Only The Best Can Try

[Pex]

There's a pet peeve I keep experience playing D&D that has nothing to do with the system used. I experienced in 3E. I experience it now in Pathfinder and 5E. Some Players use it. Sometimes the DM instigates it. When a skill needs to be rolled anyone in the party can do, it is insisted that only the character with highest modifier gets to roll. In Pathfinder terms, it's one thing if my character has no ranks in a skill and a +1 ability modifier compared to another character with 7 ranks, a +4 modifier, and it's a class skill. However, when I have a +8 total modifier where another character has +10, I get miffed when I'm denied the roll so the other character can do it. At best I'm allowed to Aid to give the other character +2. In 5E terms I give another character Advantage. If my character happens to be the one with the highest total, it bugs me that no one else will even try. It's not any one particular skill. It's Knowledge checks to know about a monster. Diplomacy/Persuasion to influence the NPC. Perception to notice something that's not an ambush situation. Survival for finding tracks, noticing a natural hazard, foraging, etc. Players ask each other or the DM asks the players who has the highest modifier, and that's the player who rolls. It's playing the numbers, not the game. I don't want to be denied the opportunity to try just because my character is not the "best" at it.

[Cespenar]

It's a developed reaction of DMs to these two combined factors:

1) "Oh, the wizard failed his Knowledge check? I try that too, here's my roll!" "Oh, I roll too." "Yeah, me too."

2) The incredible weight of d20 in comparison to actual character bonuses.

In 5e, I've seen a better version of "only the highest rolls", where the DM only allows those with proficiency on hard skill checks.

[Glorthindel]

1) "Oh, the wizard failed his Knowledge check? I try that too, here's my roll!" "Oh, I roll too." "Yeah, me too."


Basically this - its fundamentally an attempt to make having a skill matter, and reduce crit-fishing. And it goes both ways - it may seem harsh that a DM will only allow one character to notice the stealthy enemy approaching the party, but at the same time, there is generally an outcry about bad-DMing if a DM allows a pack of a dozen peon monsters to all roll Perception against a stealthing PC (for the same reason, the DM in this case is relying on multiple rolls to crit-fish for a result that beats the players roll)

That said, I agree it sucks when you have two characters with high levels in a skill, and the character with the lowest modifier i the skill effectively has wasted the skill points because he never gets a chance to use it.

Really its something that can only be resolved by the players and DM trusting each other to play fair. If a DM is to be convinced to allow multiple characters to roll, to avoid players feeling like they have wasted skill choices, then the players have to know when it is not ok to be doing this, and to let a bad roll stand. Longstanding groups will have no problem doing this (my group has played together for 20 years now, and we don't even need to ever talk about this, we know what is and isn't a situation when multiple characters can roll), but new groups (and pickup groups) will need to feel these situations out, and it is often easier not to bother.

[Pleh]

I dunno. Usually I don't limit who can make knowledge checks unless the info really must have training to have a chance. If someone untrained wants to roll for common knowledge, I let everyone roll that wants to, then dispense information going from general to specific in order of player results. I fluff it as the characters turning to one another sharing what they know. The one with the highest roll isn't missing the common knowledge from their check, but before telling their friends EVERYTHING they know about the subject, they listen to how much their friends know so they only need to add some details to what they have already picked up through common knowledge.

Two characters with high checks that make the DC might each get different and importamt pieces of information.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I have a house rule to get round this:

If player A fails a check and players B C and D say they want to roll the check too, then they are counted as assisting.

On the other hand, if the party plan in advance to work on something cooperatively, then they can choose to add assistance to the lead PC's roll, or they can choose to take the best roll of the party.

Of course, I often allow the whole party to roll certain checks: there are plenty of times when it's the right thing to do - perception, knowledge, attack, etc, etc...

[Darth Ultron]

It's always odd to hear another's houserules....but I've never encountered this one before. As a DM I'd never say, well character X has the highest so only they can roll. And I've never had a play say they have agreed to only one roll.

At any time, any player makes whatever check they want to try and make.

What exactly is the reason for not letting four characters all make the same check? Does this somehow take a long time in some peoples games?

What is the idea of ''the only way a skill can matter is if only my character has it?" Like only one character can have each skill? And if this is such a big deal, why not make it part of character creation?

And do other peoples games only have like one or two skill checks? I typical game could have like 100 at least...maybe much more. So...even if you want skills to ''matter'' or whatever....why can't characters just take turns rolling?

[Pex]

It's a developed reaction of DMs to these two combined factors:

1) "Oh, the wizard failed his Knowledge check? I try that too, here's my roll!" "Oh, I roll too." "Yeah, me too."

2) The incredible weight of d20 in comparison to actual character bonuses.

In 5e, I've seen a better version of "only the highest rolls", where the DM only allows those with proficiency on hard skill checks.

Yes, a sub-pet peeve with regards to 5E specifically. Except for tool use 5E does not give any special connotation to being proficient. Being proficient gives you a better chance to succeed, but it's not a "must be this high to ride" barrier. DMs make it such anyway as a house rule and might not even realize it's a house rule. Personal bias it is related to my skill DCs depend on who is DM that day rant, but I recognize that is not 5E's fault so to speak so I don't bring it up when getting my ranting fix.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

As others have alluded to, I think this phenomenon is the logical result of the difference between being specialized in a skill, just having a good applicable attribute, and a +0 modifier at level 1.

At higher levels being pretty good at things should have some potential narrative power.

A related problem is a lack of moderate and minor challenges in most games. In general a mid level fighter doesn't get to use his stealth skills which may be well above those of a level 1 rogue. An elf wizard may have occasionally gotten to use a sword while mopping up a battle, but at level 10 when they have a BAB of 5 and maybe kept the 10th +1 longsword the party found; they never get a chance to cross blades with a low level warrior.

