arcana?
Susan: Miralissa is.
DM: Miralissa recognizes the orb as a <whatever>
Joe: Does Grog know anything else about it?
DM: Lacking arcane training, Grog doesn't.

Option 2: Trained-Only checks. Declare in advance that, in knowledge skills, high DCs (for example: above 15) are out of reach of untrained characters. Only Miralissa can roll.5e doesn't have trained. Proficiency is not training. In theory, anyone can roll any check, although DM & Player may agree that a certain character couldn't have any chance to do something because reasons.

But IMO saying "only proficient characters can make a check" is flat out an unfair DM judgement call that defeats the entire purpose of the ability check system in 5e. A character with Int 16 (+3 bonus) and no proficiency is supposed to be just as good at all Int-checks as any proficient character with a +3 total bonus. Ditto for any other non-proficient ability score vs proficient ability score check ... if they have an equal bonus, they are equally good, and from whatever source the player cares to define.

For example, my EK with Int 16 might be defined as highly trained from an academy at Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion, as well as general mnemonic devices & other memory tricks and have picked up a lot of other lore along the way. And yet have not a single proficient since he has not specific focus. Meanwhile my Int 10 cleric with Proficiency in Religion might have no formal training, and have all his knowledge of Religion divinely granted by his Deity. Or the Int 10 Ranger/Druid/Barbarian with Nature just has picked up Nature information ... but less than the EK. Rogue with Investigation might just have a natural knack for independent deductive thinking. In all cases, there's no justification for the latter characters getting to make a check when the EK with a higher bonus can't.

Pex

2017-01-13, 01:09 PM

Too often I have seen DMs just let everyone roll. I find it personally bothersome too. It's been a problem since 3E. The only "solution" I've seen used is player self-enforced don't metagame and let the dice roll have you arbitrarily play your character accepting the result even though you as player know there's more that's being missed. Not everyone does it, and the DMs who are allowing anyone to roll don't see it as a problem or at least haven't expressed it as being a problem.

I like the solution of just having one player roll with Advantage when it's not a true Group check like party stealth. It's simple to do and you can just get on with the game. While not succeeding will have an effect a success would not, it wouldn't or shouldn't lead to a catastrophic result like a TPK or total mission failure. If a particular roll is crucial that's a separate consideration.

Obligatory mention: Given my previous rants against the 5E skill system, this issue has nothing to do with that.

Ruslan

2017-01-13, 01:12 PM

But IMO saying "only proficient characters can make a check" is flat out an unfair DM judgement call that defeats the entire purpose of the ability check system in 5e. A character with Int 16 (+3 bonus) and no proficiency is supposed to be just as good at all Int-checks as any proficient character with a +3 total bonus. Ditto for any other non-proficient ability score vs proficient ability score check ... if they have an equal bonus, they are equally good, and from whatever source the player cares to define.
I agree that this is what proficiency means in the rules as written. To clarify, I'm talking about a house rule, that will be communicated to the players at Session 0, so they can take it into account at characters creation. Under this proposed house rule, proficiency will mean something else.

Tanarii

2017-01-13, 01:18 PM

not a true Group check like party stealth.As far as I know, Stealth is never used as a group check. That doesn't mean a DM couldn't come up with a situation where they call for one, just that there aren't any built in ones. And the stealth rules already cover the most common stealth situations.

ie surprise is determined by a single failure meaning the whole group fails. Basically, Stealth is usually the exact opposite of the the One Success to Rule Them All situation.

MrStabby

2017-01-13, 01:43 PM

I think the skills are fine as they are - so i won't recommend the following but it does maybe address some concerns.

Put limits in place to the die rolls. If you are non proficinet any roll of a 16+ is treated as a 15. If you are proficient any roll of a 4 or less is treated as a 5.

This helps ensure that there is a bit more chance of the proficient character getting the result.

Spacehamster

2017-01-13, 02:08 PM

If changing anything I am for letting everyone roll but when not proficient you get a disadvantage on the roll(maybe not for perception
and athlethics).

SharkForce

2017-01-13, 02:15 PM

some things i've considered:

- for low DC checks that are almost guaranteed, just decide that the group makes it, and assign the success to the PC who should know it.
- if you are requiring checks where the outcome wouldn't be known, hide the rolls (if you insist on having the players roll, you could roll a hidden die or flip a coin to determine whether higher or lower is better, but you'll need to be quick on your subtraction or they'll notice the delay). if necessary, you can have each player pre-roll a bunch of times for you to use any time you need a secret roll that they wouldn't know is being made. each time you use one, cross it off.
- if a check is required, there should be a chance that they will get a bad result. not just on any failed check, of course. this could even be something like "on a modified X or lower". this means that someone with, say, +5 to their skill check will never return false information or offend the important official or embarass the group so thoroughly that future intimidation checks are at disadvantage when X is 5, but a person with -1 to the check will do so fairly often. note that X does not need to be the same for every check.
- there is basically a sweet spot where a good bonus is worth a lot, and the whole party making checks is worth less. 20 is indeed going to be hard, but if you put more checks at around 17-19, you will likely see a single higher modifier (especially if they can get advantage from help) become more valuable, even without making it impossible for the full group to try.
- you could also allow retroactive help in non-combat situations. as in, after the high modifier PC fails, someone else tries to help and gives them a reroll. that should help the high bonus PC succeed more often in groups where they forget to help in advance.
- have something more to offer on a very good roll with a higher bonus. a persuasion check that barely hits the DC gets you what you wanted. a persuasion check at a higher value might get the NPC even more enthusiastic, and they'll give a little extra bonus... you wanted guards posted somewhere, DC 17 gets you guards, DC 22 means the NPC decides it's your plan so you can hand-pick the guards to include someone they trust more, or maybe the guards have slightly better gear than normal or when the guards sound the alarm response time to that alarm will be one round quicker by other NPCs. this means that the higher modifier still won't always be the one to succeed, but they will occasionally get something cool that others won't get from just a regular success, which should help make their +7 in arcana (or whatever) feel more valuable each time that happens. obviously, you shouldn't generally make these "extras" something that they will absolutely need for the plot to advance, otherwise you stand a high chance of the plot not advancing.

EliteChoboHax

2017-01-13, 02:23 PM

Honestly, the way i play, if someone who is better at something than my character fails a check, i refuse to try. It makes zero sense to me that the guy with the **** skills, luck out and manage to pull it off over the guy who is actually good at it. Evidently, if the guy with the skill cant do it, then naturally i cant either. Sometimes you need to remember this game is a Roleplaying game, not a Boardgame. Seems thats a thing a lot of people forget these days

Hrugner

2017-01-13, 02:43 PM

It depends on the thing, I usually just let it go. If it's a knowledge check then the party is pooling their knowledge and experience on a topic and regardless of who succeeded the roll, the most proficient one is the one who put together all the facts and came to the right conclusion. For social things, they can't all make the same check. You can have a bad cop and a good cop, but two good cops is useless. So you have someone intimidating and someone persuading and you can generally get somewhere. Strength checks are made relative to your ability, they are pushing yourself beyond the default stat. If a strength 10 person and a strength 20 person make the same rolls, the strength 20 person did something amazing while the strength 20 person may have achieved what a strength 14 person normally can.

othaero

2017-01-13, 03:00 PM

One method is to allow the rolls but use the mod instead of the number.
Example: 5 man party trying to pass a history check dc 18
Wizard rolls a 12 doesnt succeed

Rogue decides to roll and roll an 8 so it becomes a -1 wizard now has a 11

Fighter rolls a 14 so +2 so now the wizard has a 13

Cleric rolls a 20 so +5 and your wizard has an 18

But the barbarian roll a 6 (-2) dropping it to 16.

It just ends up with you narrating it to fit. As the cleric mentioned a fact about a an ancient priest king the barbarian farted causing the wizard to lose his idea. This way if everyone throws dice down it will affect the character who know the thing and the players can all feel like they helped (or hurt)

orange74

2017-01-13, 03:04 PM

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that there are just about always solutions to these issues.

If it's a knowledge check, if you don't want them to know, they don't know, and if you do, they do; otherwise, set a DC and see what the dice say. If they want to all have a try, let them all have a try, ONCE; a failure could represent, "You do not have this knowledge," not, "You can't think of this right now." Or they could all sit down and try to puzzle it out, and do ONE group check. You can tell them this or let them roll all day... "The wizard rolls a 20." "Nope, still nothing. What's on TV?"

If it's a lock or a gate, it can break or dislodge a pile of stones or whatever after N failures, or you could alert a band of hungry trolls. Or each failure could increase the DC by 5, which could represent increased frustration or fatigue or messing up the doohickey or whatever. The DM can decide whether a given check should be impossible, possible, or automatic, and allow or disallow or modify die rolls accordingly, with whatever RP explanation is necessary for the situation and the game.

mAc Chaos

2017-01-13, 03:19 PM

I change the method depending on the situation.

If it's something everybody could affect like Stealth, I do the "group roll." If it's some super specific knowledge, I'll look for people with proficiency in it. If it's something anyone could know, I let them all roll individually.

But I definitely don't like when people metagame, that is, they only try to roll because they saw the number the player rolled out of character. It's not like the character knows the roll was flubbed. And you can bet the player wouldn't be asking if he rolled well.

CaptainSarathai

2017-01-13, 03:26 PM

Here's how I've always handled it:

Knowledge checks require training or an explanation (character) why you might have the knowledge in this particular case. Then everyone who is eligible rolls.

Other checks, like picking a lock, moving a boulder, searching for a hidden door - they are different.
Anyone who wants to roll can roll once. If you fail, you cannot try again unless you have a higher modifier to the roll or find a way to use a different roll. Example: the boulder.

The party comes to a boulder blocking the path. The Fighter has Str16 but no Athletics (+3 to roll), but attempts to roll the boulder aside. He fails.
Horog, the Goliath Barbarian has Str16 and Athletics, for a total of +5 to his roll.
"Step aside puny human,"
But Horog rolls a 2 and also fails.
The rest of the party has just witnessed their biggest, strongest ally attempt to move this boulder and fail. Why should anyone else believe that they can do it?
So they need a new plan. Maybe if the Fighter and Barbarian work together. So they get the Help bonus, changing the nature of the roll.
They fail again. Trying that method a second time is pointless, they'll just wear themselves out against the rock.
The Wizard, being smart, suggests using a lever, and they get a giant branch to use as a lever. This changes the nature of the roll yet again (advantage now, or something the DM awards for clever thinking)
The Barbarian and Fighter work together with the lever, and the rock tumbles away.

Also, good Dungeon/Encounter/Adventure design means that there should never be a check that the party must pass. For example, locking them in a room with only a single DC20 door is pointless: if they can't open that door, theyre trapped. They might spend an hour rolling checks on that door before it gives way. So there's no sense in making them roll.
If they fail, there should still be a way past that door. Either someone comes and opens it from the other side at some point, or there is a secret passage that can be found. Either option should have a drawback - if the guard opens the door, the party loses the element of surprise, or the secret passage is full of traps.

If there's a DC20 lock on the door, it's a DC10 to knock it down, and there's a DC5 hidden passage somewhere.
If it's a DC15 trap, it doesn't do much damage to the party if they have to just "take it" to get by. If it's a DC5 trap, it does LOTS of damage, because they should be able to disarm that without even rolling.

JoeJ

2017-01-13, 04:00 PM

I only roll knowledge checks if they need an answer right this second. If the PC can take a few minutes to think, I'll assume that at some point during that time they rolled a 20 and give them the appropriate information.

It's not all that common for me to set a DC for information, though, because in most cases anything that's actually important is either something the party needs to know in order to continue, or something they need to not know yet because it would spoil the adventure.

N810

2017-01-13, 04:05 PM

Our DM has us roll group knowledge rolls for stuff our characters should know but us as players have forgotten,
usually because of the lag between game time and real time. (also it's usually in our notes somewhere...?)

MeeposFire

2017-01-13, 04:28 PM

There also can be times where different characters may find that certain tasks are more difficult than others for the base difficulty.

I do this sometimes when I think it is appropriate. For instance there is a question that requires a relatively obscure bit of arcane knowledge to know. Now for those who know really nothing the check will be difficult because the only way to know is through randomly hearing somebody or reading it in a book. With a higher int and some major luck you might know the answer. If however you took the time to practice/study arcane knowledge on top of the random reading or hearsay you have had a lot more opportunities to see this which means that the base difficulty is less and that combos well with your extra skill in this area.

This does not apply all the time but it can make those who are specialized in certain skills feel like they are extra special without making it impossible for the other characters to try if they like.

Outliar

2017-01-13, 04:35 PM

One possible solution would be to lower all the DCs and then make the players roll a lower dice like a d4 or d6 or something.
For a d4 for example, if the DC is 7 the guy with +4 or +5 can easily succeed whereas the guy with +1 or -2 has no chance.
Personally though I don't really mind the way the skill system is set up, if its possible for the them to do something let everyone try and someone will probably get lucky, if it is impossible for them to do something (or they all fail but it was possible) let everyone try and they still fail so they have to come up with a different plan.

JellyPooga

2017-01-13, 06:11 PM

If you're calling for a check when everyone can roll without consequence, and one success is a group success, unless it's a very high DC, you've wasted your time calling for a check in the first place. Something where a group of people can all work together and only one of them needs to succeed should be very easy for a bigger group to pass. Basically, those aren't interesting checks. Why are you making them in the first place? Just treat them as an auto-success.
(@Tanarii; this post isn't entirely directed at you, per se; I've just used your quote here as a starting point!)

I find the problem doesn't so much come up with checks that you as GM are calling for, but checks where one player has asked to roll, you've said "ok, DC:X, let's see what happens", they've failed and then the rest of the party (who take the assumption that there's some value to success because you granted the roll in the first place) rolls too.

Now you could turn around and say "nope" to the other rollers, or "fine, you auto-pass", but as I mentioned before, a permissive GM style makes for less sulky players (I find...maybe it's just my players that get sulky when I tell them "no") and letting them "get away with it" by ganging up on things only encourages them to do it again...which kind of defeats the whole point of the Aid Another/"Teamwork" approach (i.e. giving the skilled guy Advantage). The "Band-Wagon" roll should never occur, but there's often no good reason not to allow it when it inevitably comes up.

"Band-wagoneering" a check, to me, defeats the intention of the rules laid out for team efforts; i.e. that working together grants Advantage. If a check was meant to be an auto-pass, group check or not, then it would have been an auto-pass. The fact that you've allowed a character to roll at all implies that it's not intended to be an auto-pass. The other players jumping in to make it an auto-pass, when it isn't supposed to be, is where the problem lies. DC:15 should be a valid DC whether it's a group attempting it or not. Not every group of any 5 people should know almost every possible piece of information that DC:15 will reveal. If that were the case then pub-quizzes would have to be a hell of a lot harder! :smallbiggrin:

Add the notion that every now and then, doing something collectively is often-times more counterproductive than productive and you arrive at the Forced Group Check I suggest in the OP. If the Players want to make a plan of attack and co-ordinate their efforts; great, the best character for the job rolls once with Advantage. If they want to go in half-cocked, let one guy try and only if he fails then everyone else piles in with their attempt/idea; then you're looking at something that could go either way.

If they've individually got a reasonable chance of success, the half-cocked method still has a better chance than one guy trying (on the whole), but it actively avoids the problem of players that want to "have a go" despite having no talent in that area (e.g. the puny Wizard kicking down the door or the dull Barbarian making the Arcana check that the Wizard failed) because his likely failure works against the groups success. The ideal would be to have Players that don't try to do things they know they're not good at, but this houserule actively discourages them from it.

deathadder99

2017-01-13, 06:26 PM

Copy pastad from another thread where this came up.

I don't like making everyone roll generally, because that basically guarantees a success at my table of 8 people. However, I tend to choose people to roll and give everyone a chance to be in the spotlight.

I always pick the player with the highest chance of success (invested in the skills), but I also pick another unproficient player usually just based on who's been involved the least. If there are multiple players with proficiency, I let them perform the help action and let them decide on who to actually make the roll. This makes "pooling" knowledge fair, and means that everyone who's actually invested in that skill gets a chance to shine.

If the "experts" fail, then the non-proficient character rolls. This often ends up as a failure, but if it succeeds then it's a great way of giving a character who otherwise feels useless some time in the spotlight. If the int 6 barbarian rolls a 17 on his arcana check, and remembers the McGuffin from a story his mother used to tell him as a child, then it's not like they suddenly know everything about the McGuffin - but they know enough to jog the memories of the "experts", which is enough to give the party the knowledge they need.

Banning people without proficiency from rolling outright is grossly unfair (and what if no one in the party has that skill?), and I find that getting everyone to roll for something tends to be tantamount to passing out an autosuccess. The numbers balance out quite well, and I don't mind non-proficient characters succeeding on a roll because with my system they will only get that chance after the "experts" have failed.

kyoryu

2017-01-13, 06:32 PM

So, for example, a barred door will eventually give if the barbarian keeps kicking it. You shouldn't need to roll for that unless there is a cost for failure.

Exactly. In older versions of D&D, the cost was a wandering monster check.

In more modern games, I'd be tempted to look at it this way: A character, given infinite time and resources, will likely succeed at any task they set their minds to. So, what is the thing that is the limiting factor?

In the case of the door, it might be "well, if he keeps banging on the door, eventually orcs will show up." Then that's your failure condition. "Nothing" is a poor failure condition.

MarkVIIIMarc

2017-01-13, 07:23 PM

Lonely Tylenol

2017-01-13, 07:35 PM

It's an easy answer, but misses one thing; Players like throwing dice!

Yeah, but if I let the players do whatever they wanted because they "liked doing it", I'd have a lot of dead characters for many unrelated reasons.