[Darth Ultron]

As others have alluded to, I think this phenomenon is the logical result of the difference between being specialized in a skill, just having a good applicable attribute, and a +0 modifier at level 1.


I think the problem is over powered games. Where the characters all ''must' have high ability scores. And, while that is not a problem by itself, it becomes a huge problem with the DM does not power up the world.



A related problem is a lack of moderate and minor challenges in most games. In general a mid level fighter doesn't get to use his stealth skills which may be well above those of a level 1 rogue. An elf wizard may have occasionally gotten to use a sword while mopping up a battle, but at level 10 when they have a BAB of 5 and maybe kept the 10th +1 longsword the party found; they never get a chance to cross blades with a low level warrior.

I wonder why this does not happen in more games? Are most games just so focused on demi god battles?

[Quertus]

I am baffled by this behavior. And, if I ever saw it at a table, I'd attempt to stamp it out. Hard.


Basically this - its fundamentally an attempt to make having a skill matter, and reduce crit-fishing. And it goes both ways - it may seem harsh that a DM will only allow one character to notice the stealthy enemy approaching the party, but at the same time, there is generally an outcry about bad-DMing if a DM allows a pack of a dozen peon monsters to all roll Perception against a stealthing PC (for the same reason, the DM in this case is relying on multiple rolls to crit-fish for a result that beats the players roll)

I don't know about 5e, but, in 3e, critical successes on skill checks are not a thing. Further, anyone who wants to sneak past mobs needs to increase their stealth skill such that the mobs do not spot them, even on a 20. So this type of house rule is just doubly wrong-minded.

Is this too hard for people to understand? Perhaps D&D should go back to the early days, and make stealth an unopposed roll?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I wonder why this does not happen in more games? Are most games just so focused on demi god battles?
Not "demi god battles" so much as "significant challenges." When there's a major mismatch-- ie, a 10th level character dealing with a 1st-- most groups will say, consciously or unconsciously, "this is a foregone conclusion, there's no need to roll."


I don't know about 5e, but, in 3e, critical successes on skill checks are not a thing. Further, anyone who wants to sneak past mobs needs to increase their stealth skill such that the mobs do not spot them, even on a 20. So this type of house rule is just doubly wrong-minded.

Is this too hard for people to understand? Perhaps D&D should go back to the early days, and make stealth an unopposed roll?
In context, I think the general idea was "everyone rolls and someone will get a high result because d20s." It's a lot more of a problem in 5e, when the difference between an expert and a dabbler is probably only a few points worth of bonus-- d20+0 will beat d20+5 quite often, whereas d20+0 will almost never outshine d20+15.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know about 5e, but, in 3e, critical successes on skill checks are not a thing. Further, anyone who wants to sneak past mobs needs to increase their stealth skill such that the mobs do not spot them, even on a 20. So this type of house rule is just doubly wrong-minded.

Is this too hard for people to understand? Perhaps D&D should go back to the early days, and make stealth an unopposed roll?

5e does not have critical success or critical failure for skill checks. And you're generally rolling vs passive perception (10+Perception, which in most cases is ~10-15).

The issue with repeated rolling is that the chances of rolling really low (ie <5) on the d20 are significant (20%). That makes sneaking with a non-great modifier (0-4) dicy.

[Segev]

It sounds like the response of a DM who doesn't want the equivalent of action deficit to apply to his skill obstacles. For instance, if NPS Rogue Orc is sneaking into camp to plant evidence that the party betrayed the king just before his ally, Duke Starscream, accuses them of it so the King will turn on his best allies (the PCs), he doesn't want 4 people rolling d20s to try to see past the 1 Stealth check.

It could also be meant to speed things along, but...eh. In most cases, it won't, by much. Not that this stops DMs from implementing house rules that don't achieve the goal they had for them.

[Honest Tiefling]

Man, I have the opposite problem where everyone forgets that aid another is a thing and just don't use it. I'd like to know how you got people to remember that rule.

[Aotrs Commander]

I myself just have everyone (who can, in the cases of games where skills can be attempted untrained) make their rolls, and results go to those who get highest. (We also - in D&D use "20 is 30 and 1 is -10" on skill checks.) I also have typically large parties (6-8 characters); I have not, myself, found this to be a particular problem. (Sometimes, they even remember to to Aid Another...!)

(If the NPCs are in ambush or something, I generally assume they have taken 20 or whatever; otherwise, my expectations are generally that (one of) the PCs will make most of their checks most of the time.)

Hell, in my most recent Rolemaster party, which is exploration, pretty much everything is skill checks to Find Out Stuff About Stuff.

(And yes, I do tend to roll a bunch of perception checks for multiple NPCs against stealth or whatever.)

[Thrawn4]

It's a lot more of a problem in 5e, when the difference between an expert and a dabbler is probably only a few points worth of bonus-- d20+0 will beat d20+5 quite often, whereas d20+0 will almost never outshine d20+15.
I have no experience with 5e, but that sounds like a serious design issue. One that might be alleviated by using a d8.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have no experience with 5e, but that sounds like a serious design issue. One that might be alleviated by using a d8.

As a note--that's a point of serious contention, and I'd say that the complaint is due to trying to use 5e's ability check system to emulate 3e's skill system. Properly understood, they're very different and for different purposes, and the issue doesn't really come up.

[RazorChain]

In skill systems (I don't consider D&D skill systems) it matters to actually have the skill. If you don't have the skill you either don't get to roll or roll with such a penalty that you might as well just skip it unless you are in a desperate situation.

If you want to persuade somebody then you have to do the talking, you can't just stand there screaming "Hey, Sir Paladin, try that argument" when said Paladin is in a middle of a conversation. Sometimes NPC's don't want to discuss the matter with mister stick in his ass either.

When it comes to knowledge check I allow everybody to roll if they have the skill, but then I play a skill system where all the world's knowledge isn't just bundled up in couple of skills. This means it's less likely that the character have overlapping skill and at most couple of characters have the same skills.

Of course the players will pick out the guy who is the most likely to succeed. If you have a towering mountain of muscle and you need a door kicked down then you use that guy or you use ingenuity and use the hafling as a battering ram because he is useless and has eaten all your supplies.

[Mordar]

I don't know about 5e, but, in 3e, critical successes on skill checks are not a thing. Further, anyone who wants to sneak past mobs needs to increase their stealth skill such that the mobs do not spot them, even on a 20. So this type of house rule is just doubly wrong-minded.

Wait...are you suggesting that "on the perfect need apply" here? Effectively the only characters that should ever try "stealthing" need a minimum skill modifier of 20 + (perception modifier - 1) of any potential guard/creature/person from which they wish to hide?

Or am I misunderstanding?

- M

[SirBellias]

Yeah, that's occasionally annoying. Usually for skill checks and such I just say "Anyone whose trying to do this roll for it" once someone suggests that's a thing. If they say they're helping each other it counts as an Aid Another.

For perception: "Anyone paying attention to their surroundings, roll for it." This occasionally leads to some players rolling for everything because they want to be the best and are of course going to try/are paying attention at every possible moment, but that's not really a problem as far as I've found. The others continue to play their characters, and it evens out for the most part.

But yeah, people with sub-excellent skills in things often have to use them, as the main-liner is often preoccupied with anything else in the encounter.

[Quertus]

Wait...are you suggesting that "on the perfect need apply" here? Effectively the only characters that should ever try "stealthing" need a minimum skill modifier of 20 + (perception modifier - 1) of any potential guard/creature/person from which they wish to hide?

Or am I misunderstanding?

- M

Hmmm... I guess I'm saying... A person is smart, people are dumb, but crowds are perceptive?

Trying to sneak past a crowd does have a "you must be this tall to ride" requirement, mechanically - one which I do not explicitly disagree with.

So, to sneak past 1000 goblins with a +2 spot, you'd best be able to consistently get a 23 hide. Sounds fine to me.


In context, I think the general idea was "everyone rolls and someone will get a high result because d20s." It's a lot more of a problem in 5e, when the difference between an expert and a dabbler is probably only a few points worth of bonus-- d20+0 will beat d20+5 quite often, whereas d20+0 will almost never outshine d20+15.

Ok, I'm biased against bounded accuracy. But, realistically, just how often does the village idiot correct Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein?

But, when along (more) equals, it's much more obvious that everyone can have a good idea. Only letting the best try negates this (and, thus, is as bad as bounded accuracy for modeling the world (as I perceive it)).


5e does not have critical success or critical failure for skill checks. And you're generally rolling vs passive perception (10+Perception, which in most cases is ~10-15).

The issue with repeated rolling is that the chances of rolling really low (ie <5) on the d20 are significant (20%). That makes sneaking with a non-great modifier (0-4) dicy.

And should sneaking past 1000 people be easy for beginners, in your opinion?


As a note--that's a point of serious contention, and I'd say that the complaint is due to trying to use 5e's ability check system to emulate 3e's skill system. Properly understood, they're very different and for different purposes, and the issue doesn't really come up.

So... Can you explain the proper use of the 5e skill system, especially in context?

[Knaight]

As a note--that's a point of serious contention, and I'd say that the complaint is due to trying to use 5e's ability check system to emulate 3e's skill system. Properly understood, they're very different and for different purposes, and the issue doesn't really come up.

There's no shortage of criticism of 5e's skill system from people who strongly dislike 3e's skill system. The issue comes up all the time.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So... Can you explain the proper use of the 5e skill system, especially in context?
Hahaha, "proper use of the 5e skill system."

You know the old "say yes or roll the dice" adage? You need to lean into it hard. Let characters with Proficiencies just do things without needing roll. Let anyone succeed when the task isn't too hard and doesn't have too much of a failure chance. Remember that any time you pick up the die, there's a good chance of a random result, and only use checks when success should be very much up in the air. Otherwise, take 10 a lot, and award ad-hoc Advantage frequently.

You can play around it if you notice it, but it's definitely a major weakness of the system-- I've had more bad experiences with 5e GMs calling for skill checks too often than I think any other mechanical issue in my gaming career.

EDIT: To be a bit more on-topic, I think Cespenar nailed it-- it's a crude way to curb "me too!" behavior. And, as Segev noted, compensate for action economy in swingy systems, but I think most GMs good enough to recognize that sort of thing can also come up with better ways to handle the original problem. (If everyone can attempt your skill challenge until someone succeeds, you should probably just allow a success without wasting table-time)

[Quertus]

Hahaha, "proper use of the 5e skill system."

You know the old "say yes or roll the dice" adage? You need to lean into it hard. Let characters with Proficiencies just do things without needing roll. Let anyone succeed when the task isn't too hard and doesn't have too much of a failure chance. Remember that any time you pick up the die, there's a good chance of a random result, and only use checks when success should be very much up in the air. Otherwise, take 10 a lot, and award ad-hoc Advantage frequently.

You can play around it if you notice it, but it's definitely a major weakness of the system-- I've had more bad experiences with 5e GMs calling for skill checks too often than I think any other mechanical issue in my gaming career.