Also, I've had enough players try to railroad the party for the sake of their Mary Sue/Marty Stu wish fulfillment fantasies and torture porn fetishes that I've had it permanently ingrained into my programming to be able to just say "no" when the players demand to do implausible stuff without good reason. Sometimes circumstance or prior history/knowledge dictate whether someone can attempt a check. Lao Feng decided to investigate the rustling in the brush, so he got a chance to roll Perception when the unicorn bolted from the clearing further into the woods. Sasha wants a chance to see it? Maybe she should have investigated the rustling in the brush. Sasha's player isn't happy with this? Well, too bad.

Theodoxus

2017-01-13, 10:47 PM

This is a huge pet peeve of mine - even expressed it in that Pet Peeve thread a while back. I've been looking at various solutions to the problem. I originally (and may still) went the 'only proficiency gets to roll, except for Perception and Investigation checks.' I feel this encourages people to collaborate on picking as diverse a set of skills - something an adventuring party would want... who wants to travel with 4 sages and an acolyte?

After reading the thread, I do think the Group Check alleviates the desire to roll dice while not guaranteeing that there will be a success.

@Tanarii "But IMO saying "only proficient characters can make a check" is flat out an unfair DM judgement call that defeats the entire purpose of the ability check system in 5e. A character with Int 16 (+3 bonus) and no proficiency is supposed to be just as good at all Int-checks as any proficient character with a +3 total bonus. Ditto for any other non-proficient ability score vs proficient ability score check ... if they have an equal bonus, they are equally good, and from whatever source the player cares to define."

The Reliable Talent ability disagrees with you. Mechanically, you're correct, but if the smartest man in the world sat in an isolation chamber for 12 years, he'd have 0 chance of knowing anything that had happened in the world in that time. Sure, it's absurdum, but it makes the point. Attribute mod =/= proficiency.

MeeposFire

2017-01-13, 10:58 PM

Theodoxus

2017-01-13, 11:12 PM

If the man was in complete isolation how would the proficient man do any better? If you have no way of getting the info one way or the other then that sounds like a great time to invoke the no need to roll rule because it is impossible to succeed.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Let's say, you have the worlds smartest man (We'll give him a 21 Int, for giggles). He's groks everything that's put before him, but hasn't taken the time to master (become proficient) in anything. He decides the world is an ugly place and decides to sequester himself for a decade.

Next, we take a man, not as smart... say, 10 Int. The decade the WSM is in seclusion, this NAS man studies his ass off, gets his PhD in world politics, and is working in the CIA as a top agent, compiling briefings for the president.

You're telling me the proficient CIA agent isn't going to know more than the isolated smart guy when he finally comes out of seclusion?

Temperjoke

2017-01-13, 11:33 PM

For me, the whole issue about everyone taking a chance to roll seems like a meta-gaming issue. I mean in real-life thinking, a guy who was stronger than me couldn't shove the boulder out of the way himself, why would I, someone physically weaker than him, think I'd have a chance? I'd start looking for an alternate method, which in game terms, would be a different roll. Maybe that means he and I both try together, maybe I start looking for a switch or lever; either way, I wouldn't try the exact same thing as he did. Likewise with trying to make a knowledge check. If it's something I haven't had any training in, why would I do anything but stare at the other people?

Tanarii

2017-01-13, 11:45 PM

(@Tanarii; this post isn't entirely directed at you, per se; I've just used your quote here as a starting point!)
np I do that kind of thing all the time.

I find the problem doesn't so much come up with checks that you as GM are calling for, but checks where one player has asked to roll,Well, that's never a problem for me. Players don't ask to roll. Ever. They tell me what they are doing, and I determine if a check is necessary, and what it is.

as to the rest of your post, I try not to determine a resolution until I know what pcs are doing. if players want to 'me too' they need to do it before I determine resolution. After that we've moved on. Otoh I tend to take into account and ask things like "is anyone helping" or "who is is X" or "are you guys discussing this between yourselves?"

(Edit: this is important, because what kind of resolution is necessary is, as you touch on, dependent on who the hell is involved, how long they're taking, and many other factors. Resolution isn't necessarily an action by action thing. It's necessary for an event ... which could involve multiple parties or a period of time.)

Several reasons people don't always join in: Because there are henchmen and other npcs around, and because often talking (and arguing) are noise that could draw attention. Because I usually don't call for checks unless there's a meaningful consequence for failure, so you can drag the group down if it's a group thing. Because (and this one is very common) if everyone is stupidly gathered around trying to do the same thing in a dungeon, that's always when the monsters attack.

But yes, I agree that bandwagoning as you describe it is silly, but if something could be done by more than one person one after the other, it doesn't seem like there is particularly a meaningful consequence for failure. Other than 'you don't succeed yet'.

I do agree however that knowledge checks, in the form of you know/you don't know, are a sorta kinda exception to that. Which is why I either accept that yes they're easy checks and should be, so either use passive, just tell everyone to roll at once (and generally assume they'll pass if they're a big enough party), or make it a group check on the basis they're discussing it but some of them will be wrong and hold on to their positions, and others will argue minutia ad naseum. Like its some kind of forum post or something. :smallbiggrin:

MeeposFire

2017-01-13, 11:53 PM

I'm not sure what you mean.

Let's say, you have the worlds smartest man (We'll give him a 21 Int, for giggles). He's groks everything that's put before him, but hasn't taken the time to master (become proficient) in anything. He decides the world is an ugly place and decides to sequester himself for a decade.

Next, we take a man, not as smart... say, 10 Int. The decade the WSM is in seclusion, this NAS man studies his ass off, gets his PhD in world politics, and is working in the CIA as a top agent, compiling briefings for the president.

You're telling me the proficient CIA agent isn't going to know more than the isolated smart guy when he finally comes out of seclusion?

Your example was a man put into complete isolation and then was going to be asked about what happened during that time. It does not matter if you are the smartest man or well studied man either way since you had no input since you were isolated you would have no way of knowing what happened.

If you were trying trying to say that a smart man left isolated but the studied man was not then I am going to have to stop you right there as that is a ridiculous comparison because if you switched the situation around then the well studied man still has no idea what is going on and the smart man has the better chance. IF you meant the studied man gets info while in seclusion then that is also an invalid comparison since that would violate the idea of being isolated.

From your example it sounds like you are saying one guy shuts himself out of the world while the other is not isolated at all. How is that a fair comparison of how the two cross?

The real comparison is how they look at the info looks at the information and just uses his personal intellect while the other who in this example is not as smart relies on various aspects of training to get similar (or worse or better depending on the level of skill and the level of intellect involved) results. In both cases you cannot really expect somebody to know information on something that they have no access to. If you asked the worlds smartest mathematician (highest int possible but did not care at all about anything else) from the 1600s and the worlds most average man in intelligence but is fully trained in history, politics, and what not who would be the first president of the USA guess what neither man would know because there is no way for them to get to any conclusion.

Tanarii

2017-01-14, 12:02 AM

hasn't taken the time to master (become proficient) in anything. proficiency means focus. It doesn't mean you're mastering something. All it means is being better at that particular subset of that kind of ability check than the others of the same ability check. That doesn't (necessarily) mean Mastering, Training, or Practice. Nor does a lack of proficiency imply a lack of those things those with a higher ability score and no proficiency can easily be considered heavily trained & having mastered all aspects of using it compared to those lower ability score and only a few proficiencies for that score.

Theodoxus

2017-01-14, 12:05 AM

Tanarii

2017-01-14, 12:07 AM

A smart guy, with no proficiency, is just as good at rolling for some obscure bit of knowledge as the dumb guy who's actually studied it.
Again, proficiency != studied, and no proficiency != not studied. This is an assumption you are making that is not required by the rules.

Theodoxus

2017-01-14, 12:18 AM

Again, proficiency != studied, and no proficiency != not studied. This is an assumption you are making that is not required by the rules.

My assumption is no less valid than yours. And is in fact supported by the fluff surrounding both abilities (Reliable Talent) and options (Proficiency Dice - DMG pg 263).

Your assumption is based on a cultural bias not necessarily borne out in the rules.

I'll stick with mine, you can stick with yours.

MeeposFire

2017-01-14, 12:26 AM

You do know what reductio ad absurdum is, right? That's my point. Of course it's ridiculous.

What people are arguing is exactly what you're stating is ridiculous! A smart guy, with no proficiency, is just as good at rolling for some obscure bit of knowledge as the dumb guy who's actually studied it.

Yes I do know what that means except when you use reductio ad absurdum it has to make a point and you did not.

In fact it proves the point that you do not want. If you put either character into this situation of being isolated for 12 years (or any character for that matter) then none of them are going to be able to answer the question correctly thus they ALL automatically fail and thus are equivalent in this example. Since the position of the people you argue against are that the total mod is the only thing important and not prof in a skill then this totally fits what they say.

Your example does not prove that being proficient or just being highly intelligent has any differences all it actually does prove is that there are situations that no matter how smart OR trained you are you can still have no chance at answering the question.

This example of reductio ad absurdum would work fine if the only thing we were trying to prove was whether it was possible for the worlds smartest man could not know something but that is not actually what people are arguing. You are trying to prove something that is not the argument. Your example to work would need to show how the two would be different in the same situation otherwise we get into useless things like me saying

"if we put the prof man in isolation for 12 years he would have 0 chance of knowing anything during that time"

That being true just makes it seem that attribute mod=prof since they get the same answer of not being able to know. Your example is flawed for this purpose.

EvilAnagram

2017-01-14, 12:35 AM

I have a system for dealing with this. If a player asks a question that requires a knowledge roll, that player and no others gets to roll. If two or more players are talking in character and come up with something that requires a knowledge roll, one of them gets it with advantage. In combat, they get to make a knowledge roll and on success receive a note card with monster facts in it. They may only share information for six seconds per turn.

Tanarii

2017-01-14, 01:40 AM

My assumption is no less valid than yours. And is in fact supported by the fluff surrounding both abilities (Reliable Talent) and options (Proficiency Dice - DMG pg 263).

Your assumption is based on a cultural bias not necessarily borne out in the rules.Except yours isn't born out by the rules, as shown by the way you have to introduce special rules to make the system math work for you.

I'll stick with mine, you can stick with yours.
Of course. That's the beauty of the game. As long as we're enjoying it as a group, we can make it work however we need to for our group.

Edit: there's no reason a player can't interpret their proficiency as practice or training or whatever they want. But the moment you start assuming that proficiency (and only proficiency) is mastery level training and therefore must always be > raw ability score, the numbers suddenly don't work and you need to start introducing fiat rules like proficiency only checks.

djreynolds

2017-01-14, 02:51 AM

I would say: no. Group checks are useful for a few very specific things (like group stealth), but they don't solve this problem. Making failure matter and not calling for rolls when it's likely that *someone* will succeed if they all try are the best solution(s).

So, for example, a barred door will eventually give if the barbarian keeps kicking it. You shouldn't need to roll for that unless there is a cost for failure. If they're in combat and each roll costs an action, failure suddenly matters and you will almost certainly not see the other PCs piling in with "let me have a go," because the cost of all of them focussing on the door while monsters are on the prowl is too high. They need to hold the monsters off until the barbarian breaks the door. So the 'conundrum' disappears thanks to the encounter design.

100% unless there is a cost for failure. And I try to see players as adventurers first, and they pick up stuff as they level up. A 10th level barbarian knows what a fireball is. A wizard can try to break down a door... firebolts should do the trick if they lack the muscle

I only enforce trained checks to keep everyone viable in the game and to let all the players shine. That's the key.

If a player wants to roll all the time, I tell them maybe you should train with the wizard during your off time. Maybe take the skilled proficiency or magic initiate feat.

Yes the paladin's intimidation check is higher, but for some reason only the fighter is proficient... then he better make the check.

I want to include all the players at my table, some of it is player growth, not just character but the actual player.

Tanarii

2017-01-14, 09:46 AM

I only enforce trained checks to keep everyone viable in the game and to let all the players shine. That's the key.

Proficiency only checks keep everyone from always being viable and forces them into niches to shine. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

What you want is niche protection, not enabling everyone to be viable and shine.

Theodoxus

2017-01-14, 11:09 AM

For me at least, it's to stop the chaos of:

DM "Ok, Johnny, roll Insight on the grand magistrix."
Johnny: "uh, 13."
DM "Ok, you..."
Chorus of other players "I wanna roll"; "I got a 14"; "I got a modified 20!"
DM: ...

Which I think is the crux of the OPs argument. It's one thing in combat, or even in uncontested skill challenges, like breaking open a cell door or moving a boulder. But during social interactions? The grand magistrix is just going to sit there while the party takes 30 minutes real time (probably 12 seconds of game time) to whisper to each other about what they think the GMs motives are?

So yeah, if I need to impose a houserule that reins in the stupidity without having to turn normal diplomatic relations into blood baths, so be it.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-01-14, 11:20 AM

D&D 5E does not simulate grand magistrices.

Half of the people in this thread are creating their own problems.

Edit: I noticed I misread the above post: I thought the first player was the grand magistrix (most suitable for rolling). The implied criticism still holds for a number of people who choose a flavour interpretation of the system without taking its design into account and then complain about its output. I had intended to sit out this particular instance of this thread, though, having been active in the last two or so...

djreynolds

2017-01-14, 11:47 AM

Proficiency only checks keep everyone from always being viable and forces them into niches to shine. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

What you want is niche protection, not enabling everyone to be viable and shine.

I see what you're saying.

But I like the players who took say deception to be the ones to use it all the time, not to exclude others but to give everyone a moment to shine.

I often find some players at the table, shy or whatever, aren't "in the game" and I want them to own a part of the game. Find that area where you are the best in the party.

So I enforce some stuff, not to take away from other players... I want more involvement from "that" player. The veterans at the table take over and that poor newbie is all quiet.

You know, you are the ranger and it is your nature check or survival check and if you fail it... your party is eating roots and grubs if they're lucky

Other players can lend a hand and give advantage. Obviously a sorcerer is gonna be great at all the social skills and that's okay... but share the spotlight with the others.

Tanarii

2017-01-14, 12:16 PM

I see what you're saying.

But I like the players who took say deception to be the ones to use it all the time, not to exclude others but to give everyone a moment to shine.Thats niche protection. And it does exclude all others, to give the focus to one specific person. That's the entire point of niche protection.

You can call it 'give everyone a chance to shine' if you like, but it's still exclusionary niche protection.

Edit: I'm not saying it's all bad. That's what class archetypes do as well, to a degree. But you don't need to enforce unintended mechanical approaches to the skill system to accomplish it. For starters, IMX most players won't try to do things they're not good at, provided there consequences for failure when you call for single roll checks.

It all boils down to that. If players are willingly making checks when they're not very good at it, or all dogpiling on a check, you're probably calling for checks that don't have consequences for failure. Which is very common, since 3e (which introduced the skill system) encouraged making checks to determine outcomes even when there weren't consequences other than 'you don't succeed right now' for failure. Even 5e adventure writers still think in that 3e mindset.

Xetheral

2017-01-14, 12:25 PM

Edit: there's no reason a player can't interpret their proficiency as practice or training or whatever they want. But the moment you start assuming that proficiency (and only proficiency) is mastery level training and therefore must always be > raw ability score, the numbers suddenly don't work and you need to start introducing fiat rules like proficiency only checks.

I thought your original point, in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21594922&postcount=16) post, was that it was unfair to implement proficient-only checks because proficiency doesn't represent anything special. But in the above quote, it sounds like you're claiming the converse, that proficiency doesn't represent anything special because if it did you'd need to introduce proficient-only checks.

Can you clarify? It's not clear which argument you're making.

Well, that's never a problem for me. Players don't ask to roll. Ever. They tell me what they are doing, and I determine if a check is necessary, and what it is.

Your experience is 180 degrees apart from mine. My players are constantly looking for ways to use their abilities (including skills) in ways to achieve their goals, and I like that; it means they're engaged and interested. I also like it because when players are on the lookout for where they can use their skills, it's somewhat less work for me to try to remember everyone's proficiencies to make sure they're all relevant at some point. Just a like a spellcaster can try to affect the game world by selecting a spell to cast, I have no problem with players trying to affect the game world with their skills.

That being said, I agree with the OP that it's a problem when others want to roll only upon seeing the most-skilled character fail. To date I've simply only allowed it if it made sense that a retry by someone else might help, but I quite like the enforced group checks idea that's been floated in this thread, and may try it out.

Proficiency only checks keep everyone from always being viable and forces them into niches to shine. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

What you want is niche protection, not enabling everyone to be viable and shine.

Niche protection can mean several things, not all of which I'm in favor of, but in this case isn't niche protection how you give everyone a chance to shine? If everyone can attempt every check and has roughly-comparable odds of success, I would argue that no one ever gets a chance to shine.

Edit to address:

It all boils down to that. If players are willingly making checks when they're not very good at it, or all dogpiling on a check, you're probably calling for checks that don't have consequences for failure. Which is very common, since 3e (which introduced the skill system) encouraged making checks to determine outcomes even when there weren't consequences other than 'you don't succeed right now' for failure. Even 5e adventure writers still think in that 3e mindset.

Even when success is guaranteed, it's fine to call for a roll to determine the degree of success. I'm consciously trying to remember to do that more often, because I find it helps to boost the value of a high check modifier despite the noise produced by the disproportionate random element of the d20. That way, characters with higher modifiers both succeed more often AND can get better results.

JellyPooga

2017-01-14, 12:46 PM

Your experience is 180 degrees apart from mine. My players are constantly looking for ways to use their abilities (including skills) in ways to achieve their goals, and I like that; it means they're engaged and interested...[snip]...I have no problem with players trying to affect the game world with their skills.