EDIT: To be a bit more on-topic, I think Cespenar nailed it-- it's a crude way to curb "me too!" behavior. And, as Segev noted, compensate for action economy in swingy systems, but I think most GMs good enough to recognize that sort of thing can also come up with better ways to handle the original problem. (If everyone can attempt your skill challenge until someone succeeds, you should probably just allow a success without wasting table-time)

So, would this criticism be fair: 5e doesn't have a skill system, it had a complex version of, "when in doubt, flip a coin"?

Also, IMO, a lot of "me too" behavior is realistic. Does anyone here know anything about differential equations? Did anyone here photograph the last eclipse? Can anyone get this jar open? Has anyone tried the new flavor of ice cream? Yes, there are people you may expect to be the most likely one to answer "yes", but, over a large enough sample set of questions, you'll likely encounter surprises. So, why would anyone want to curb realistic outcomes?

[Aotrs Commander]

Hmmm... I guess I'm saying... A person is smart, people are dumb, but crowds are perceptive?

Trying to sneak past a crowd does have a "you must be this tall to ride" requirement, mechanically - one which I do not explicitly disagree with.

So, to sneak past 1000 goblins with a +2 spot, you'd best be able to consistently get a 23 hide. Sounds fine to me.

If it is one instance (like a cavern full of a thousand goblins), the sneaker gets one roll, and compared to everyone else's roll. If you roll well, you'd likely get passed. If you trip and fall flat on your face, you're gonna get spotted.

(Note: if there WERE really 1000 goblins, I'm be taking averages and maybe rolling for the closest and then adjuicating based on distance.)

That's how I do it, anyway.




(If everyone can attempt your skill challenge until someone succeeds, you should probably just allow a success without wasting table-time)

I think this is the sort of thing where you start to look at degrees of success if it's a problem. I run one party on Rolemaster and another in 3.51, both of which, for various reasons, are all about skill checks and finding out stuff. (A bit like Lore checks in 4E work as I very vaguely recall...? Or am I thinkinh of something else?) And I'll parcel out information at different DCs. And I hand out said information to characters in ascending order of skill checks. (So, the characters that rolled the lowest get told they find the basic information, the dude that rolled the best gets the higher difficulty information.) That way, there's still involvement for everyone.



Honestly, though, I'm not sure why what folk are calling the "me too" syndrome is especially a problem.



1Both of which are freakish mutant abberations of editions patched together...

[JoeJ]

So, would this criticism be fair: 5e doesn't have a skill system, it had a complex version of, "when in doubt, flip a coin"?

I don't think that's fair. It would be fair, however, to say that 5e doesn't have a skill system per se, it has an ability system. A skill proficiency only makes you better at doing something you could have done anyway. Proficiency with a particular tool kit, however, means you can do something you otherwise would not have been able to attempt. In both cases the proficiency is an either/or. There are no degrees of proficiency; you either have the proficiency or you don't. If you have it, the bonus you add to your roll that is determined by your level. (And some characters can also have expertise in some skills, which doubles their proficiency bonus).

Also, 5e doesn't have the term "take 20" but it does allow the same thing; if the task can be retried over and over again without penalty, assume that the character gets whatever the result of rolling a 20 would be after taking 10 times as long.


Also, IMO, a lot of "me too" behavior is realistic. Does anyone here know anything about differential equations? Did anyone here photograph the last eclipse? Can anyone get this jar open? Has anyone tried the new flavor of ice cream? Yes, there are people you may expect to be the most likely one to answer "yes", but, over a large enough sample set of questions, you'll likely encounter surprises. So, why would anyone want to curb realistic outcomes?

That makes sense. In the context of 5e specifically, it needs to be pointed out that an Intelligence roll is made to recall information your character knows, not to determine whether they ever knew it in the first place. There are no rolls to see if you know anything. So yeah, I could certainly see the high school dropout being quicker than the PhD to recall some particular fact that they both know.


If it is one instance (like a cavern full of a thousand goblins), the sneaker gets one roll, and compared to everyone else's roll. If you roll well, you'd likely get passed. If you trip and fall flat on your face, you're gonna get spotted.

(Note: if there WERE really 1000 goblins, I'm be taking averages and maybe rolling for the closest and then adjuicating based on distance.)

That's how I do it, anyway.

In 5e, you'd just make one roll and compare it to the passive perception score of the goblins, so this scenario would be easy to adjudicate.

[Luccan]

I agree it's irksome. The problem, as I see it, is that there's some form of fear either that it will eat too much time (which I think can be solved by your players knowing their bonuses better) or that it gives a higher chance of success. My issue with the latter is that I believe any group of skilled people working together on a project should have a higher chance of success, however they decide to approach it. True, the d20 makes it swingy, but that in no way inhibits the reality that unless it's an actual one-shot chance, anyone can try to complete a task.

[RazorChain]

So, would this criticism be fair: 5e doesn't have a skill system, it had a complex version of, "when in doubt, flip a coin"?

Also, IMO, a lot of "me too" behavior is realistic. Does anyone here know anything about differential equations? Did anyone here photograph the last eclipse? Can anyone get this jar open? Has anyone tried the new flavor of ice cream? Yes, there are people you may expect to be the most likely one to answer "yes", but, over a large enough sample set of questions, you'll likely encounter surprises. So, why would anyone want to curb realistic outcomes?

It's a bit more complicated than flip a coin. 5e has done a lot of "streamlining".

First there is only handul of skills it's akin to you can know everything by investing in like 4 skills. A normal character only gets 3 skills or so.

The benefits of picking skills are minimal if you dont have the stats to back the skill up.

Like a monk I was playing, I wanted him to be a showman with public speaking but due to low Charisma the Sorcerer and the Paladin on the virtue of their Charisma would either always outshine my monk or be just as good. I could not improve my puplic speaking in any shape or form and even an unskilled character with no charisma bonus had a decent chance of getting as good or better results at low levels.