This is the way I like to run my games as well. I've found that open-worlds and permissive GMing styles make for a more relaxed, entertaining and immersive game experience. As soon as the GM starts getting restrictive, whether it's with plot, rolls or whatever, it starts hammering home the point that a) it's just a game and that b) "I'm in charge"...these two things may be true, but by reminding the players of it, it creates a (anti-?)social environment that I don't particularly want when I'm roleplaying.

I quite like the enforced group checks idea that's been floated in this thread, and may try it out.

I'd be interested to hear how it turns out for you, if you do; I've not had a chance to try it myself yet.

Tanarii

2017-01-14, 12:55 PM

I thought your original point, in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21594922&postcount=16) post, was that it was unfair to implement proficient-only checks because proficiency doesn't represent anything special. But in the above quote, it sounds like you're claiming the converse, that proficiency doesn't represent anything special because if it did you'd need to introduce proficient-only checks.

Can you clarify? It's not clear which argument you're making.Theyre the same argument. So I'm not sure what needs to be clarified.

Your experience is 180 degrees apart from mine. My players are constantly looking for ways to use their abilities (including skills) in ways to achieve their goals, and I like that; it means they're engaged and interested. I also like it because when players are on the lookout for where they can use their skills, it's somewhat less work for me to try to remember everyone's proficiencies to make sure they're all relevant at some point.So you like your players to be rollplayers? /strawman :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, there is a world of difference between looking for ways to do things you know your character is good at, and asking if you can make an Intuitition or Arcana check. For starters, the latter assumes the player knows what kind of check the resolution requires, or for that matter if a check is required at all. Tell me what you want to accomplish and the method you want to use to do it. If you tell me you want to roll an Arcana check, at best I know mechanical bonus you hope to use. I'm still missing the information I need to effectively adjudicate the action.

Niche protection can mean several things, not all of which I'm in favor of, but in this case isn't niche protection how you give everyone a chance to shine? If everyone can attempt every check and has roughly-comparable odds of success, I would argue that no one ever gets a chance to shine.Ya 'getting a chance to shine' is kind of a opinion-able statement as to what qualifies, I touched on that a bit in my second post about it.

However, what niche prevention (at least this version of it) does is take away player agency ... they can't decide to take any action the feel is appropriate, then let the DM determine appropriate resolution. Instead they're banned from taking an action making a roll. (edit: strike through to indicate that even I can fall into the trap of thinking the roll is the action. /dammit)

(Of course, as I just pointed out, asking to make a check ALSO isn't taking an action, nor letting the DM determine appropriate resolution.)

Edit to address:
Even when success is guaranteed, it's fine to call for a roll to determine the degree of success. I'm consciously trying to remember to do that more often, because I find it helps to boost the value of a high check modifier despite the noise produced by the disproportionate random element of the d20. That way, characters with higher modifiers both succeed more often AND can get better results.Yah, IMO degree of success is a pretty good way to handle consequences for failure.

djreynolds

2017-01-14, 01:04 PM

Thats niche protection. And it does exclude all others, to give the focus to one specific person. That's the entire point of niche protection.

You can call it 'give everyone a chance to shine' if you like, but it's still exclusionary niche protection.

Edit: I'm not saying it's all bad. That's what class archetypes do as well, to a degree. But you don't need to enforce unintended mechanical approaches to the skill system to accomplish it. For starters, IMX most players won't try to do things they're not good at, provided there consequences for failure when you call for single roll checks.

It all boils down to that. If players are willingly making checks when they're not very good at it, or all dogpiling on a check, you're probably calling for checks that don't have consequences for failure. Which is very common, since 3e (which introduced the skill system) encouraged making checks to determine outcomes even when there weren't consequences other than 'you don't succeed right now' for failure. Even 5e adventure writers still think in that 3e mindset.

You guys always have good advice, and perhaps its on me as a DM for not "forcing" players to optimize just a little bit more.

Some players are lazy and the player next to him has a really good concept, his skills and abilities all blend and flesh out. And the other players character.... frankly sucks. But I need to get these players involved.

It could be me DMing,

I have really great players... and crappy ones. And its tough because players get excluded

So I will say, "hey you ranger, shooting the bow... we are outside in the woods. Its is your show." And the veterans at the table give a little prodding.

But I always get great advice here, helps me as a DM.

Xetheral

2017-01-14, 02:04 PM

Theyre the same argument. So I'm not sure what needs to be clarified.

Far from being the same argument, they appear to literally be the converse of each other. I'd like to discuss the subject further, but because of the conflicting statements I'm not sure which one of (paraphrasing) "proficiency doesn't represent anything special" or "proficient-only checks are bad" is your conclusion and which one is your evidence.

(Unless you're arguing that the two statements are logically equivalent? But in that case you'd need to provide evidence of such equivalence, and you didn't do so in either of the posts I referenced.)

So you like your players to be rollplayers? /strawman :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, there is a world of difference between looking for ways to do things you know your character is good at, and asking if you can make an Intuitition or Arcana check. For starters, the latter assumes the player knows what kind of check the resolution requires, or for that matter if a check is required at all. Tell me what you want to accomplish and the method you want to use to do it. If you tell me you want to roll an Arcana check, at best I know mechanical bonus you hope to use. I'm still missing the information I need to effectively adjudicate the action.

Hmm. Perhaps we actually have a very similar approach, but just differ on whether or not it's ok for the player to mention the die roll? My players are still telling me what they want to accomplish and their chosen method, they're just also asking if they can resolve that attempt with a particular skill. Knowing how the player would prefer to resolve it mechanically is valuable information to me as a DM, and I still have all the same resolution options you do--I just have more information I can use to make the decision.

Ya 'getting a chance to shine' is kind of a opinion-able statement as to what qualifies, I touched on that a bit in my second post about it.

However, what niche prevention (at least this version of it) does is take away player agency ... they can't decide to take any action the feel is appropriate, then let the DM determine appropriate resolution. Instead they're banned from taking an action making a roll. (edit: strike through to indicate that even I can fall into the trap of thinking the roll is the action. /dammit)

"That task is too hard for your character to accomplish" is still the DM determining the appropriate resolution. I don't think it makes a difference whether the task was too hard because the DC was too high or whether it was too hard because the character lacked the right proficiency. Either way a roll can't succeed, so you don't call for a roll. The impact on player agency from denying the roll seems identical in both cases.

Yah, IMO degree of success is a pretty good way to handle consequences for failure.

Glad we agree. :)

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-15, 01:26 AM

JellyPooga is right that people are likely to make an attempt when they perceive the consequences for failure as acceptable vs the potential gain from success.

That seems like it should be the case (and always would be)

Armok

2017-01-15, 01:41 AM

I feel like it's also important to weigh whether or not having multiple people performing the same task is actually helpful. Let's take the one I run into most commonly at my table, the infamous "one player declares a perception roll and everybody else follows suit."

Let's also assume that they're in a dungeon. While everybody is so absorbed in the task of scouring the room, who's paying attention to whether or not roaming monsters are coming to check out the ruckus? Or whether everybody is being effective in their search, or just double triple checking the same wall where nothing actually is? If it's persuasion or intimidation... Well, one person trying to be nice and then the other one getting all aggressive doesn't make a great impression. Or if somebody fails to persuade an NPC, and then somebody else tries because they have a better score, wouldn't the DC go up from the NPC becoming more galvanized against the party's views from the pestering?

More people doesn't always equal better.

djreynolds

2017-01-15, 01:58 AM

Is there a ruling in the PHB or DMG about multiple ability/skill checks? And positive or negative modifiers if any? AFB

DivisibleByZero

2017-01-15, 08:33 AM

JellyPooga

2017-01-15, 09:25 AM

I haven't read through the thread, but the way I handle it is like this :
Players don't tell me when they're rolling something. Instead I tell them when to roll.
-- Joe, roll Int: History.
-not-
-- Anyone can roll History.
Players: in going to try, too.
--No, it was Joe's idea and Joe's action, Joe rolls it.
Players: But I'm better at it and he failed.
--You don't even know he was thinking of it.

This is applicable to some things, but very often it's not so simple to say "no". For instance;

- The players come across an old vase. You ask Joe for a History check to see if he can identify it from the pictures engraved on it. What possible reason is there to prevent other players from attempting the same and gaining a valuable (but non-essential) clue?
- Joes character says that he's using Investigation to study the puzzle door before him, you roll secretly for him and he fails, so you tell him he comes up with nothing. The other players, wanting to see what treasures lie beyond this non-essential door, jump on the band wagon and say they want to try too.
- The players figure out the puzzle, but are paranoid about traps. Joe searches for traps (Perception) and doesn't find any. Everyone else tries too.
- The party finds no traps, but there's a regular lock on the door too. Everyone tries to pick the lock (even though no-one is proficient).
- The door doesn't open, so they try brute strength. Everyone has a go.

In all of the "door" cases, loss of time is a consequence of individual failure yes, but with everyone rolling, the chance of them succeeding without a significant cost of failure is significantly higher when "everyone has a go" than I believe is intended by the rules presented for team efforts (i.e. give advantage to one guy). Introducing a massive cost for failure seems ungracious; it could just be a treasure room intended as a reward for passing a couple of moderate skill checks and/or a little ingenuity. In that hypothetical scenario, I wouldn't want to give the players the treasure just for there being five of them in the party, but nor would I want to kill them for failing to get through it. The "band-wagon" roll doesn't allow me to present this kind of feature easily.

I hear the argument of "don't give the players inconsequential challenges if they can just gang up on it", but I'm just not buying it. There are greater nuances between "only someone of great skill can possibly achieve this" and "any group of 5 people can auto-pass it".

orange74

2017-01-15, 10:39 AM

pwykersotz

2017-01-15, 10:41 AM

This is applicable to some things, but very often it's not so simple to say "no". For instance;

- The players come across an old vase. You ask Joe for a History check to see if he can identify it from the pictures engraved on it. What possible reason is there to prevent other players from attempting the same and gaining a valuable (but non-essential) clue?
- Joes character says that he's using Investigation to study the puzzle door before him, you roll secretly for him and he fails, so you tell him he comes up with nothing. The other players, wanting to see what treasures lie beyond this non-essential door, jump on the band wagon and say they want to try too.
- The players figure out the puzzle, but are paranoid about traps. Joe searches for traps (Perception) and doesn't find any. Everyone else tries too.
- The party finds no traps, but there's a regular lock on the door too. Everyone tries to pick the lock (even though no-one is proficient).
- The door doesn't open, so they try brute strength. Everyone has a go.

In all of the "door" cases, loss of time is a consequence of individual failure yes, but with everyone rolling, the chance of them succeeding without a significant cost of failure is significantly higher when "everyone has a go" than I believe is intended by the rules presented for team efforts (i.e. give advantage to one guy). Introducing a massive cost for failure seems ungracious; it could just be a treasure room intended as a reward for passing a couple of moderate skill checks and/or a little ingenuity. In that hypothetical scenario, I wouldn't want to give the players the treasure just for there being five of them in the party, but nor would I want to kill them for failing to get through it. The "band-wagon" roll doesn't allow me to present this kind of feature easily.

I hear the argument of "don't give the players inconsequential challenges if they can just gang up on it", but I'm just not buying it. There are greater nuances between "only someone of great skill can possibly achieve this" and "any group of 5 people can auto-pass it".

I'm curious, what would be an optimal outcome of eliminating this problem? I get that you don't want bandwagon rolls to steamroll casual but still meaningful game elements, but what would it look like if we succeeded? Would players be prevented from rolling at all (such as by gatekeeping via proficiency) or would they just have a minimized chance of success (such as in 3.5 where if you weren't stacked in a skill, you were irrelevant)? Or would it be something else?

If we can identify the optimal outcome, then a method can be identified that reaches that outcome.

Personally I use some combination of all of the aforementioned ideas. Extra consequences, gatekeeping via proficiency, group checks, Aid Another, and so on. The situations where skill rolls come up just get so varied that I try to identify the method that is the most sensible in that moment to resolve the issue. The method that most closely fits the pacing and theme of what we're doing.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-15, 10:47 AM

Is there a ruling in the PHB or DMG about multiple ability/skill checks? And positive or negative modifiers if any? AFB

It depends on the task.

For social interaction, yes, multiple checks won't typically do any good (and are very likely to fail or make the situation worse) unless there's been some change in the conversation.

I.e. Character 1 (C1) might sweet talk someone, only to have character (C2) say something stupid, negating everything C1 did. More attempts aren't likely to get a better outcome if the other people attempting are bad at figuring out the targets ideal, bond, and flaw.

If there's no consequence for failure, than if the character could succeed eventually, given enough time they should succeed. (It's just a question of time). So you might say, did you want to keep at it? And if they say yes, you could be like: Ok, you keep trying to pry the gem out of the statue and after a few minutes you hear it starting to loosen, and after 15 minutes it breaks off and clatters to the ground, glowing faintly.

Regarding intelligence checks, as long as it was reactive (which is to say, passive) I would compare to every characters passive Int (applicable skill) score. If someone wanted to positively identify something they would get to roll, and if they failed and actually said something like: I can't make heads or tails of this, what do you make of it? Or; I think it's a puzzle box from the Atiliea period, but I don't know how to open it (pass it to other players who then get to roll and maybe have differing opinions)

JellyPooga

2017-01-15, 11:26 AM

Joe finds an old vase.

"I attempt to identify the vase."

"Roll a History check."

Joe rolls. "I got an adjusted 12."

"You're pretty sure it's from Bognogistan."

Joe tells everybody it's from Bognogistan. However, unbeknownst to him, the DC to identify the vase was 25.

Everybody rolls, because they can.
- Fred: "I got 15"
- Mary: "I got 14"
- Frank: "I got 27"

"Fred, Mary, you agree with Joe"
"Frank, you're pretty sure Joe's wrong; you think it's from Gongobistan."

Joe: "Ah, I must have been wrong. Frank got the highest."

This sort of scenario can play out with hidden rolls ("What are the odds of three getting a success and only one failing? If it was that easy, we wouldn't be rolling. Let's go with Franks idea") and passive checks ("Frank's got the best Int mod, he must be right"). Granted the frequency of it is lower if you keep the Players in the dark, but if nothing's stopping the Players from attempting, then they will attempt and if the result is binary then (as Tanarii put it) the "One roll to rule them all" is all they need.

Tanarii

2017-01-15, 11:39 AM

- The players come across an old vase. You ask Joe for a History check to see if he can identify it from the pictures engraved on it. What possible reason is there to prevent other players from attempting the same and gaining a valuable (but non-essential) clue?If they can talk among themselves, why didn't you make this a group check in the first place?

- Joes character says that he's using Investigation to study the puzzle door before him, you roll secretly for him and he fails, so you tell him he comes up with nothing. The other players, wanting to see what treasures lie beyond this non-essential door, jump on the band wagon and say they want to try too.Why is joe telling you what kind of check he's making? Why are you rolling secretly instead of using passive checks? Why didn't you call for a group check in the first place, if the group can discuss it? Why isn't it an auto success, if at least one person can pass with a 20+bonus, only one of them needs to figure it out, and there isn't a time limit.

- The players figure out the puzzle, but are paranoid about traps. Joe searches for traps (Perception) and doesn't find any. Everyone else tries too.why didn't is already get covered by Passive checks from those who can see the door? Why isn't this an auto success if they have unlimited time and they all search for 10x the normal amount, and at least one can succeed. Why shouldn't everyone get to roll once if they give it a one round search each? Are they in a safe place where all this focus and time can be spent without concsequnces, ie they stop watching for other enemies approaching?

- The party finds no traps, but there's a regular lock on the door too. Everyone tries to pick the lock (even though no-one is proficient).Same as the trap questions above,

- The door doesn't open, so they try brute strength. Everyone has a go.Same as the trap question above, but now they're making noise each time they try.

I hear the argument of "don't give the players inconsequential challenges if they can just gang up on it", but I'm just not buying it. There are greater nuances between "only someone of great skill can possibly achieve this" and "any group of 5 people can auto-pass it".
You didn't give any examples of them yet though. Every one you've given is 'every group of 5 is likely to pass it', should be a passive check, has no particular interesting consequences for failure other than 'you failed', and apparently is in a safe location where they can all focus on one single thing at a time and take all the time they like and make as much noise as they like.

So ... why are you calling for these checks again? Group check for the history/puzzle thing, Passive checks for the others if they're in a hurry or auto-succeed if they're not, move on with the fun part of the game ... choices and consequences, rather that this really easy resolution.

Edit: fix quote tags

JellyPooga

2017-01-15, 12:05 PM

If they can talk among themselves, why didn't you make this a group check in the first place?

That's...kind of what I'm saying. If Joe asks to make a History check (or whatever) and then everyone "Band-wagons"...make it a Group Check instead of "One Roll to Rule them All".

Why is joe telling you what kind of check he's making?
Because it informs me of the kind of approach he wishes to make without having to be skilled in that area as a player.

Why are you rolling secretly instead of using passive checks?
Passive Checks have their place. When chance is desired, that is not it.

Why didn't you call for a group check in the first place, if the group can discuss it?
They didn't say they were, they just decided to after the first player rolled.

Why isn't it an auto success, if at least one person can pass with a 20+bonus, only one of them needs to figure it out, and there isn't a time limit.
Because that...is boring and defeats the object of the "succeed at X, get reward Y" scenario.

Leith

2017-01-15, 01:17 PM

I don't see the problem with band-wagon rolls as being a success vs failure thing. DMs have a huge fetish with the idea of character failure and while this is understandable it is a bit silly. Players will succeed at stuff. You want them to. Otherwise you never get to tell them all the cool historical facts you put into your story, they can't make it past the front door and they'll never find and disable a single trap. That said, just cause everybody is rolling doesn't mean someone will succeed, failure is still possible, it has been done.

Here's a thought: if I set a DC 10 check that somehow the most skilled character failed, what is the harm that one of the others will roll well enough to succeed? I set a DC 10 because it is a relatively moderate task, thus I expect success. Change the DC to 15 and my expectation changes but the odds of someone unskilled succeeding, even if everyone rolls, diminish. Most importantly to my point above, I don't care if they succeed or fail at a single test, if I did I wouldn't let them roll.

The problem I see with band-wagon rolls is that it is annoying. If everybody wants to search for traps it's not a big deal. If the rogue rolls bad and then everyone wants to roll... Well that's metagaming, isn't it? Not that I have a huge problem with metagaming, D&D is a game, you can't fault people for trying to play it well. Still it doesn't feel in the spirit of the game. The simplest solution to this sort of thing is to roll the dice for the player in secret. This is useful for some things but can again feel wrong in others, players like to roll their own dice.

The solution? Actually the OP's group check thing ain't bad. What it boils down to though, is simply deciding whether to say "Yes" or "No." Much as what others have said with regard to gate-keeping, if a player wants to roll a check you, the DM, are the arbiter of whether that check has any chance of success or failure. Decide if the answer is "Maybe" and if it isn't just tell the players that. In other words, if you don't like band-wagon rolls just tell the players, "Nope, too late to roll. You're pretty confident in the rogue's abilities even though he rolled an 11."

DivisibleByZero

2017-01-15, 01:30 PM

Passive Checks have their place. When chance is desired, that is not it.

So your solution is to have everyone roll individually, almost certainly guaranteeing success.... and this is somehow makes more sense than a passive check?
I'd argue that individual checks actually create less chance because success is almost certain by someone rolling well.

Passive with disadvantage.
Passive.
Passive with advantage.
Single roll with disadvantage.
Single roll.
Single roll with advantage.
Passive group check with disadvantage.
Passive group check.
Passive group check with advantage.
Individual checks with disadvantage.
Individual checks.
Individual checks with advantage.

Those options don't contain a viable choice for you?

Tanarii

2017-01-15, 04:39 PM

That's...kind of what I'm saying. If Joe asks to make a History check (or whatever) and then everyone "Band-wagons"...make it a Group Check instead of "One Roll to Rule them All".

They didn't say they were, they just decided to after the first player rolled.Fair enough. Retroactively make it a group check. :smallwink:

Because it informs me of the kind of approach he wishes to make without having to be skilled in that area as a player.Ya I can kind of see that if I squint. And Xetheral pretty much answered the same thing.

Passive Checks have their place. When chance is desired, that is not it.When secret checks are desired, that's what it's for. If it's not a secret check, just let the player roll it. IMO and YMmV. But it's one of the two reasons they're there for.

Because that...is boring and defeats the object of the "succeed at X, get reward Y" scenario.Checks are boring when the players have all the time they need and there is no consequences for failure. You're effectively letting them all roll until at least one of them succeeds ... which they should be able to do in the circumstances you're describing.

Note: rearranged your post a little because two things were about group checks.

Saeviomage

2017-01-16, 12:37 AM

IMO the DM should apply some real life mayhem if the wrong people roll.

What if in real life a party consisting of us at a Trivia night has to put our/their heads together to answer the question, "Who were the Vietnamese at war with immediately before the United States."

Those with proficiency in history like a hypothetical poster named "Bob" probably know the French. Others may say the Japanese and who knows what else you'll get from people who don't know.

Most likely "I don't know". That's why having a trivia team typically beats having one person.

Now if someone has more Charisma than Bob thinks its the Japanese or whoever they may convince the party Bob's answer of the French is incorrect.

Typically this has more to do with confidence than with charisma.

So, let the DM have fun with the rolls and apply the mayhem of a wrong answer if the wrong people roll.

I think what's necessary is to generate some sort of confidence for wrong and right answers. Bob can be right, but unsure. Other characters can be wrong and very sure. Tying this to the DC and roll doesn't really work: it's not actually a common occurrence that a low skill/stat character should be sure about an incorrect fact. OTOH, making it an independent roll doesn't work either: characters who pass the DC by a lot should usually be very sure. Normal failures are just "I don't know".

I think a critical 1 on the check that is a failure should result in a wrong answer that the supplier is very sure about, probably by the amount that you miss the DC by (ie - the less you know, the more you think the answer must be right). Conversely, you should be more sure about an answer the more you pass the DC by.

Once you do that, you can secretly roll everyone's check and then tell them their answer and how confident they are.

Malifice

2017-01-16, 12:56 AM

Group checks are your friend.

Use them often.

They work great for knowledge checks too, because (if the group succeeds) you can reveal the info to them as a group (instead of fiddly note passing).

For knowledge checks I also often only let one or two PCs attempt the check. They have a background, backstory,experience or some other justification as to how they might know the information. Be generous but let the players explain why they should get a roll (rational and fair explanations, not whiny justifications).

When I play, I only make knowledge checks for stuff my PC would probably know. I expect my players to play by the same rules.

The other option is to impose a penalty for failure. Fail on a knowledge check against a Red Dragon by 5 or more?

DM: 'Your PC remembers a story told to him by an old Hermit that dragons vision is limited to only seeing motion. Apparently they dont attack you if you curl into a ball. On your first turn you dont move and instead must take the Dodge action as you attempt to put this (bad advice) into practice.'

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 12:57 AM

I think what's necessary is to generate some sort of confidence for wrong and right answers. Bob can be right, but unsure. Other characters can be wrong and very sure. Tying this to the DC and roll doesn't really work: it's not actually a common occurrence that a low skill/stat character should be sure about an incorrect fact. OTOH, making it an independent roll doesn't work either: characters who pass the DC by a lot should usually be very sure. Normal failures are just "I don't know".

I think a critical 1 on the check that is a failure should result in a wrong answer that the supplier is very sure about, probably by the amount that you miss the DC by (ie - the less you know, the more you think the answer must be right). Conversely, you should be more sure about an answer the more you pass the DC by.

Once you do that, you can secretly roll everyone's check and then tell them their answer and how confident they are.

Or you can realize that checks are just a resolution method, and not a simulation, and just have it be a group check, where they agree on the right answer if they pass and either disagree or don't know if they don't. You don't need to simulate each individual's thinking specifically.

Edit: okay that's a bit strong. You certainly can do it the way you're saying. I just think it's unnecessarily complicated and simulationist. However, it does seem like a good way to simulate of 'sureness'.

djreynolds

2017-01-16, 03:08 AM

This is a good conversation and basically we 3 or 4 ideas presented by Mr Pooga

1 Everybody rolls, lady luck here I come

2 Trained only, unfair to the paladin with a charisma of 20... its not his fault the fighter with a charisma of 6 is the only guy who took persuasion and intimidation, you have only 4 skills to choose

3 Group checks, which I assume is the average of everybody's proficiency, non-proficiency, and -/+ ability modifiers... probably good for stealth

4 Teamwork, we the party will aid the fellow team member with either the best chance to succeed, like a bard with expertise in persuasion or who's roll is relevant, say the fat cleric in full plate trying tojump over a wall

1. This is fair, "chance is fair" and in game where you might only realistically get 4 skill proficiencies it doesn't mean you have no input in the other skills, but it can overwhelm

2. Trained only, again unfair to the elf wizard with a dex of 20 with no dexterity skill proficiencies but clearly better at sleight of hand than the 17th dwarven champion with an 8 dexterity and +2 because of remarkable athlete.

But I often use this to make players involved in the game, I'm lucky to have 5 players show up to play

3. This isn't bad if a party is trying to talk its way out of that Red Dragon eating them and they are all pleading... aside from the paladin who says "go for it"

4. Teamwork, the cleric casts guidance on the rogue and the bard inspires with a pep, and the ranger with a high dex, also skilled in thieves' tools is aiding the rogue on a crazy trap. Or the party is climbing a cliff and has to help out the wizard, who is currently upside down hanging onto the rope

Now I'm AFB and I guess this really only matters if failure has real consequences.

But the with the current skill system even if you are proficient in a skill, someone with a higher ability modifier is at least equal to you at level 17, and prior to that +6 bonus is probably better than you for most of your career.

And I find it hard to believe a fighter is going to take the skilled feat at 4th level and +2 to charisma at 6th.

My issue is unless you have the ability score and the skill proficiency, you have a below average chance at level 17, say +5/+6 on a roll to beat a skill check of greater than DC20+

If you increase the proficiency bonus in anyway than expertise becomes "god-like"

The other issue is that skills are tied to ability scores, that make certain classes predisposed to take certain skills... and if you want to be good at a skill you may have to increase an ability score that gives you nothing else in return, aside from a meager save boost.

And so you are left with particular classes performing particular tasks, especially with AL rules and standard array and point buy. Clerics with perception, barbarians with athletics, rangers and survival, charisma classes and social skills. Or you are forced to multiclass to make that oft used ability score count for something more.

I really do not understand how an adventurer, say a mage with 8 in strength at 1st level still has an 8 in strength at 20th level... surely all that adventuring and walking and fighting built some muscle mass.

How can a barbarian with an 8 in intelligence become a 20th level barbarian with an 8 in intelligence? She must have learned something along the way.

Perhaps all ability scores could progress with character levels, and leave feat progression tied to classes?
The game would be more powerful this way, and DMs would have to adjust, but it would make sense that a paladin's dex and intelligence get better with experience, life, adventuring. I think this way a character feels more rounded

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 09:13 AM

3 Group checks, which I assume is the average of everybody's proficiency, non-proficiency, and -/+ ability modifiers... probably good for stealthStealth is already explicitly a 'if anyone fails to beat passive perception, the enemy is not surprised'. I'm not sure when stealth group checks would be appropriate, or why people keep trying to bring it up as if it should be when the rules are pretty clear it needs to be 100% success rate for the most common application, your group vs perception of enemy group.

Group checks are for when more people succeeding will result in a group succeed, but more people failing will result in a group failure. In other words, the perfect example is 'lore' or 'memory' checks, if the group is discussing it among themselves. Same with intuition to decide if someone is lying.

IMO "One success to rule them all" is actually a terrible simulation of a lore check or intuition check, because groups almost never work that way when discussing something. They WILL disagree and debate. Despite that, people constantly try to use it as an example. Better examples are picking a lock or breaking down a door or searching for something. And those example are good ones, because they are a single success, and each person must try one after the other. Luckily the rules already cover this: if you have time and you can succeed, you automatically succeed after ten times as long. If time is pressing, each person that wants to spend time right now can roll, and that means they're not doing something else right now.

The other issue is that skills are tied to ability scores, that make certain classes predisposed to take certain skills... and if you want to be good at a skill you may have to increase an ability score that gives you nothing else in return, aside from a meager save boost.

And so you are left with particular classes performing particular tasks, especially with AL rules and standard array and point buy. Clerics with perception, barbarians with athletics, rangers and survival, charisma classes and social skills. Or you are forced to multiclass to make that oft used ability score count for something more.
Not true at all. Classes have masses of off-ability score focus. And the only way to get many matching-ability score skills is to pick specific combinations of race or background. For example Elven Clerics, or Cleric Sailors.

For example ALL classes get one Int proficiency. Yes (sadly) it's somewhat commonly a dump stat. Most classes get Intuition even though Wis is often a dump(ish) stat for them. Rangers and Monks and Rogues and Bards all get Athletics, and Ste id definitely a dump stat for the first three.

Proficiency with ability score 10 vs primary ability are approximately on par. Level 1 prof is the same as ability score 15, which is the best you can do without a racial bonus under standard array. Level 5 vs ASI at 4. Level 9 vs ASI at 8. Level 13 vs ASI at 12. They're designed so you can have one OR the other and be effective. If you combine them, that's great. But don't fall into the optimizer trap of thinking you must match your proficiency elections to your class primary ability score. That's 3e thinking.

But that's hardly surprising really ... this entire thread's premise is based on 3e thinking on skill checks, not 5e thinking on ability checks. 3e regularly expected checks for things without consequences for failure, contained many "One success to Rule them All" checks, used checks to determine if if something was possible instead of if you succeeded, and bred a generation of players that told you what skill they were rolling instead of what they're character is doing.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-16, 09:24 AM

My group does stealth in weird way.

One player can choose to "lead the stealth" and other people who choose to follow them use the leader's roll.
However, the other followers roll stealth as well, and if they roll anything other than a 1 they're all fine. But if one of the followers rolls a one, the stealth is broken for the leader and all followers.

So usually there's the best person at stealth leading it, and then the second best will not choose to follow but rather to take an alternate route. Then everyone else will follow the leader; with some medium and heavy armour people rolling disadvantage it can get quite tense, but doesn't require every player who doesn't have stealth to stay behind while simultaneously making stealth a good investment.

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 09:25 AM

Checks are boring when the players have all the time they need and there is no consequences for failure. You're effectively letting them all roll until at least one of them succeeds ... which they should be able to do in the circumstances you're describing.

I do admit to being a little old-school in this regard; for most checks, if you try and fail then unless you do something significantly different to change the circumstance ("Let's try casting Enhance Ability" after failing to kick down a door, for example) than you typically don't get to try again, regardless of how much time you have. The roll has established that your character is incapable of this feat (like pre-3ed Thieves had to go up a level before they could try to pick a lock again if they failed).

Some things, e.g. searching a room, are practically guaranteed given enough time; it's just a process of elimination (unless an object is exceptionally well hidden; i.e. DC:20+). Many things aren't; to take the two running examples;
- History check: No amount of thinking will magically pop the knowledge into your head.
- Str check vs. door: For whatever reason, you personally are incapable of this feat (maybe you're tired, maybe you threw your back out in that last fight, perhaps you're too tall/short to apply the right leverage/pressure in this case...whatever).

The fact that the DC has been set to (for instance) 15 is, as you said to Saeviomage, merely a resolution method, not a simulation. That a die roll has been asked for implies there is some chance of success or failure; if there were not that chance we could use Passive Scores as a kind of "gated" auto-pass/fail (e.g. "You have Passive Str 13? Ok, you kick the door down"). If an individual Player wants to rinse and repeat, then I'm happy to deduct time for the repetition and compare the DC to their Passive Score as their average effort (eliminating the possibility of their initial attempt being a "bad roll"), but I'm not going give every DC<20 away for free just for taking even more time. That defeats the point of having the check in the first place and I don't buy that anyone with a +0 mod can achieve any task of DC<20 given enough time; that simply is not true. Time =/= Success.

Now, all of the above is in discussion of an individual Player. When a group shows up, then this applies to each of them equally. Why wouldn't it? (I ask rhetorically). Another Player "having a go" is often a legitimate change of circumstances, yet it skews the odds of the task being a success when more than one other Player "has a go" individually; either it should've been a team-effort (Aid Another) or a Group Check in the first place which, for the kind of checks being discussed here, largely depends on whether everyone pitching in is beneficial to the activity or not (which it not always is). Hence the retroactive Group Check thing, as you put it.

You could allow the players to retroactively give Advantage to the first roller instead, but I feel that the "Band Wagon" mentality should be discouraged in favour of telling the GM what they're doing before resolving any checks to allow him/her to make an appropriate call on what resolution mechanic to use.

As for the consequence of failure; that's entirely scenario dependent, of course, but in the case of the door we've been discussing; the price of failure is the frustration at not knowing what's behind that damned door! :smalltongue: Ham up a bit of atmospheric setting description and Players will tear their hair out at simply "not knowing"; they'll search the entire dungeon for the key, they'll go back to town and buy a battering ram, they'll hire a Giant to smash it or a Dwarf to take it off at the hinges. After they go to whatever extreme lengths they take to get through, the reward might pay off (or might not), but nothing satisfies my sadistic side more than the look on their faces when I tell them it was only DC:15...

In all seriousness though, the consequence of failing at such a task need only be the failure itself and that isn't an option for any DC<20 if you allow players keep rolling or auto-pass for time taken (though granted, "loss of time" can often be a significant consequence in its own right).

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 09:33 AM

I do admit to being a little old-school in this regard; for most checks, if you try and fail then unless you do something significantly different to change the circumstance ("Let's try casting Enhance Ability" after failing to kick down a door, for example) than you typically don't get to try again, regardless of how much time you have. The roll has established that your character is incapable of this feat (like pre-3ed Thieves had to go up a level before they could try to pick a lock again if they failed).See this is your major error right here. And thats not old school. You're using checks to determine if something is possible, rather than if you've succeeded. Despite what I just said in my last post, I'm not even sure that's 3e thinking ... but certainly that's when it became prevalent.

You're doing it backwards. Unless there is a change of state such that the characters can no longer continue, they should be able to continue. Stop using single checks to determine if something is possible, and instead use it to determine if the characters have succeeded. And if there is no change in state such that it can no longer be possible, they can try again. If there is no limit in time and there is no change in state, they automatically succeed per the DMG rules.

Basically, your problem is happening because you're not following what the game says to do, and not thinking about checks the way the game says to.

Edit: examples of change of state:
1) NPC is unsure of something. You try to persuade, intimidate, or deceive him. DM revolves by appropriate Charisma check. NPC is now sure, one way or the other.
2) group discusses what something means or how to solve a puzzle or the like. DM resolves by group Intelligence, possibly (Lore or Investigation), check. Your group has now (collaboratively) decided it means X, or that they have no idea what it means/actively disagree.
3a) Attempt to pick a lock. Lock pick breaks in lock. Cannot try again.
3b) attempt to pick lock to escape combat. Attempt fails. Cannot escape combat next round.
4) attempt to break down door. One PC makes ONE check, which fails. Enemy on other side hears. Can still break down door (probably without further checks), but enemy is now aware.
5) attempt to surprise enemy. Group rolls, one fails, enemy is not surprised by PCs.