The skill system in 5e is might be called decent if you aren't expecting 5e to have any

[Pex]

For clarification I'm not saying the solution is everyone rolls. My point of contention is that when any one in the party can roll but only one person does the rolling it is asked who has the highest modifier first and then that person rolls or in regards to diplomacy does the roleplaying part of talking and any applicable rolling that may be needed. When the difference between any two characters is only by one or two, the lower character should not automatically be dismissed from trying. In my Pathfinder game I put ranks in Diplomacy. My character has 16 Charisma. However, because the Paladin has 20 Charisma and one more rank everyone else in the party wants him to do the talking when talking needs to be done. The issue is settled before I the player have a chance to speak up to volunteer to go speak with the NPC. No one expects the 8 CH dwarf fighter of no ranks to do it.

[RazorChain]

For clarification I'm not saying the solution is everyone rolls. My point of contention is that when any one in the party can roll but only one person does the rolling it is asked who has the highest modifier first and then that person rolls or in regards to diplomacy does the roleplaying part of talking and any applicable rolling that may be needed. When the difference between any two characters is only by one or two, the lower character should not automatically be dismissed from trying. In my Pathfinder game I put ranks in Diplomacy. My character has 16 Charisma. However, because the Paladin has 20 Charisma and one more rank everyone else in the party wants him to do the talking when talking needs to be done. The issue is settled before I the player have a chance to speak up to volunteer to go speak with the NPC. No one expects the 8 CH dwarf fighter of no ranks to do it.

This seems to be a different kind of problem. In my games everyone can talk to anyone even though the group has a face character. Most scenes dont involve a roll anyway.

And even then the NPC's chose to interact with other PC's in the group or might even chose to interact with specific PCs. A dwarf might want to talk to that Cha 8 dwarf and become annoyed when the Paladin butts in.

I generally allow people with the skill to roll if it helps, players who pick a skill want to use it so why should I deny them?

[Vinyadan]

there is generally an outcry about bad-DMing if a DM allows a pack of a dozen peon monsters to all roll Perception against a stealthing PC (for the same reason, the DM in this case is relying on multiple rolls to crit-fish for a result that beats the players roll)

It works both ways, though :smallbiggrin: http://goblinscomic.com/comic/10152005

In general, it just looks like a fast way to get things done. Unless comparing modifiers end up taking more time than just throwing it.

[Selene Sparks]

As a note--that's a point of serious contention, and I'd say that the complaint is due to trying to use 5e's ability check system to emulate 3e's skill system. Properly understood, they're very different and for different purposes, and the issue doesn't really come up.That's incorrect, because I don't actually know anyone who actually likes 3.X's skill system. The problem is just that 5e simply doesn't have a skill system.


In skill systems (I don't consider D&D skill systems) it matters to actually have the skill. If you don't have the skill you either don't get to roll or roll with such a penalty that you might as well just skip it unless you are in a desperate situation.So are you arguing that Shadowrun doesn't have a skill system?

Of course the players will pick out the guy who is the most likely to succeed. If you have a towering mountain of muscle and you need a door kicked down then you use that guy or you use ingenuity and use the hafling as a battering ram because he is useless and has eaten all your supplies.I actually do want to highlight this, though.

If there is a risk to failure, you only want your best person rolling, because anything else actively hurts the party. It is actively detrimental to have people put on jobs they are bad at. When you need to impress someone, you don't send the uncouth barbarian, because they will actively make things worse. And, beyond that, the aid another is actually quite an elegant system. It means that aiding is never, in fact, harmful, and so allows others to participate without throwing the system for a loop. So if you're upset at not rolling, just aid. You get exactly what you want without harming the party.

So... Can you explain the proper use of the 5e skill system, especially in context?You don't?

So, would this criticism be fair: 5e doesn't have a skill system, it had a complex version of, "when in doubt, flip a coin"?"Complex?" I'm afraid you're wrong there. It doesn't actually have anything. The rules that aren't self-contradictory messes or absent entirely, though, pretty much could be handled in that exact way though.

That makes sense. In the context of 5e specifically, it needs to be pointed out that an Intelligence roll is made to recall information your character knows, not to determine whether they ever knew it in the first place. There are no rolls to see if you know anything. So yeah, I could certainly see the high school dropout being quicker than the PhD to recall some particular fact that they both know.I don't have 5e books on me ATM, so I can't actually verify this, but you're saying that 5e actually has no way to determine whether or not characters actually know things? If true, that's even more sad than I thought.

It's a bit more complicated than flip a coin. 5e has done a lot of "streamlining".Except it really isn't. Once you get to the actual rolling part(after the GM has decided whether you are allowed to pour this magical tea), the GM makes up a number that they feel like with no basis for it, and then you roll based on that. I don't actually see the difference in complexity between that and just flipping a coin when the GM has okayed your attempt.

The skill system in 5e is might be called decent if you aren't expecting 5e to have anyI don't really think so, though. It's not just bad, large parts of it are actively unusable, most notably hide. In other words

[JoeJ]

I don't have 5e books on me ATM, so I can't actually verify this, but you're saying that 5e actually has no way to determine whether or not characters actually know things? If true, that's even more sad than I thought.

Of course it has a way. Just like it has a way to determine who the heir to the throne is, how many orcs live in that cave over there, and whether or not it's raining today. That way just doesn't require rolling dice.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Well, this is just a natural consequence of playing a "party first" system. D&D is about the party and PCs are just components of the all-important party.

If you dislike that then play a game that's about PCs having individual motivations and goals that doesn't require them to be marching in lock step against the challenges facing them.

[Deophaun]

Hmmm... I guess I'm saying... A person is smart, people are dumb, but crowds are perceptive?