Things that aren't a change in failure state
1) attempting to pick a lock with unlimited time
2) attempting to break down a door with unlimited time and no repercussions for making noise
3) attempting to remember something you know
4) attempting to find something with unlimited time

There's one that's DMs regularly do that drives me nuts: use an Int check to determine if you know something or never knew it. Not to recall something you know, but to determine if you knew it. :smallannoyed:

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 10:02 AM

See this is your major error right here. And thats not old school. You're using checks to determine if something is possible, rather than if you've succeeded. Despite what I just said in my last post, I'm not even sure that's 3e thinking ... but certainly that's when it became prevalent.

3ed pioneered the "keep trying until you succeed" mechanic with take-10/20. Before that, you pretty much got one go at a check and if you failed you had to go up a level to try again.

If there is no limit in time and there is no change in state, they automatically succeed per the DMG rules.

Which is a rule I largely disagree with in many, if not most, cases. Particularly knowledge checks. Taking 10 minutes to think about something will not magically grant you knowledge.

Basically, your problem is happening because you're not following what the game says to do, and not thinking about checks the way the game says to.

Well yeah, because the game doesn't make sense taken at face value in this regard. Repeated attempts at something that is within your ability to succeed at does not mean that you will definitely succeed at that thing. For example; I am intellectually capable of repairing an engine. No matter how much time I spend trying, however, I will probably never succeed because I am not trained in that task. I might get lucky because I'm a smart sort of person and know some of the basics, but it's a bit of a long shot but if I don't get it at first, I'm just going to have to call someone that can. Even if I was trained at fixing engines, the problem might be one I'm unfamiliar with; even mechanics ask other mechanics for help. The problem might not even be that tricky to solve.

More time solves some problems, not all. To think otherwise is...well, a bit daft.

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 10:10 AM

3ed pioneered the "keep trying until you succeed" mechanic with take-10/20. Before that, you pretty much got one go at a check and if you failed you had to go up a level to try again.Before that skill checks didn't exist, so that's manifestly not correct.

Which is a rule I largely disagree with in many, if not most, cases. Particularly knowledge checks. Taking 10 minutes to think about something will not magically grant you knowledge.Intelligence checks aren't there to determine if you know something or not. They're there to determine if you recall something. If you don't know it, that's an automatic failure. If you know it but might not remember it, that's an Intelligence check, possibly with a proficiency bonus from a Lore skill. Taking 10 minutes to remember it will be an automatic success, provided it is possible for you to make the DC at all.

Well yeah, because the game doesn't make sense taken at face value in this regard. Repeated attempts at something that is within your ability to succeed at does not mean that you will definitely succeed at that thing. For example; I am intellectually capable of repairing an engine. No matter how much time I spend trying, however, I will probably never succeed because I am not trained in that task. I might get lucky because I'm a smart sort of person and know some of the basics, but it's a bit of a long shot but if I don't get it at first, I'm just going to have to call someone that can. Even if I was trained at fixing engines, the problem might be one I'm unfamiliar with; even mechanics ask other mechanics for help.You will never succeed because the DC is too high for you to possibly succeed, even with a 20.

If you can succeed *right now* which one check, but you only get one shot at doing it = roll a check for this time period (often one round, may be longer)

If failure state did not change = roll again next time period.
or
= someone else rolls

If you can succeed with a 20+ bonuses, and you have 10 times as long as one check = automatic success rule

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 10:30 AM

Before that skill checks didn't exist, so that's manifestly not correct.

Ability Checks, (some) Non-weapon Proficiencies and Thief Skills beg to differ.

Intelligence checks aren't there to determine if you know something or not. They're there to determine if you recall something. If you don't know it, that's an automatic failure.

Let's say I'm playing a Wizard, proficient in Arcana. How do you establish, for example, if I get to "roll to recall" or auto-fail at, say...knowing that Genies are creatures of Elemental Air? Do I, the Player, have to tell you everything that my character knows in advance so that you, the GM, can determine what I do or don't know and whether to ask for a roll or not? Of course not, that's ludicrous. How else might we establish my characters knowledge? Hmm...how about an Int (Arcana) check? Sound kind of sensible to you?

Sure, if I've established something in my background or during play, that my character knows or is in/capable of, then yeah you can throw around some auto-pass/failures to speed things up or whatever. For other things, however, we cannot know absolutely everything a character may or may not know. Int checks are a reasonable, game friendly, way of establishing such things.

You will never succeed because the DC is too high for you to possibly succeed, even with a 20.

Unless the mechanic is high level, with Expertise and Reliable Talent, the DC is probably too high for him as well, if that's the case. No, fixing a car is not often that tricky a task; the DC for such things is usually and probably should be quite low. That doesn't mean that just anyone can come along, spend an hour or two and fix that car. Even if they spend weeks on it, without changing their circumstances (e.g. reading a manual or something), they'll never do it. They could get lucky; they might just have heard a snippet of info that will fix this particular problem, they might even do something by accident that fixes it. But, in game terms, if you've established that they're not going to get it "by luck" (i.e. by rolling a die), then that's it; you can't keep "trying" to be lucky. Either you're lucky or you aren't.

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 10:38 AM

Ability Checks, (some) Non-weapon Proficiencies and Thief Skills beg to differ.

Let's say I'm playing a Wizard, proficient in Arcana. How do you establish, for example, if I get to "roll to recall" or auto-fail at, say...knowing that Genies are creatures of Elemental Air? Do I, the Player, have to tell you everything that my character knows in advance so that you, the GM, can determine what I do or don't know and whether to ask for a roll or not? Of course not, that's ludicrous. How else might we establish my characters knowledge? Hmm...how about an Int (Arcana) check? Sound kind of sensible to you?

Sure, if I've established something in my background or during play, that my character knows or is in/capable of, then yeah you can throw around some auto-pass/failures to speed things up or whatever. For other things, however, we cannot know absolutely everything a character may or may not know. Int checks are a reasonable, game friendly, way of establishing such things.Sure. Provided you allow rerolls and the automatic success rule. If you chop those off without a change in failure state, you're doing something not intended by the rules. Any problems that result are the result of you choosing to do something not intended by the rules.

Unless the mechanic is high level, with Expertise and Reliable Talent, the DC is probably too high for him as well, if that's the case. No, fixing a car is not often that tricky a task; the DC for such things is usually and probably should be quite low. That doesn't mean that just anyone can come along, spend an hour or two and fix that car. Even if they spend weeks on it, without changing their circumstances (e.g. reading a manual or something), they'll never do it. They could get lucky; they might just have heard a snippet of info that will fix this particular problem, they might even do something by accident that fixes it. But, in game terms, if you've established that they're not going to get it "by luck" (i.e. by rolling a die), then that's it; you can't keep "trying" to be lucky. Either you're lucky or you aren't.Again, your problem arises from you choosing an interpretation not supported by the rule set.

I mean, run your game how you like and all that. But I've been trying to get you to see how you're looking at things sideways relative to the rules, and that's why you've got a problem. If you want to continue to look at things sideways (which isn't negative), you're going to have to introduce some house rules so the rules can be turned sideways to match up with your views. That's fine ... go to it, and I'll step out from harping on the same thing over and over.

Edit: that was originally more snippy that I meant it to be. Changed it a bit to be what I mean: you've got square pegs (your ideas) and round holes (the rules used as intended). I've been arguing you should use round pegs. But it's absolutely fine if you want to use a square peg. You just need to change some of the round holes of the rules to be square holes. Go to it.

Isaire

2017-01-16, 10:47 AM

Looking at some of the earlier comments and complaints of metagaming (oh, he rolled badly, I better roll as well) then, isn't that really saying that the character was unsure of himself and asked for help, so someone else also tried? You might be confident in the rogue's ability to look for traps, but if he rolls badly and feels unsure, then he may well ask for help and you assist. Same with knowledge checks, more relevant even, as it is more clear here that when someone fails a roll, someone else might want to think about the same thing and see if they know.

As for retroactive changes.. well the only way to avoid that would be to ask every player what they are doing before they roll any dice, then resolve after everyone has decided something to do. Sounds slow and clunky..

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 11:02 AM

As for retroactive changes.. well the only way to avoid that would be to ask every player what they are doing before they roll any dice, then resolve after everyone has decided something to do. Sounds slow and clunky..
Sounds like good DMing to me, if the PCs have the ability to do something's simultaneously and there isn't immediate time pressure.

For example, before you resolve searching a room for ten minutes, you want to know who is searching, where they are searching, what kinds of things they are looking for, who is watching the door, and who is completing the map from the last section of hallway, and who is casting detect magic as a ritual ... etc. (Obviously a lot of this kind of thing is usually pre-established. Just like marching order, or who is mapper, or navigator, or caller/party leader, or party face during negotiations, etc.)

Of course, this is also why caller used to be a thing. Players decide what they're doing, caller relays it to the DM. Not so necessary with 3-4 players but with groups of 7-8 it's a useful tool to bring back.

If you're in a big ol' hurry to roll the dice after each and every statement coming out of a players mouth, you're gone end up with something messy and clunky pretty fast.

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 11:06 AM

Sure. Provided you allow rerolls and the automatic success rule. If you chop those off without a change in failure state, you're doing something not intended by the rules. Any problems that result are the result of you choosing to do something not intended by the rules.

I don't follow. Without "gating" (i.e. only those proficient or some other criteria not supported by any rule I'm aware of), how do you establish whether a given character actually knows something or not? Recall aside, determining a characters knowledge is something that is sometimes important and just saying "oh, yeah, I definitely know that" is about the equivalent of just saying "oh, yeah, I definitely hit that guy" if you're not going to roll.

If the roll is only being used to recall information you definitely know ("hmm, which fork in the road did we take last time?"), then yeah, I guess allowing an auto-success for time taken is ok...but it's not only used for recall and if you also allow auto-success for time taken on any "lore" check, then the only conclusion you can come to is that everyone knows all things below DC:20 and that's nonsense.

Again, your problem arises from you choosing an interpretation not supported by the rule set.

You're saying that most DCs for something like fixing a car or any other specialised knowledge or capability, should be above DC:25? That's the implication of the rules taken at face value, but I can't see that as being the intent. Some tasks are easy, yet not everyone can or should be able to do them. Some tasks can simply be resolved by taking more time; others cannot. That does not necessarily mean that those tasks that cannot be accomplished by taking more time to do them are impossible, nor even difficult.

I've been trying to get you to see how you're looking at things sideways, and that's why you've got a problem.

I appreciate the discussion and I don't think I have a problem as much as, perhaps, you think I do. We're coming at the situation from two different perspectives but largely solving them the same way; by using the rules available (Group Checks, Advantage, auto-passes, etc.), just in subtly different ways.

The "problem", if you can even call it that, is one of Players declaring intent then changing the parameters of their actions based on the results of their initial success or failure. It's an inevitable occurrence in play (unless you have perfect Players, which don't exist); it's how people act in real life, but it's also an easy thing to resolve.

JoeJ

2017-01-16, 12:56 PM

- History check: No amount of thinking will magically pop the knowledge into your head.

It does for me, at least some of the time. After several minutes of thinking about a question, followed by several minutes of thinking about something else, I'll often remember some obscure bit of infomation I'd forgotten, or work out why the answer logically should be X, even if I never heard that it definitely was.

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 01:09 PM

I don't follow. Without "gating" (i.e. only those proficient or some other criteria not supported by any rule I'm aware of), how do you establish whether a given character actually knows something or not? Recall aside, determining a characters knowledge is something that is sometimes important and just saying "oh, yeah, I definitely know that" is about the equivalent of just saying "oh, yeah, I definitely hit that guy" if you're not going to roll.

If the roll is only being used to recall information you definitely know ("hmm, which fork in the road did we take last time?"), then yeah, I guess allowing an auto-success for time taken is ok...but it's not only used for recall and if you also allow auto-success for time taken on any "lore" check, then the only conclusion you can come to is that everyone knows all things below DC:20 and that's nonsense.

You're saying that most DCs for something like fixing a car or any other specialised knowledge or capability, should be above DC:25? That's the implication of the rules taken at face value, but I can't see that as being the intent. Some tasks are easy, yet not everyone can or should be able to do them. Some tasks can simply be resolved by taking more time; others cannot. That does not necessarily mean that those tasks that cannot be accomplished by taking more time to do them are impossible, nor even difficult.Anything with a low enough DC that can be made eventually and is possible at all, given enough time, and does not have a failure state other than time, can by definition be done with enough time. That's how DCs work. Now, if you want to use them to represent something else (a single check determining if a character can do something at all), then you have to adjust how they work. Or at the minimum, how you think about them.

For example, do you know something (as opposed to do you recall something) based on an Int check:
1) rolling a check right now determines if you know it and can recall it right now in this moment of pressure.
2) being able achieve the DC with 10 times as long to think and make a 20+bonus determines if you know it and can recall it given that amount of time. If you can't make that check, you either don't know it and don't recall it.
3) If a Player knows that the PC doesn't know it (or DM determines there's no way a PC could not know it), then no roll is necessary. Automatic Failure.
4) If a player knows it and reasonably the PC could possibly no it, no check is necessary. Automatic success.

This is all within the rules as explained & structured, and matches the requires you have for enabling the roll to determine 'does the PC know', not just 'does the PC remember'.

Note I object to DMs defining 'not proficient' as a method of determining if a PC could know or not know something, but only because that's not proficiency means. Not because PCs should be allowed to roll on everything just because. Just as any other check, if there is no possibility of success, no roll should be made.

(Edit: or you can of course, change how DCs and/or proficiency work. I'm just showing you how it currently works.)

I appreciate the discussion and I don't think I have a problem as much as, perhaps, you think I do. We're coming at the situation from two different perspectives but largely solving them the same way; by using the rules available (Group Checks, Advantage, auto-passes, etc.), just in subtly different ways.

The "problem", if you can even call it that, is one of Players declaring intent then changing the parameters of their actions based on the results of their initial success or failure. It's an inevitable occurrence in play (unless you have perfect Players, which don't exist); it's how people act in real life, but it's also an easy thing to resolve.You're trying to make checks and DCs represent something they aren't. So it's unsurprising it causes problems that you need to try and address.

Xetheral

2017-01-16, 01:20 PM

2) being able achieve the DC with 10 times as long to think and make a 20+bonus determines if you know it and can recall it given that amount of time. If you can't make that check, you either don't know it and don't recall it.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that anyone with a 10 int (or higher) automatically knows the answer to every "Hard" (DC 20) question in every subject, it just might take them a minute to remember it?

4) If a player knows it and reasonably the PC could possibly no it, no check is necessary. Automatic success.

Likewise, are you saying that player knowledge can inform character knowledge?

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 01:21 PM

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that anyone with a 10 int (or higher) automatically knows the answer to every "Hard" (DC 20) question in every subject, it just might take them a minute to remember it?No. See #3.

Likewise, are you saying that player knowledge can inform character knowledge?Absolutely. Player Skill has been a core component of D&D since day 1. Barring situation #3.

Edit: Really I should have numbered them in order #3, #4, #1, #2.

Xetheral

2017-01-16, 01:34 PM

No. See #3.

Permit me to rephrase. Barring the player or DM deciding that the character doesn't know the answer, are you saying that anyone with a 10 int (or higher) automatically knows the answer to every "Hard" (DC 20) question in every subject, it just might take them a minute to remember it?

Absolutely. Player Skill has been a core component of D&D since day 1. Barring situation #3.

Using OOC knowledge to inform IC knowledge is, in my opinion, the very definition of metagaming. I do not permit it at my table in any game system whatsoever. To me, it goes against the very essence of what roleplaying *is*.

If you just have a dramatically different style, so be it, but if you're arguing that metagaming character knowledge is an inherent part of the 5e ability check system could you please provide a rules quote to back up your claim?

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 01:49 PM

Permit me to rephrase. Barring the player or DM deciding that the character doesn't know the answer, are you saying that anyone with a 10 int (or higher) automatically knows the answer to every "Hard" (DC 20) question in every subject, it just might take them a minute to remember it?Yes. Of course. That's how checks work. If you don't automatically fail or automatically succeed, you make a check. If it's neither of those, and you may suffer a consequence for failure, you roll. If you have sufficient time and there is no consequence for failure, then you automatically succeed.

Using OOC knowledge to inform IC knowledge is, in my opinion, the very definition of metagaming. I do not permit it at my table in any game system whatsoever. To me, it goes against the very essence of what roleplaying *is*.

If you just have a dramatically different style, so be it, but if you're arguing that metagaming character knowledge is an inherent part of the 5e ability check system could you please provide a rules quote to back up your claim?Player Skill an inherent part of D&D, and has been since day one. If you bar Player Skill at your table because 'metagaming', then it's definitely NOT a table I'd ever want to play at. And I'd want a 5e rules quote to back up your claim that it's not allowed.

Edit: To be clear, the player (and possibly DM) has already established that the PC doesn't not know the information. Thus, there is no possibility of metagaming. Now, if the player knows it, no need for a check. If the player doesn't know it and the DM wants to use a check to determine if he should share the info instead of just deciding himself, make a check. (Note that this isn't an intended process for checks, which are there to decide if an action succeeds. It's just the DM substituting a check for deciding themselves if they want to share the information with the player.)

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 02:15 PM

It does for me, at least some of the time. After several minutes of thinking about a question, followed by several minutes of thinking about something else, I'll often remember some obscure bit of infomation I'd forgotten, or work out why the answer logically should be X, even if I never heard that it definitely was.

That falls under "recall" as I've been discussing with Tanarii and I agree, taking time to remember something does help. What I'm disputing is the notion that all knowledge with a DC of 20 or lower is "universal knowledge"; using the "10xtime = auto-success" rule anyone (at least anyone without an Int penalty) can know/recall anything with DC<21 that isn't expressly forbidden knowledge (and I still don't know what qualifies as "forbidden" knowledge unless it's DC is 25+ high).

Anything with a low enough DC that can be made eventually, given enough time, and does not have a failure state other than time, can by definition be done with enough time.

Agreed. There are also things that have a low enough DC that no amount of time will make any easier. There doesn't have to be another failure state; some things simply aren't improved by repeated attempts, yet remain easy enough for someone else of equal or even lesser skill.

For example: There are two Wizards of equal skill, but trained in different places; they both have an equal chance of knowing the solution to a given problem, a problem that isn't that tricky, but one of them simply doesn't know it. No amount of puzzling over his experience and training will reveal the answer to the Wizard who can't solve this problem, yet for the other, the solution was elementary. Let's represent this in game terms:

We could just tell the guy that doesn't know the solution "sorry bub, no roll for you", but how do we determine if he knows the solution or not? We could take a detailed look into his backstory, I suppose, but let's assume we don't know the precise details of his training as a Wizard; I'm not a Wizard, I'm just a Player. How am I supposed to know the details of my characters trade and training to establish such things?

How about a die roll instead? Seems like what they're for; establishing unknown factors in the game world, right? "I don't know what my character knows, so I'll roll a die to see if he knows this particular thing." So our two Wizards of equal skill, but different experience roll their d20+mods against a DC:15. It's not that hard a task, after all. One gets 13, the other gets 16.

The guy that got 16 has encountered this problem or its solution before; it's a pretty common problem and he knows it. The other guy, despite being of equal ability, has not encountered this relatively common problem before and without some external influence will never, no matter how long he sits and ponders it, get the solution.

What, precisely, about this interpretation is wrong according to the rules and if so, what about the rules presents a better solution?

- If I set the DC higher, the problem is no longer a common one; it's supposed to be pretty easy but the high DC contradicts that notion. Regardless, a higher DC does nothing to differentiate between our two Wizards.
- The two Wizards are of equal skill (same stats, same proficiencies), but no matter how long one takes, he cannot get the solution; it's not within his experience; an experience we as Players cannot possibly know every detail of. Playing "by the book", there is nothing to distinguish one Wizards from the other if I allow them both to auto-pass any check with DC:20+mods. How then, do I represent one knowing the solution to this common problem and the other not?

For example, do you know something (as opposed to do you recall something) based on an Int check:
1) rolling a check right now determines if you know it and can recall it right now in this moment of pressure.
2) being able achieve the DC with 10 times as long to think and make a 20+bonus determines if you know it and can recall it given that amount of time. If you can't make that check, you either don't know it and don't recall it.
3) If a Player knows that the PC doesn't know it (or DM determines there's no way a PC could not know it), then no roll is necessary. Automatic Failure.
4) If a player knows it and reasonably the PC could possibly no it, no check is necessary. Automatic success.

I refuse to accept that a given character knows everything with a DC equal to or lower than 20+mods that isn't explicitly excluded. If you don't like using proficiency as a "gate" for such excluded knowledge (and rightly so IMO), what criteria do you have?

You obviously cannot know every book a character has read, every story they've heard or every NPC they've met; saying "there's no possible way your Barbarian has heard of the Battle of Bognogita, you auto-fail" is...not strictly true, nor fair. Who's to say he hasn't heard a tale from some traveler on the road or one of his ancestors hasn't passed down the saga of his involvement in it, or some other detail not explicitly stated in his characters description or backstory?

Some things are easy or common knowledge and should be represented by low DCs (i.e. below 20), yet it's entirely possible to simply not know the workings of a particular thing, despite great skill or knowledge in that field and no amount of time alone will change the fact that you don't know it. Your interpretation of the rules does not appear to allow for such an occurrence.

EvilAnagram

2017-01-16, 02:20 PM

I kind of take issue with the idea that a knowledge check can be retried. If you fail a knowledge check, the failure state is, "You don't possess this knowledge. "

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 02:38 PM

I kind of take issue with the idea that a knowledge check can be retried. If you fail a knowledge check, the failure state is, "You don't possess this knowledge. "Nowhere does it say this for 5e. It's just an assumption that comes from so many DMs using knowledge checks as a substitute for determining if a character knows something. I can't recall if it's was ever explicitly that way in 3e, so it may or may not be a carry-over of previous edition thinking.

5e checks determine if you succeed in doing something. And Int checks don't indicate they are different.
"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason"
"An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning."
Each lore skill says "recall lore" not determine if you know lore.
similar the other checks say "Recall lore about a craft or trade" not determine if you know lore.

BTW as regards to "proficiency = trained", the PHB explicitly says " An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability." So RAW Ability Scores can include "Trained". Explicitly.

Theodoxus

2017-01-16, 02:54 PM

Bah, knowledge, athletics, acrobatics... who cares? Other than missing out on some arcane lore or if the mushroom is poisonous or having to find a different path - I don't care if folks at the table all ask to roll. That's not the problem.

The problem comes when you've got your face, talking to a guard, trying to convince him that the party should pass. "These aren't the droids you're looking for." Can you imagine if Luke, C-3PO and R2-D2 all jumped in when the Stormtrooper hesitated and started shouting out "I've had these for years"; "I'm not a droid, I'm a human-cyborg relations robot"; "Boop beep tweet" [I'm the droid you're looking for, thankfully you don't understand binary] - R2 was always too forthcoming for my taste.

Social exchanges should never be group think. Trying to figure out if the caravan leader is hiding something? Secret rolls, secret notes - unless there's a good reason (Rary's Telepathic Bond, being about the only decent one) that everyone knows what everyone else is thinking without talking in front of said leader. Trying to persuade the princess to help you? 5 gruff adventurers getting in her face and yelling at her won't do it...

And I'd LOVE to hear how you metagame purists deal with group perception checks. There's no way you're describing the hiding goblin to the few who saw it, without influencing those who didn't with metagame information. It always boils down to honorable play.

As for group checks on stealth - the very first game of 5E I ever played, we used a group check for stealth - to avoid a group of orcs resting around a camp fire in a large cavern. Their firelight filled 40', we were low on resources, trying to get to the mcguffin at the end of cave and didn't need to fight them. We stealthed along the wall - my fighter with disadvantage was helped by the rogue, warlock and bard. We passed the check and got past the orcs with no incident. Not everything dealing with stealth is trying to set up an ambush...

ETA:
BTW as regards to "proficiency = trained", the PHB explicitly says " An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability." So RAW Ability Scores can include "Trained". Explicitly.

Huh, wonder why Reliable Talent doesn't take into consideration skills you're not proficient in then... or why proficiency even exists.

Xetheral

2017-01-16, 03:00 PM

Yes. Of course. That's how checks work. If you don't automatically fail or automatically succeed, you make a check. If it's neither of those, and you may suffer a consequence for failure, you roll. If you have sufficient time and there is no consequence for failure, then you automatically succeed.

I disagree entirely. As I interpret the 5e ability check system as it relates to the "knowledge" skills, the consequence for failure is that your character doesn't know the answer.

Furthermore, under your interpretation, the mechanics aren't a useful tool for the DM for determining whether a given creature knows the answer to a particular question. Option 3 is DM fiat, and so not a useful tool. Option 2 produces silly results where, with a minute to think, any PC or NPC with a +X bonus knows everything than everyone with a lesser bonus knows, so that's not a useful tool either. I'm not inclined to interpret the ability check rules in a way that decreases their utility as a tool and just leaves it up to my whim who knows what.

Player Skill an inherent part of D&D, and has been since day one. If you bar Player Skill at your table because 'metagaming', then it's definitely NOT a table I'd ever want to play at. And I'd want a 5e rules quote to back up your claim that it's not allowed.

Player skill in the sense of knowing how best to utilize the abilities on your character sheet is fine by me (with some caveats that aren't relevant here). Player skill in the sense of using OOC knowledge to inform what your character knows IC is not.

And I'm not claiming that by permitting metagaming you're violating the rules of 5e. It's not against the rules, it's just a playstyle I wouldn't enjoy (and find somewhat perplexing). I'm not sure, however, if you're claiming that by forbidding metagaming I'm violating the ability check rules... are you?

JoeJ

2017-01-16, 03:24 PM

That falls under "recall" as I've been discussing with Tanarii and I agree, taking time to remember something does help. What I'm disputing is the notion that all knowledge with a DC of 20 or lower is "universal knowledge"; using the "10xtime = auto-success" rule anyone (at least anyone without an Int penalty) can know/recall anything with DC<21 that isn't expressly forbidden knowledge (and I still don't know what qualifies as "forbidden" knowledge unless it's DC is 25+ high)

The ability check is explicitly stated in the rules to be recall, not knowledge. If I never learned something (that can't be determined by logical deduction or by analogy) there is no DC; the task is simply impossible.

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 03:36 PM

The ability check is explicitly stated in the rules to be recall, not knowledge. If I never learned something (that can't be determined by logical deduction or by analogy) there is no DC; the task is simply impossible.

That's just as bad as saying a character knows everything! How is any player meant to know the history of a setting without making a History check on behalf of his/her character? Or how some arcane device is meant to function? The question "Do I know X?" is a perfectly valid question for a player to ask and if the answer is in doubt, an ability check is a valid method of determining said answer. It's a matter of debate whether the arbitrary decision of the GM is a better method of determination, but that doesn't make a check any less valid; it's what rolling dice is for.

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 03:41 PM

That's just as bad as saying a character knows everything! How is any player meant to know the history of a setting without making a History check on behalf of his/her character? Or how some arcane device is meant to function? The question "Do I know X?" is a perfectly valid question for a player to ask and if the answer is in doubt, an ability check is a valid method of determining said answer. It's a matter of debate whether the arbitrary decision of the GM is a better method of determination, but that doesn't make a check any less valid; it's what rolling dice is for.
This is what I mean about you looking at the rules sideways. You've got a fixed mindset that there should in some cases be random resolution on if a PC knows or doesn't know a factoid. And therefore you appear to be struggling with how to wrap the rules around how to make that process work, instead of accepting how the process of the rules actually work. Because they're based on different assumptions.

so you end up with two choices: accept the way the process for the rules works and adapt your thinking to them (as I've already shown how in the case of 'do you know something'), or change the process of the rules.

Theodoxus

2017-01-16, 03:46 PM

That's just as bad as saying a character knows everything! How is any player meant to know the history of a setting without making a History check on behalf of his/her character? Or how some arcane device is meant to function? The question "Do I know X?" is a perfectly valid question for a player to ask and if the answer is in doubt, an ability check is a valid method of determining said answer. It's a matter of debate whether the arbitrary decision of the GM is a better method of determination, but that doesn't make a check any less valid; it's what rolling dice is for.

Arguably, the character will know far more about a campaign world (especially homebrew) than the player.

I'm running into this exact problem. I grabbed proficiency in all 4 Lore skills on my wizard. But the game world is some generic homebrew. The DM passed out a basic synopsis of the racial background, but I, as a player, know nothing about the history or metaphysics - heck, I don't even know what pantheon(s) are in play - so my Religion skill is nigh useless, if it's supposed to be mostly based on what I know as a player...

Fortunately, it appears the DM is more closely aligned to your (and my) playstyle than Tanarii's... I wonder how this would even play out in Tanarii's game... if I had no knowledge of the game world, and my character is supposed to be far more knowledgeable... I wouldn't even know what questions to ask!?! I can even imagine being penalized for being wrong. "That holy symbol, it belongs to Thor?"
"Who or what is Thor? That's the holy lightning hammer of Qreroi! Take 100 points of lightning damage for defaming his holy perfect name!"

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 04:08 PM

Fortunately, it appears the DM is more closely aligned to your (and my) playstyle than Tanarii's... I wonder how this would even play out in Tanarii's gameEasy. Give the player the information, unless they're no way she could know it, as determined by me and the player in concert. Done and done.

After she determines a recall information check, if one is needed for some reason. Typically some kind of high-stress situation, or if it's a particularly obscure bit of lore, or something with great debate on that she might recall incorrectly.

Of course, as I've already said, I also use group checks a lot for 'Lore' checks, because most of the time the party is discussing what's going on, and I'm using it to abstract the idea that they won't all correctly recall the same thing, let alone agree on which of them is right. OTOH, I consider that to be me adapting a tool in the game to a personal interpretation of how the typical situation would go down. ie I've decided I want the look at resolution representing a certain thing, then found the game mechanic that I can adapt to represent it.

Edit: ie my way of using group checks is effectively the same process as people using single roll checks to represent 'did you ever learn this factoid or not'. They've decided they want that to be a random determination, and are adapting 'roll an ability check' to determine it.

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 04:24 PM

This is what I mean about you looking at the rules sideways. You've got a fixed mindset that there should in some cases be random resolution on if a PC knows or doesn't know a factoid. And therefore you appear to be struggling with how to wrap the rules around how to make that process work, instead of accepting how the process of the rules actually work. Because they're based on different assumptions.

- The rules call for a roll when something is in doubt.

- Whether a character knows something or not, whether it be obscure or common knowledge (i.e. regardless of DC), is something that can be in doubt.

- Therefore the rules tell me to roll to see if a character knows some things.

- The rule that allows checks to auto-succeed given sufficient time doesn't apply to such checks because the cost of failure is not knowing the thing.

How is that looking at the rules sideways?

Theodoxus

2017-01-16, 04:44 PM

How does a player come to know things the character does?

If I'm playing in the Forgotten Realms, and I as a player, know of things like arctic dwarves who live in the far north, around the great glacier, and my character has proficiency in History and comes across an albino dwarf, there's a really good chance I won't be out of line by asking how the trip south was.

If I'm playing in a homebrew, and I as a player, know nothing about the subraces of dwarves, and my character has proficiency in History and comes across an albino dwarf, there's literally no chance that I will be able to ascertain anything OOC about it without asking questions. And since I don't know what to ask, it becomes a giant waste of time for the other players as the next 30 minutes is concentrated on obtaining information my character has that has to be downloaded into his players brain.

This can go on for nearly anything. I think it's probably one reason why most players I know are loathe to start a homebrew world where they don't know anything. At least in a published world, even if it's sorely out of date, you can read up on it (Wiki or hardcopy) and have as deep or shallow an understanding as you'd like.

Too often, things get retconned or 'oh, I should have mentioned' in the homebrew I've experienced - simply because we don't have access to the DMs notes and our characters are far more informed on what's going on than the players are.

pwykersotz

2017-01-16, 05:01 PM

I am loving this discussion. It's making me question a lot of things I take for granted. I just wanted to say as much. Carry on.

*munches popcorn*

Thrudd

2017-01-16, 05:19 PM

The answers I like to the conundrum vary depending on the exact scenario.

For knowledge checks, I think it makes more sense to use passive scores -ten plus modifier. No rolling.
Randomly determining what a character knows isn't that important, it's more important for someone who has invested in a skill to be useful, and not be overshadowed by a lucky roll from the barbarian with 8 int.
Everyone can ask "does my character know that?", and I will tell them what their character knows or doesn't know based on the DC I've decided.

I also agree with the idea that player knowledge and experience needs to count for something.
If I want a challenge my players don't know the answer to, a monster they don't know the weaknesses for, I won't choose the monster from a book they have all memorized and seen 100 times before. It's silly to ask them to pretend they don't know things and take actions that can get their characters killed, out of some sense of "correct role playing".

For perception checks, always roll in secret or use passive checks in secret. The players shouldn't know if there is something their characters don't see or hear, that is a form of metagaming that I think actually does hurt the challenge of the game. Nobody should ever ask to roll perception. They should ask what their character sees or hears, and I'll tell them.

For strength checks like pushing or lifting something, I also think it makes most sense to allow a "take ten" or passive check unless there is a pressure for immediate failure. A stone that weighs 100 pounds and doesn't have too high a DC should not be a problem for someone with sufficient strength, so unlucky die rolls causing the barbarian to fail and the wizard to randomly succeed don't make any sense.

In some cases, like a really big boulder, I would say that only the strongest character gets to try, and others can assist if they want. If he/she can't lift it, it doesn't make sense that a weaker character would be able to, so no other tries.

social checks like persuasion or intimidation I think should allow only one check per target, that multiple characters can give aid to. If multiple characters are trying to persuade someone, it would take place like a conversation, with everyone's efforts being cumulative. So the best in the group rolls, modified by the others' aid. Another attempt can't be made on the same target until some conditions have changed, like passage of significant time or new factors come into play. If a group is trying to intimidate a person, again it's the cumulative effort and not a sequence of individuals separately scowling at someone, the highest skill rolls and others give aid.

Xetheral

2017-01-16, 05:26 PM

Nope. Just that you're making a classic mistake in trying to divide player skill and character knowledge.

Also http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

I don't consider it a classic mistake. I consider it part of what it means to roleplay a character.

As for the AngryGM article, I freely admit that I have a hard time respecting any author who can't (or worse, won't) show their readers basic human decency. That being said, having done my utmost to account my for bias and consider the author's underlying points, I don't agree with the article's conclusions. The author has cherry-picked specific examples to support his conclusion and not addressed contrary examples. For instance, in the discussion of player-vs-player metagaming, the author only deals with "game-breaking secrets" and completely ignores the metagaming implications of run-of-the-mill secrets. These can and will arise in any situation where party members aren't moving in unison--not just ones where the DM has inadvisably permitted an untenable situation to arise--and the metagaming problems that accompany them usually have more to do with spotlight time rather than any fundamental incompatibility of expectations.

For example, if the party splits up in town and an individual character learns something interesting while separated from the others (whether from an NPC or via an ability check), I'm not going to permit another player to have their character act on that knowledge until it is shared IC. When this situation has come up at my table, it's usually because one player got too excited and forgot their character didn't yet know IC--a simple reminder suffices and the game continues.