Trying to sneak past a crowd does have a "you must be this tall to ride" requirement, mechanically - one which I do not explicitly disagree with.

So, to sneak past 1000 goblins with a +2 spot, you'd best be able to consistently get a 23 hide. Sounds fine to me.
I don't know about 5e, but in 3.5 and 4e, there are distance modifiers that come into play. How you're crowding 1000 goblins into a space where they will all have a shot at seeing the sneak is going to be an issue. Furthermore, there are modifiers if the target is distracted (e.g. do anything that isn't watching for intruders). This is often -5. A crowd indicates a lot of distractions.

So, we aren't dealing with 1000 alert goblins. We're dealing with a handful of distracted goblins. Much, much easier.

Finally, the spread of passive skill scoring has made this even more achievable as our goblins with their +2 modifier and -5 distraction penalty are essentially taking 10. We need to beat an 8. And you know what? We can take 10 on our Hide/Move Silent/Stealth checks as well. As long as we don't have a -2 modifier, we're good.

[Pex]

This seems to be a different kind of problem. In my games everyone can talk to anyone even though the group has a face character. Most scenes dont involve a roll anyway.

And even then the NPC's chose to interact with other PC's in the group or might even chose to interact with specific PCs. A dwarf might want to talk to that Cha 8 dwarf and become annoyed when the Paladin butts in.

I generally allow people with the skill to roll if it helps, players who pick a skill want to use it so why should I deny them?

It's the same original problem because I'm the one who brought it up. I clarified because I saw responses went off on a tangent that implied the issue was about everyone rolling. It was never about everyone rolling, though that is a valid concern in its own right.

[Knaight]

First things first - if parties split all the time, this problem generally goes away.


Also, IMO, a lot of "me too" behavior is realistic. Does anyone here know anything about differential equations? Did anyone here photograph the last eclipse? Can anyone get this jar open? Has anyone tried the new flavor of ice cream? Yes, there are people you may expect to be the most likely one to answer "yes", but, over a large enough sample set of questions, you'll likely encounter surprises. So, why would anyone want to curb realistic outcomes?

There's a fair few of these where you'd expect large fractions of the people to be able to answer. Differential equations are pretty basic math that basically anyone in any field which uses math (other than accounting) knows, the eclipse was widely photographed, jar opening is a standard skill where you'd expect any given difficult jar to be handled by 50% of jar openers, etc. This isn't necessarily comparable to actual specialized knowledge.

[RazorChain]

It's the same original problem because I'm the one who brought it up. I clarified because I saw responses went off on a tangent that implied the issue was about everyone rolling. It was never about everyone rolling, though that is a valid concern in its own right.

Sorry, didn't understand the issue at first.

As has been mentioned by Koo Rehrorb this might be an D&D issue of party first.

Another thing Selene Sparks mentioned is "not harm the party"

This seems to happen in games where sub optimal choices aren't choices at all and the group will metagame the crap out of everything.

It's a valid playstyle where the game is about the group overcoming obstacles in a efficient manner but might not adhere to everyones tastes

[Honest Tiefling]

To be fair, if you were going to face a king who got his position by being a spoiled brat but had 50 guards in the room ready to kill your peasant butt, YOU might not want the dwarf to tell him his beard is insufficient. I sure as **** wouldn't open my mouth if I had a charming bard by my side. When in a group of people of diverse backgrounds and skills, you'd imagine most would let the expert handle things so they don't die.

However, if the DM isn't letting someone with a decent score PARTICIPATE, either with roleplay or by granting advantage or by aiding another, maybe the DM is at fault, not the players. I personally love it when my players come up with cons that require more than a few people or try to have different people present different arguments to convince someone.

[Selene Sparks]

Of course it has a way. Just like it has a way to determine who the heir to the throne is, how many orcs live in that cave over there, and whether or not it's raining today. That way just doesn't require rolling dice.So it doesn't have a way at all? Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

Sorry, didn't understand the issue at first.

As has been mentioned by Koo Rehrorb this might be an D&D issue of party first.

Another thing Selene Sparks mentioned is "not harm the party"

This seems to happen in games where sub optimal choices aren't choices at all and the group will metagame the crap out of everything.

It's a valid playstyle where the game is about the group overcoming obstacles in a efficient manner but might not adhere to everyones tastesUh, no, in fact it is the exact opposite of metagaming the crap out of things.

Look, have you ever been in a group project with a decently-sized group? You all have the same objective, but you all have different skills, and there are consequences for failure. You're not going to just throw out assignments to whoever is bored at that moment, as that's a good way to flunk out or get fired, but you put different people with in the positions to take advantage of their skills. And this is doubly true when the stakes are life-or-death instead.

In other words, "I want to roll, and not roll to aid anyone" is vastly more metagame than "I want to behave in a manner consistent with the established framework of the world."

[Koo Rehtorb]

Look, have you ever been in a group project with a decently-sized group? You all have the same objective, but you all have different skills, and there are consequences for failure. You're not going to just throw out assignments to whoever is bored at that moment, as that's a good way to flunk out or get fired, but you put different people with in the positions to take advantage of their skills. And this is doubly true when the stakes are life-or-death instead.

This is the case if there's a clear expert and a bunch of clueless morons. It's not really the case when one person has a +10 and one person has a +8 though.

[Selene Sparks]

This is the case if there's a clear expert and a bunch of clueless morons. It's not really the case when one person has a +10 and one person has a +8 though.A +2 is actually a pretty big number. It's the difference between having masterwork tools for a job and not, or having competent aid. In other words, it should be pretty obvious in-character who's better.

Seriously, though, even beyond that, there is nothing wrong with rolling to aid. It's a good mechanic and a demonstrable boost to the capabilities.