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 05:31 PM

- The rules call for a roll when something is in doubt.

- Whether a character knows something or not, whether it be obscure or common knowledge (i.e. regardless of DC), is something that can be in doubt.

- Therefore the rules tell me to roll to see if a character knows some things.

- The rule that allows checks to auto-succeed given sufficient time doesn't apply to such checks because the cost of failure is not knowing the thing.

How is that looking at the rules sideways?

- The rules tell you to roll when determining the result of an action is in doubt.

- Whether or not someone ever learned something is not an action. Attempting to recall something is.

- Therefore you've made an unwarranted logical leap. Also the rules DO explicitly tell you that Intelligence Checks are about recalling information, but never say they are for determining if you ever learned it.

- The rule that allows checks to auto succeed applies to any check where it's possible to successfully complete an action due to the lack of a cost of failure other than time. If it's possible for you to recall the information (ie you learned it, and you could recall it on a DC 20+bonus) you auto succeed. If you never learned it, that isn't the cost of failure. That's reason to not be allowed a check in the first place.

You started off looking at the rules sideways in your very first assumption.

HOWEVER ... there's no reason the way you want to use the rules, including the inability to auto succeed because the cost of failure is you don't know how to do the thing, doesn't work. You just have to decide how you want to handle allowing multiple players to all decide to make a check as to if they ever learned the thing, especially after one player has just failed a check to have ever learned the thing. I mean, I got the impression you HAD decided that before we got stuck in a never ending loop on if Intelligence checks represent 'recalling the thing' vs 'did you ever learn the thing'.

I don't consider it a classic mistake. I consider it part of what it means to roleplay a character.

As for the AngryGM article, I freely admit that I have a hard time respecting any author who can't (or worse, won't) show their readers basic human decency.Yeah I axed that post because 1) it wasn't really fair to cast your PoV that way, and 2) I recalled you don't really like Angry DM's attitude.

I am loving this discussion. It's making me question a lot of things I take for granted. I just wanted to say as much. Carry on.

*munches popcorn*Lol you're welcome. :smallbiggrin:

Pex

2017-01-16, 08:04 PM

For example, if the party splits up in town and an individual character learns something interesting while separated from the others (whether from an NPC or via an ability check), I'm not going to permit another player to have their character act on that knowledge until it is shared IC. When this situation has come up at my table, it's usually because one player got too excited and forgot their character didn't yet know IC--a simple reminder suffices and the game continues.

Out of curiosity, what would you do when said player refuses to tell the rest of the party the information, especially when the information is very important, and the party will suffer because of not knowing the information. There are Real Jerk players who do that which is the main point of why you shouldn't have such secretive knowledge given to one player only unless you know it will be shared. The Real Jerk does not give a damn the other party members will suffer and is counting on the fact that his character won't because he alone knows the information.

JellyPooga

2017-01-16, 08:31 PM

- The rules tell you to roll when determining the result of an action is in doubt.

- Whether or not someone ever learned something is not an action. Attempting to recall something is

- Therefore you've made an unwarranted logical leap. Also the rules DO explicitly tell you that Intelligence Checks are about recalling information, but never say they are for determining if you ever learned it.
(emphasis mine)

I think these three points are, perhaps, where I consider you to have made some unwarranted logical leaps of your own. Allow me to explain;

The DM call for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory or deductive reasoning
(emphasis mine)

I agree that it is tempting to read the Intelligence section and its multiple statements of "recall" at face value as being specifically an attempt to bring to mind something that you already know. As a result of the many times "recall" is mentioned, it's also easy to overlook the rest of what's written in that entry.

It is also easy to read the Ability Check section and assume that it is only the result of actions that the dice determine and jump to the conclusion that given that knowing something is not an "action", the dice cannot determine such things.

I can squint (to use your term :smalltongue:) and see the argument, but I think it's a narrow one.

However, it's worth bearing in mind a couple of things;

1) That "recall" does not merely apply to those things one definitely knows; it is an attempt to remember something. If the answer is "no", then that does not necessarily mean you ever actually knew it in the first place. Though I'll admit that the dictionary definition of the word contradicts me to an extent, common parlance has my back. For example; "I'm trying to recall if I've ever seen that mans face before...hmm, he looks familiar, but I don't think I have". You don't assume the person saying something like this must have known the man because he's trying to recall information.

2) Education. Except where you are specifically trying to recall information, what action would you ever take involving your education? That education is explicitly mentioned alongside memory implies that there are aspects other than mere recall (memory) of known information that Intelligence governs. Whether or not someone is educated on a particular topic is implicitly (if not explicitly) determinable with an Intelligence roll.

3) Action. Knowledge is not an action, no. Determining whether you possess knowledge is not an action either. Taking an action that requires you (the player) to know whether you (the character) know a thing...that is an action. The action is not in doubt; either you know the thing or you don't. As you say, there's no action to know something.
Whether you know the thing is what's in doubt, but until you take the action that requires you to have the knowledge, you don't need to determine it. For instance; a character finds an ancient vase and attempt to identify it. The action (identifying the vase) has produced a scenario where the outcome is uncertain (does the character have that knowledge?). Rolling an Ability Check is appropriate to determine that uncertain outcome and that Ability Check can have any DC. However, if you fail that check, no amount of re-rolling or time is going to allow you to succeed; you don't know that information and that's the cost of failure.

I agree that specifically recalling information that your character definitely knows can be auto-passed if the DC is within 20+mods by spending enough time, but there are also scenarios where whether a character knows something in the first place is determinable by dice roll and those do not subscribe to the "take 20" rule.

Tanarii

2017-01-16, 09:38 PM

Your emphasis is an intentional distortion of the facts.

completely ignoring in the first case the preceding sentence saying the exact opposite, to whit that checks are for determining the outcomes of actions that have a chance of failure. I've not for determining if the PC has ever learned something.

And in the second case intentionally missing it says draw on [..] education.

If you're going to quote something, don't quote something that says the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim, then misrepresent what it says. :smallmad:

Xetheral

2017-01-16, 09:41 PM

Out of curiosity, what would you do when said player refuses to tell the rest of the party the information, especially when the information is very important, and the party will suffer because of not knowing the information. There are Real Jerk players who do that which is the main point of why you shouldn't have such secretive knowledge given to one player only unless you know it will be shared. The Real Jerk does not give a damn the other party members will suffer and is counting on the fact that his character won't because he alone knows the information.

One of the advantages of only playing with friends is not having to deal with Real Jerk players. :) I haven't had to deal with such a situation, but if I did I'd probably deal with it OOC.

djreynolds

2017-01-17, 03:04 AM

First great thread and postings, I really mean it

In game conversation is interesting because we are talking about something very vague... especially with dialogue.

Here is my example/question, and I understand it is very tough to "stay-in" character and to play characters abilities and not your abilities, which could be better or worse. There are very smart players who for a change play a fighter and inexperienced players who choose bard or wizard for time.

Let's say you are the DM and I, the face of the party, a paladin with high charisma and strength, have to convince a prisoner to give the party information and I am proficient in all 3 social skills (aside from performance).

Do you as DMs homebrewing adventures say if I roll a 15 you get this piece of information... the hideout

If I roll a 17, you get the hideout and crude map of the hideouts interior.

If I roll 25, you get everything

Or if I roll 25 for an intimidation check I get another response where if I had rolled a 25 for persuasion I may have gotten more or even less information or something different.

At the end of the day, it may be how good was your roll and in addition how detailed were your questions and if say I am a paladin with a high intimidation/ persuasion skill but a low investigation/history... perhaps I'm not smart enough to put in all the details necessary for a complete interrogation, perhaps I forgot to ask where are the guards posted in the hideout or are there any traps, etc.

Now most skills being used have an end result, sneak past the guards or disable a trap or get up a cliff.

But some skills like history or investigation may require more the actual player's intelligence... to ask the correct question or to be specific in searching a room for details. It may have nothing to do with your PCs abilities at all, but you the players

JellyPooga

2017-01-17, 04:57 AM

Your emphasis is an intentional distortion of the facts.

My emphasis is on a looser interpretation of the words on the page, yes. Words and statements are not inherently exclusive, which is your assumption (I can grumpy-face too :smallannoyed: :smallwink:).

There are two criteria for a die roll or check to be called for: 1) an action is being taken that has a chance of failure and 2) the outcome is uncertain. Your interpretation appears to largely ignore the second and focus on the first.

When you "draw on education" (to paraphrase) you are "using things you know". How can I use things I know if I don't know what they are? Intelligence determines what I know; it is my ability to deduce and recall, yes, but it is also my education and memories.

So, if it is uncertain whether my character knows something that is pertinent to a given action that character is taking, there is an action being taken (1) and there is uncertainty (2), so a die roll is called for. If the uncertainty regards something about my characters education, I should make an Intelligence check.

It's not whether my character can recall the fact in that moment that's in doubt; it's whether that fact was part of my characters education at all and the outcome of his action depends on whether or not it was.

djreynolds

2017-01-17, 07:25 AM

Thrudd

2017-01-17, 09:33 AM

How do you run conversation that does have an impact?

Does any means, by using intimidation or persuasion or deception change the information?

And do the actual rolls affect how much information in given?

And do you make guys/gals role a history check say to properly formulate a question? Like do they know anything about what they are asking?
One use of social ability is to determine or shift an NPCs stance toward the PCs, friendly, neutral or hostile. So in a conversation meant to befriend someone, the outcome of the roll would determine if and how much their friendliness is shifted.

Convincing someone to do something, the skill used would make a difference and the DC reached would affect the degree of success, taking into account the NPC's stance toward the PCs to modify the base DC. If you intimidate someone that is neutral or friendly towards you, it would shift their stance toward unfriendly or hostile, even if you succeed. If you deceive someone and they find out the truth, it would also shift the stance. You might get what you want now, but next time it might be harder if you try convincing the same person. At some point, for example, intimidation may need to be backed up with actual violence in order to convince someone you mean business, because the NPC is just fed up with being pushed around.

If the goal is asking an NPC for information, the amount given should be up to the DC achieved, which also depends on the friendliness of the NPC. Of course, a character can't tell more than they know, which is something you need to decide before the roll happens, and also people don't always know the complete truth.

In general, I prefer the players to find out relevant information during play via in-character actions and use their own intelligence to apply that info to problem solving in the game.

I've never really liked knowledge skills for that reason, but I know that those are pretty much the only skills some classes get. I think allowing knowledge skills to modify relevant social encounters is a good way to go. If the knowledge roll succeeds, then the DC would be lowered for persuading or deceiving or getting information when the topic is involved. I'm also ok with using knowledge rolls as a DM "tip line" for things not directly impacting a main challenge or problem, just to give some usefullness to the skills. Like, If the players are struggling with something or I see something the characters should obviously know or could be doing that the players are missing, ask for a relevant knowledge roll and give them the hint, as long as it is not giving away information that completely invalidates the challenge or mystery of the game.

djreynolds

2017-01-17, 01:35 PM

One use of social ability is to determine or shift an NPCs stance toward the PCs, friendly, neutral or hostile. So in a conversation meant to befriend someone, the outcome of the roll would determine if and how much their friendliness is shifted.

Convincing someone to do something, the skill used would make a difference and the DC reached would affect the degree of success, taking into account the NPC's stance toward the PCs to modify the base DC. If you intimidate someone that is neutral or friendly towards you, it would shift their stance toward unfriendly or hostile, even if you succeed. If you deceive someone and they find out the truth, it would also shift the stance. You might get what you want now, but next time it might be harder if you try convincing the same person. At some point, for example, intimidation may need to be backed up with actual violence in order to convince someone you mean business, because the NPC is just fed up with being pushed around.

If the goal is asking an NPC for information, the amount given should be up to the DC achieved, which also depends on the friendliness of the NPC. Of course, a character can't tell more than they know, which is something you need to decide before the roll happens, and also people don't always know the complete truth.

In general, I prefer the players to find out relevant information during play via in-character actions and use their own intelligence to apply that info to problem solving in the game.

I've never really liked knowledge skills for that reason, but I know that those are pretty much the only skills some classes get. I think allowing knowledge skills to modify relevant social encounters is a good way to go. If the knowledge roll succeeds, then the DC would be lowered for persuading or deceiving or getting information when the topic is involved. I'm also ok with using knowledge rolls as a DM "tip line" for things not directly impacting a main challenge or problem, just to give some usefullness to the skills. Like, If the players are struggling with something or I see something the characters should obviously know or could be doing that the players are missing, ask for a relevant knowledge roll and give them the hint, as long as it is not giving away information that completely invalidates the challenge or mystery of the game.

This all excellent. Outstanding.

Especially with degrees of each social skills.

And using intelligence or knowledge to affect other areas, even if it lowering a DC by 1.

A fighter should be schooled in history, a paladin better practice religion.

For me something like this then can include all the party members in an effort.

Paladin asks fighter what was the battle fought between these 2 kings I'm talking with. He pass, DC 18
And ranger find this on the map and what kind of resources were they fighting about. He passes DC 17
Wizard could make something like this. He makes, but the answer is no DC17
Rogue could we buy this...no DC 17
Barbarian if things go bad... punch someone. DC 50

All of these affecting the DC of perhaps persuading the kings not to go to war... or whatever.

It's tough with skills because it takes more than dice rolls to ask the right questions or say the wrong thing, and intelligence is always the players most important skill.

JoeJ

2017-01-17, 03:12 PM

Saeviomage

2017-01-17, 05:08 PM

Or you can realize that checks are just a resolution method, and not a simulation, and just have it be a group check, where they agree on the right answer if they pass and either disagree or don't know if they don't. You don't need to simulate each individual's thinking specifically.

I've tried this method, and it's crap. Suddenly the guy with expertise in nature, high intelligence and advantage from explicitly having researched the creature goes "oh, but despite all that and my high roll, I'm doing what you guys say and not mentioning anything I know", and as a DM, you can't really explain why: apparently no matter what your character's motivations and stats are, you always side with the largest group of peers. Not only that, you come to consensus without any of you sharing the information you have.

Edit: okay that's a bit strong. You certainly can do it the way you're saying. I just think it's unnecessarily complicated and simulationist. However, it does seem like a good way to simulate of 'sureness'.

Which is all great from a point of view of "the knowledge is the goal and the roll is nothing more than an impediment to getting it". But 90% of the D&D experience is not whether you succeed or fail: it's the path you take.

I personally think that you're going to see some fun interaction within the group if they are unsure which one(s) of them have the right answer to a question, and you give them some powerful roleplaying opportunities. Maybe the barbarian always goes with his gut, even if he's really unsure of his answers. Maybe the bookish wizard always assumes he knows less than he actually does. Maybe the cleric always seems smart because he can pick up on who is most confident of their answer and goes with it.

Tanarii

2017-01-18, 12:47 PM

My emphasis is on a looser interpretation of the words on the page, yes. Words and statements are not inherently exclusive, which is your assumption (I can grumpy-face too :smallannoyed: :smallwink:).Sorry for my attitude.

There are two criteria for a die roll or check to be called for: 1) an action is being taken that has a chance of failure and 2) the outcome is uncertain. Your interpretation appears to largely ignore the second and focus on the first.I am not. I am considering them both. Basically as if they are an AND statement, not an OR statement.

When you "draw on education" (to paraphrase) you are "using things you know". How can I use things I know if I don't know what they are? Intelligence determines what I know; it is my ability to deduce and recall, yes, but it is also my education and memories.

So, if it is uncertain whether my character knows something that is pertinent to a given action that character is taking, there is an action being taken (1) and there is uncertainty (2), so a die roll is called for. If the uncertainty regards something about my characters education, I should make an Intelligence check.

It's not whether my character can recall the fact in that moment that's in doubt; it's whether that fact was part of my characters education at all and the outcome of his action depends on whether or not it was.I'm back to squinting at your PoV on the education thing, and kind of seeing how you arrived at this interpretation. But I can't help but feel you're trying to find an interpretation that justifies your already existing view that there should be checks to determine the state of the world in regards to a character's knowledge.

And if this were still 3e or 4e, with 'Knowledge' checks instead of 5e Intelligence (Lore) checks, I'd agree with you. But IMO 5e has changed what these checks are and how they should be used, and you're still using an old assumption about what they should be.

The player knows because the DM tells them, of course. A major part of the DM's role is to give the player's all the information that is relevant to their situation. It's like Investigation. You don't use an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine whether there are any clues to find, but to determine whether or not the PC finds the clues that are definitely there (because the DM put them there).I remember a thread where a guy suggested checks should be used precisely this way ... determine if the cliff is climbable, determine if the river can safely be swum, etc. For most people it was an interesting theoretical exercise at best, but nobody thought it really made any sense. Generally speaking people consider that checks determine if you can succeed in doing something, not how the world is.

And yet when it comes to 'knowledge' checks, all of a sudden everyone's on board with using them to determine the state of the world ... did your character ever learn this thing?

(obviously exceptions abound. Hell, my 'group check = group discussion' is a 'state of the world check' :smallwink: And as I said above this is how they were used in 3e and 4e)

I've tried this method, and it's crap. Suddenly the guy with expertise in nature, high intelligence and advantage from explicitly having researched the creature goes "oh, but despite all that and my high roll, I'm doing what you guys say and not mentioning anything I know", and as a DM, you can't really explain why: apparently no matter what your character's motivations and stats are, you always side with the largest group of peers. Not only that, you come to consensus without any of you sharing the information you have.If his 5 less knowledgeable peers decided to participate in a discussion with him, then he can be a hold-out for 'you guys are wrong' all he wants ... the others still think he's full of crap.

Group checks like this don't require that everyone rolls in. If a group wants to allow the expert to tell them all the answer and keep their mouths shut, only he rolls. If anyone wants to get in on the discussion, then they roll too.

(I should note this is my own personal approach to a specific kind of resolution, and not something I think is necessarily the RAW or even best way to do this situation. I just like it.)

Which is all great from a point of view of "the knowledge is the goal and the roll is nothing more than an impediment to getting it". But 90% of the D&D experience is not whether you succeed or fail: it's the path you take.Yes which is why I generally despite 'knowledge' checks at all. Either give the players the info they need, or give them the info they have available. But don't make a check the gateway to providing the information to the players.

I personally think that you're going to see some fun interaction within the group if they are unsure which one(s) of them have the right answer to a question, and you give them some powerful roleplaying opportunities. Maybe the barbarian always goes with his gut, even if he's really unsure of his answers. Maybe the bookish wizard always assumes he knows less than he actually does. Maybe the cleric always seems smart because he can pick up on who is most confident of their answer and goes with it.I agree there's RP value to a degrees of failure 'knowledge' check, and individual (and secret) right/nothing/wrong information given to each player based on results. I just think it's fiddly, so not worth doing regularly. That's why I added that edit. I can see the sometimes value, just not the regular value.

(So many edits I'm not gonna call them all out. Done now I swear.)

Saeviomage

2017-01-18, 10:39 PM

I remember a thread where a guy suggested checks should be used precisely this way ... determine if the cliff is climbable, determine if the river can safely be swum, etc. For most people it was an interesting theoretical exercise at best, but nobody thought it really made any sense. Generally speaking people consider that checks determine if you can succeed in doing something, not how the world is.

Well, typically the mechanic for getting that information across is to tell people the DC or a proxy for it (easy, hard or more specific descriptors), at which point the player decides if his skill bonus is up to the task. If you're playing in a game where all the DCs are completely hidden, it can be pretty frustrating, and there's an endless supply of anecdotes on the internet that rely on the DM assuming that the PC is going to try something stupid and impossible when the PC thought he was engaging in an easily completed task.

And yet when it comes to 'knowledge' checks, all of a sudden everyone's on board with using them to determine the state of the world ... did your character ever learn this thing?

(obviously exceptions abound. Hell, my 'group check = group discussion' is a 'state of the world check' :smallwink: And as I said above this is how they were used in 3e and 4e)

If his 5 less knowledgeable peers decided to participate in a discussion with him, then he can be a hold-out for 'you guys are wrong' all he wants ... the others still think he's full of crap.

Group checks like this don't require that everyone rolls in. If a group wants to allow the expert to tell them all the answer and keep their mouths shut, only he rolls. If anyone wants to get in on the discussion, then they roll too.

But the upshot is that you only hand out information if more than half of them succeed. The expert literally does not know the answer to the question if the other characters fail.

Yes which is why I generally despite 'knowledge' checks at all. Either give the players the info they need, or give them the info they have available. But don't make a check the gateway to providing the information to the players.

In which case removing the knowledge skills from the game is a perfectly cromulent thing to do.

I agree there's RP value to a degrees of failure 'knowledge' check, and individual (and secret) right/nothing/wrong information given to each player based on results. I just think it's fiddly, so not worth doing regularly. That's why I added that edit. I can see the sometimes value, just not the regular value.

I would agree, and in fact I wouldn't even expect to be rolling at all unless the knowledge is particularly important, and the outcome of such a discussion an opportunity for some fun.

Tanarii

2017-01-18, 11:49 PM

But the upshot is that you only hand out information if more than half of them succeed. The expert literally does not know the answer to the question if the other characters fail.
More generally they only recall the information correctly if they succeed as a group ... but it's easy for that to be a semantic difference from the point of view of the players.

Summary of this thread really boils down to: there doesn't seem to be one particularly good way to handle character knowledge check. Each method has its pitfalls. The important thing is to be clear on what the check represents in-game, I.e. what the success or failure looks like ... and how you feel it's most fair for that particular check to resolve it.

Or is that, like, not argumentative enough for a forum statement? :smallbiggrin:

Luckily 5e gives lots of options for how to approach it, and people are willing to hack their own approaches if it doesn't feel right.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-19, 03:54 AM

@Theodoxus, the social interaction rules state that additional party members butting in may wreck the check.

- The rules call for a roll when something is in doubt.

- Whether a character knows something or not, whether it be obscure or common knowledge (i.e. regardless of DC), is something that can be in doubt.

- Therefore the rules tell me to roll to see if a character knows some things.

- The rule that allows checks to auto-succeed given sufficient time doesn't apply to such checks because the cost of failure is not knowing the thing.

How is that looking at the rules sideways?

The consequence of failure might be remembering or inferring the wrong thing.

Saeviomage

2017-01-19, 07:05 PM

More generally they only recall the information correctly if they succeed as a group ... but it's easy for that to be a semantic difference from the point of view of the players.
Yeah, but that's a really bizarre outcome, and it leads to other odd things, like why can't I "help" my opponents in an effort to screw them up? If they can refuse to be 'helped', why can't I? etc etc.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-19, 09:44 PM

Tanarii

2017-01-20, 06:58 AM

Yeah, but that's a really bizarre outcome, and it leads to other odd things, like why can't I "help" my opponents in an effort to screw them up? If they can refuse to be 'helped', why can't I? etc etc.

This doesn't make sense.

Yeah. It's seems to require a certain attitude that a check exists in some way inside the game world and belongs inherently to the person making it. As opposed to as an abstract method of resolution, producing a result for a given thing needing to be resolved.

In other words, it's viewing checks in a (very strict) simulation manner.

Xetheral

2017-01-20, 07:46 AM

This doesn't make sense.

It makes perfectly good sense to me, and so much so that when I try out the enforced-group-checks idea I won't apply it to the "knowledge" skills.

Whether your character gives credence to others PCs' ideas is an IC choice that shouldn't be affected by the dice. For example, a stubborn, arrogant wizard isn't likely to doubt their own knowledge about a topic just because the ignoramuses in the party disagree, which means a group check wouldn't be appropriate resolution method--if the wizard isn't willing to listen, they can't be held back by the others' failures. (Conversely, they also can't be helped by the others' successes.)

Saeviomage

2017-01-22, 09:48 PM

Tanarii

2017-01-22, 09:57 PM

They don't forget, they arrive at an incorrect conclusion, or aren't sure what the correct answer is. As a group.

Like I said somewhere up thread, it's (also) a form of determining the state of the world from a check. Or in this case, the group's end state of a discussion of several people.

Checks are just a resolution method. You just determine what success and failure look like before making them. As long as everyone agrees that the end states make sense that's fine. For example, if a player is going to object their choice for what their individual character believes to be true or not true is being taken out of their hands as part of this kind of group check, because they're being 'forced' to go along with a group consensus, it absolutely won't work.

Zalabim

2017-01-23, 04:07 AM

What Xetheral said basically. The group check scenario for a knowledge check suggests that everyone comes up with something, and then they have a conversation about it...

...and then everyone spontaneously forgets all of the opposing points of view and only remembers the consensus. And they do so regardless of their individual character traits.

So given that, I can join in my opponent's check without him letting me, and if I fail, he will screw up.

It's a logical outcome of an illogical rule.

The whole thing starts from when the sage makes a knowledge checks, rolls poorly, and suddenly everyone else wanted to make that knowledge check too. If the sage is going to insist he's right no matter what, that's exactly why his failure counts towards the group failing.

djreynolds

2017-01-23, 04:19 AM

I get the thread, but really all players are adventures and I cannot believe a 20th level barbarians non-proficient persuasion check is worse than a 1st level rogue with expertise or heck even just a fighter with proficiency in persuasion.

I'm not suggesting a jack of all trades for everyone at some character milestone, but at least something that would allow you to use your proficiency score some many times a day on a skill you are not proficient in.

Its too much to ask a player to take the skilled feat, you get 5ASI for most. And just hanging out with the wizard has taught me something about magic... a tad... even not to hide his spellbook as a joke

JellyPooga

2017-01-23, 04:41 AM

I get the thread, but really all players are adventures and I cannot believe a 20th level barbarians non-proficient persuasion check is worse than a 1st level rogue with expertise or heck even just a fighter with proficiency in persuasion.

Is it so hard, really? I mean, on the other end of the spectrum, any given Wizard has roughly the same HP as a Barbarian half his level, despite having lived through many more encounters. Do you expect low-Strength adventurers to be able, on occasion, to be hauling freight on a par with Muscles McMeatbrain too?

What about that high level Barbarian makes him as persuasive (or more so) than a (literal) expert in it, just because he's killed more monsters? Yeah, I can see him being all kinds of Intimidating (even without the Intimidation skill prof) because he's an obvious threat, but that doesn't stop him from being a fumble-tongued buffoon compared to a witty, silver-tongued street rat.

I get the "we're all adventurers doing adventurey things" argument...but unless you're playing the Adventurer Class (aka: Bard), I see no reason why you should be getting any bonus to things you specifically have not trained in. After all, that is to a largely ignored extent, what going up a level represents; not that you've killed X many monsters, but that you've put your adventuring experience into a certain kind of training. If that training doesn't include persuasion, then you're not going to get any better at it.

djreynolds

2017-01-23, 07:07 AM

Tanarii

2017-01-23, 10:15 AM

I can believe a 20th level barbarian is worse at something than a level 1 rogue with expertise. Provided the Barbarian has a totally bonus less than the Rogue. :smallamused:

Obviously that's circular. But the concept doesn't bother me any more than a 5th Barbarian with -1 rolling better Arcana than a 5th Wizard with +7 a total of 16% of the time. Because it's just a resolution method, not a simulation, I can take it as it is. So it doesn't 'break' my in game universe .

Thrudd

2017-01-23, 11:17 AM

I here you, but it an aspect of the game that could be cleared up.

There's what 15 skills or 18, I'd like a few more skilled points, I actually award backgrounds to players.

Its something.

I would never want to overshadow the bard or rogue, or a player well designed, "just throw me a frickin' bone.."

That's why I would distinguish "proficient only" skills. Lore/knowledge is one of those. For special information, if you don't have the proficiency, your character just won't know it. That may not be perfect simulation of how knowledge works, but I feel it's necessary for the game. It is what makes taking those proficiencies relevant, rather than always choosing the most utilitarian option and relying on raw ability scores for most things. If the information is general enough that anyone without special training might know it, then it isn't something you need a skill roll for. Just tell them, or let everyone do an intelligence check at the same time, and if anyone passes, give them all the information.

I think it is important for the game to make those few skill proficiencies a character gets actually mean something. If you're the one with the knowledge proficiency, then if you don't know it no one will. I also apply this to certain ability checks as well - if there's a portcullis that needs to be lifted (outside of a combat scenario), the strongest character present should be the one to attempt it. They can have aid, of course, but if this attempt fails, then certainly the weaker characters won't be able to do it. There will be no more rolls trying to lift it.

This is also in keeping with the "bounded accuracy" philosophy. A 1st level character with proficiency can know things or do things a 20th level character without it doesn't. That's ok. The background and skills you select mean something to the game, not just at low levels but for your character's entire life.

"Everybody rolls" is partly solved by the DM being discerning in when rolls are allowed at all. Partly by using secret rolls and passive checks when those are appropriate. And partly by limiting checks to only those with relevant proficiencies and those that are the "party expert" (such as in the lifting example) at whatever is being tested. Sometimes, it will still make sense that everyone gets to attempt something or for group checks, and that's ok, but it shouldn't be every time anyone is asked to make any sort of check.

djreynolds

2017-01-23, 11:56 AM

Thrudd

2017-01-23, 12:18 PM

I think the dilemma is especially with standard array, it's tough for any player not to have an 8 in something and with proficiency it amounts to the same score as someone untrained but with a higher stat.
And that higher stat for the majority of the game even though untrained has superior numerical advantage.
No matter the how we spin it, unfortunately some classes are better than others when it comes to skills.
I think 5e is the best system but the skill portion is lacking.
I try for the player's sake to say hey barbarian this is your nature check, when it's obvious the wizard is better. Probably from 1st level til at least 17th. Even untrained. And the cleric has a better survival check, than the barbarian.
It ends relegating some players to combat only.

It is what it is.

That's what I'm saying. If the barbarian has nature proficiency and the wizard doesn't, the barbarian is the one who needs to make the check. The wizard doesn't have that knowledge, they don't get to roll, no matter what their intelligence score is or what level they are. That should be the rule. If both characters have nature skill, then they can both roll.
Certain skills shouldn't be able to be used/rolled "untrained". For instance, if they need to know a fact about history and nobody took the history proficiency, then nobody knows it, period. They'll need to find an NPC that can help them. That's how you make taking those backgrounds and skills important. If you don't have survival skill, you can't do survival stuff: you don't know how to hunt or keep a fire going in the rain or identify tracks. The party without survival might need to hire a guide to get them through the woods. And sometimes those situations are good for roleplaying and provide nice challenges to the players. Can you trust your guide? How loyal are they to you? Do you hire someone to take a shortcut through the woods, or take the long way around by following the road along the river?

yes, it may seem implausible from a strict simulation standpoint sometimes, but I think this makes the most sense for the game rather than making those skills irrelevant compared to lucky ability score rolls and high levels.

yes, some classes get more skills than others, and some get access to skills that others don't, that's on purpose. That is one of the points of those classes - your character can fill a roll that other classes without those skills can't fill. A smart group will make sure their party is composed of characters with a breadth of skills and abilities without too much overlap, in order to have access to the widest range of things that can deal with as many situations as possible. That's what I want the game to do, at least.

djreynolds

2017-01-23, 12:30 PM

Thrudd

2017-01-23, 12:38 PM

That's what I try to do. It's your skill.. you do it. It's the only way to get the entire table included.
Othr wise it's the bard talking, the cleric tracking, the wizard doing smarts and everyone standing around.
It also stops everyone rolling.

But it does make a sorcerer who has a 20 in charisma stuck if he took arcana and history.

He's not "stuck" necessarily, if two characters have the same skill, there's always the chance that the one with the lower ability could succeed at a check while the higher ability score failed. The 8 wisdom guy with survival could get a high roll, and the 18 wisdom guy gets a low roll. That's ok, because they both took the skill. He's also not "stuck", because that is his spell casting attribute which makes him good at all the things sorcerers do.

High charisma should be good for checks that aren't based on skill - like first impressions, determining how NPCs feel about you, maybe inspiring loyalty in a follower. But just having charisma doesn't mean they're good at making convincing arguments (persuasion) or telling lies, or seducing people. If they want the character to be able to do those things, they take those skills, because those are things that take practice to be good at.

Other abilities should have similar checks that you identify as "unskilled" uses, things that wouldn't be specifically covered by a skill.

djreynolds

2017-01-23, 12:54 PM

But we agree for the game played at the table it's best. Just let people with proficiency Roll.

For me IMO very Humbly it's the only way to distribute the game to everyone. To include the kid playing d&d the 1st time. And took fighter with history and intimidation. It makes them the player valuable in that pillar of the game.

I don't think it would devalue others, who's player is just more naturally inclined to those skills... they can help

Obviously a cleric should take some wisdom based skills but the cleric and paladin should also take religion...it's the shtick.

Tanarii

2017-01-23, 02:02 PM

The problem with "proficiency only because = trained" checks is that's not what proficiency is in 5e.

The PHB even explicitly says that the raw Ability Scores represent training as well as natural skill in Chapter 7, Using Ability Scores:
Ability Scores and Modifiers
Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.

Proficiency just means something your focused on, ie better at, than other things using the same ability score to make the check. From Chapter 7, Using Ability Scores:
Skills
Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect.

So ability scores already can represent training, and proficiency is a focus, not specifically training. The latter might be because you have a knack for it, it might be because of godly blessings (see Knowledge clerics especially), or it might be because yes, you've got extra training in that specific area on top of training.

But trying to define "proficiency checks only because = trained" goes against RAW. I mean, do it if you want to, or if you feel it represents better how you envision skills working. But be aware you're not matching up with 5e's definitions of ability scores and proficiencies. And be nice to your players and let them know in advance you'll be changing what they mean.

Thrudd

2017-01-23, 02:04 PM

The problem with "proficiency only because = trained" checks is that's not what proficiency is in 5e.

The PHB even explicitly says that the raw Ability Scores represent training as well as natural skill in Chapter 7, Using Ability Scores:
Ability Scores and Modifiers
Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.

Proficiency just means something your focused on, ie better at, than other things using the same ability score to make the check. From Chapter 7, Using Ability Scores:
Skills
Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect.

So ability scores already can represent training, and proficiency is a focus, not specifically training. The latter might be because you have a knack for it, it might be because of godly blessings (see Knowledge clerics especially), or it might be because yes, you've got extra training in that specific area on top of training.

But trying to define "proficiency checks only because = trained" goes against RAW. I mean, do it if you want to, or if you feel it represents better how you envision skills working. But be aware you're making a house-rule, and be nice to your players and let them know in advance you'll be house-ruling it.

Yes, it's absolutely a house rule that players would need to know about. It's one I think could improve the game significantly, and addresses the issue brought up by this thread.

Tanarii

2017-01-23, 02:40 PM

Yes, it's absolutely a house rule that players would need to know about. It's one I think could improve the game significantly, and addresses the issue brought up by this thread.
I actually went out of the way to remove the words "house rule" from my post in this case. :smallwink:

I probably should have axed RAW as well. In this case, I just meant "the possible explanation for what they represent given by the book". Just because it says ability scores CAN represent training does not mean they MUST. But if you limit that possible meaning for ability scores, then extrapolate that to a hard rule affecting when they can make checks, I think it's worth letting your players know that in advance.

pwykersotz

2017-01-23, 06:49 PM

I actually went out of the way to remove the words "house rule" from my post in this case. :smallwink:

I noticed that and appreciated it, for what it's worth.

djreynolds

2017-01-24, 02:02 AM