[Knaight]

A +2 is actually a pretty big number. It's the difference between having masterwork tools for a job and not, or having competent aid. In other words, it should be pretty obvious in-character who's better.

A +2 is fairly small in terms of the RNG - that this is what masterwork tools and competent aid are worth is more an indication that they're not particularly valued by the system than that +2 is large.

[Luccan]

A +2 is fairly small in terms of the RNG - that this is what masterwork tools and competent aid are worth is more an indication that they're not particularly valued by the system than that +2 is large.

Yeah. If you have two players with similar bonuses, both of them rolling is going to turn out better results than one of them getting a +2 usually. This is why at most 5e tables(I know this thread is about multiple editions) Advantage usually gives a reroll instead of a flat +5 (the other suggested form of Advantage). Because +5 doesn't mean much if you need to hit 20 and rolled a 2.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Can't say as I've ever seen this behavior, myself, outside of particular circumstances* dictating that only one person -could- reasonably make a check without changing the circumstances with the success or failure of his roll.

For example, setting a grappling hook everyone is going to climb up when nobody has actually put ranks in use rope. Alternately, a spellcraft or use magic device check to activate a piece of magical architecture that punishes failure or good 'ol disable device on a trap.

Otherwise, you might adjust DCs for subsequent attempts after the first if it's warranted and I even allow retroactive aid-another on certain checks but most of the time everyone that can make a check does because of course they do. I -really- don't like completely arbitrary limitations like the OP described.

*"particular circumstances" often means contrived ones but it is what it is.


PS: Somebody said they didn't know anyone who likes the 3.5 skill system. My name is Kelb. How ya doin'? :smallwink:

[PersonMan]

To be fair, if you were going to face a king who got his position by being a spoiled brat but had 50 guards in the room ready to kill your peasant butt, YOU might not want the dwarf to tell him his beard is insufficient. I sure as **** wouldn't open my mouth if I had a charming bard by my side. When in a group of people of diverse backgrounds and skills, you'd imagine most would let the expert handle things so they don't die.

I'd say an example that better fits what Pex has been saying would be the party going to meet the king, with two members who are charming and eloquent, who may both want to speak to the king (say, one is an experienced negotiator while the other grew up in court and knows all the proper etiquette) - but only one is even given a chance to put their skills to use. There's no way to have a sort of scene where someone reveals that they have a certain skillset the others didn't know about, or manages to make a great, impassioned speech while still cramming in all the necessary "...your Highness"es because they do it by reflex.

[JoeJ]

So it doesn't have a way at all? Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

I don't think you could reasonably call that an accurate summary of what I posted.

[PersonMan]

I don't think you could reasonably call that an accurate summary of what I posted.

I think Selene is saying that, if a system doesn't have a built-in method of doing something, it can't be said to have a way to do it, even if one exists. So an entirely extrasystem process like "the GM decides it's raining" isn't something that can be said to be part of the system.

[JoeJ]

I think Selene is saying that, if a system doesn't have a built-in method of doing something, it can't be said to have a way to do it, even if one exists. So an entirely extrasystem process like "the GM decides it's raining" isn't something that can be said to be part of the system.

Which is to say that no version of D&D has any way to create a campaign world. I'd have to disagree with her definition, then.

[Berenger]

Man, I have the opposite problem where everyone forgets that aid another is a thing and just don't use it. I'd like to know how you got people to remember that rule.

Create an encounter in which the enemies make efficient use of aid another.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Which is to say that no version of D&D has any way to create a campaign world. I'd have to disagree with her definition, then.
...the definition is bad because you have defined the D&D rules to contain some way to create a campaign world? No, that's not how it works. Your reasonable conclusion would have to be that creating a D&D campaign world is not part of the system, which is in many ways true, as the setting comes with the game (pregenerated Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron). Spread throughout the various books, there are lots of random tables (for 3.5, DMG page 137-139, also doors, room contents, tree density (yes, they're all rolled for!), arguably the random encounter tables, DMGII page 86, 88-95, and so on), which can be used to mechanically create a game setting, so to the extend that there are tables, creating a campaign world is part of the D&D rules.

But yes, part of the game relies on pure talk, and that part is not really "part of the system"; the writers did not provide a structure to override whatever decision making process was in place before the game. That can be good (with a great DM & chemistry at the table), but it can equally be very bad (bad DM & random players). I wouldn't say the writers deserve any credit--good or bad--for leaving things up to the table. If you have a great game with the 5e skill system, congratulate the DM, not WotC.

[Quertus]

Yeah. If you have two players with similar bonuses, both of them rolling is going to turn out better results than one of them getting a +2 usually. This is why at most 5e tables(I know this thread is about multiple editions) Advantage usually gives a reroll instead of a flat +5 (the other suggested form of Advantage). Because +5 doesn't mean much if you need to hit 20 and rolled a 2.

Your math made me die a little inside.

If you need to roll a 20, having Advantage at +0 gives you a 39/400, or 9.75% chance of success. OTOH, rolling at +5 gives you a 6/20, or 30% chance of success.

[Darth Ultron]

Ok, I'm biased against bounded accuracy. But, realistically, just how often does the village idiot correct Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein?


Often enough. More then enough that you can have a roll chance for it.

Very, very, very often the 'smart one'' gets ''locked'' into a problem or such that they can't see a way out of....but the more simple thinker, who is not so bogged down, sees the easy answer.

And this is even more true in ''high stress'' adventuring.

[Pex]

Often enough. More then enough that you can have a roll chance for it.

Very, very, very often the 'smart one'' gets ''locked'' into a problem or such that they can't see a way out of....but the more simple thinker, who is not so bogged down, sees the easy answer.

And this is even more true in ''high stress'' adventuring.

Reminds me of an episode of Stargate where the Asgard call on Captain Carter for help against Replicators who captured one of their ships. The Asgard knew the Replicators were just as smart as they are so anything they do the Replicators could counter. Since Humans defeated the Replicators several times already, they needed the Human capacity for being stupid to succeed. That's exactly what happens. Captain Carter comes up with a dumb idea solution (blow up the captured ship) the Asgard would never have thought to do. Thor even objects to do it at first because it is so stupid until Carter reminds him that's why they asked for her help.

[Segev]

EDIT: To be a bit more on-topic, I think Cespenar nailed it-- it's a crude way to curb "me too!" behavior. And, as Segev noted, compensate for action economy in swingy systems, but I think most GMs good enough to recognize that sort of thing can also come up with better ways to handle the original problem. (If everyone can attempt your skill challenge until someone succeeds, you should probably just allow a success without wasting table-time)

You'd be surprised, actually, how many people pick up on the problem just by stumbling into it, not by "recognizing" it ahead of time. It's not hard to realize that, if you let a second player check, you wind up in a "keep checking until they succeed" situation. At that point, only allowing one player to check seems, to the casual examiner, to be the key to solving that "problem."

My point being that it doesn't take somebody with astute game theory expertise to see the problem.

[Quertus]

This thread just reminded me of one of my favorite gaming moments.

So, in a Shadowrun game, I was playing a (custom-built) Troll Street Samurai. Lots of stuff happens, and the party ends up with... A disc? Something with data.

So the party tries to access it. After the entire rest of the party has tried and failed, my Troll asks for it. Figuring that, even if I eat it, we won't be any worse off than we are right now, the party hands it over.

My Troll sticks it in a computer, and starts typing. "Oh, it's encrypted". A few minutes later, "Got it." The party was quite flabbergasted. Turns out, my "dumb" Troll was actually the best person for the job, having actually put ranks in the appropriate skills. That scene was so much better with everyone else failing first.

[Scripten]

You'd be surprised, actually, how many people pick up on the problem just by stumbling into it, not by "recognizing" it ahead of time. It's not hard to realize that, if you let a second player check, you wind up in a "keep checking until they succeed" situation. At that point, only allowing one player to check seems, to the casual examiner, to be the key to solving that "problem."

My point being that it doesn't take somebody with astute game theory expertise to see the problem.

I've found, as a DM, that the focus on rolling only for critical situations truly does speed the game up. My current group is playing two campaigns, one in 5E and one in Shadow of the Demon Lord, both of which use a variation of the rule. We never have a "Me, too!" situation pop up, because both successes and failures change the situation. (I tend to lean toward SotDL's handling, since it's both streamlined in this way and has only a single DC/TN for most checks.)

For example, if we have a social situation, then the party member who is speaking either succeeds or fails in their goal. Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, the NPC which they are talking to is affected by the roll, which changes the context of further rolls (if they are made), both by the same player or by anyone else. We move on either way. I've found that this naturally curtails every player just rolling for everything, because there is a risk of upsetting the situation by rolling poorly.

Granted, there are situations where every player should be attempting a roll, but that's usually for things like attempting to leap a particularly large gap or moving through barbed wire, where failure does change the situation, but only for that player. In that case, though, I don't think the "Me, too!" is applicable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've found, as a DM, that the focus on rolling only for critical situations truly does speed the game up. My current group is playing two campaigns, one in 5E and one in Shadow of the Demon Lord, both of which use a variation of the rule. We never have a "Me, too!" situation pop up, because both successes and failures change the situation. (I tend to lean toward SotDL's handling, since it's both streamlined in this way and has only a single DC/TN for most checks.)

For example, if we have a social situation, then the party member who is speaking either succeeds or fails in their goal. Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, the NPC which they are talking to is affected by the roll, which changes the context of further rolls (if they are made), both by the same player or by anyone else. We move on either way. I've found that this naturally curtails every player just rolling for everything, because there is a risk of upsetting the situation by rolling poorly.

Granted, there are situations where every player should be attempting a roll, but that's usually for things like attempting to leap a particularly large gap or moving through barbed wire, where failure does change the situation, but only for that player. In that case, though, I don't think the "Me, too!" is applicable.

This is key. "Me too" only happens if each check is independent and one success is enough. Those are usually cases where you just shouldn't roll at all, just auto-succeed. If each character is separately affected by their individual outcomes, everyone can roll separately (perception vs surprise, for example). If the group can work together but they're all affected by the single outcome, do a group check* or have them choose one person to roll with the rest Helping, depending on the nature of the check. If only one person can participate in a particular segment and the party can plan this in advance, then they choose who makes the check. If they can't plan in advance, then the fiction decides who makes the check. These last two are characteristic of social encounters.

Couple these principles with the idea that the DM calls for checks (not the players), some basic sense (no, you all can't read that book at the same time), and the idea that some interactions will need multiple checks with feedback between them (the outcome of one influences the next) and the problem almost entirely goes away.

*one implementation of group checks is that everyone rolls separately, if 50% pass, then the group passes that check. Other implementations exist.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd say an example that better fits what Pex has been saying would be the party going to meet the king, with two members who are charming and eloquent, who may both want to speak to the king (say, one is an experienced negotiator while the other grew up in court and knows all the proper etiquette) - but only one is even given a chance to put their skills to use. There's no way to have a sort of scene where someone reveals that they have a certain skillset the others didn't know about, or manages to make a great, impassioned speech while still cramming in all the necessary "...your Highness"es because they do it by reflex.

True, but I do think the argument that not everyone should try every skill roll is still valid. If we were all in a room with a bomb that required a math problem to solve, I'd play hot potato with it. If skill rolls have consequences, such as a day missed foraging, angering a teenage king or insulting merchants, well, that would be one way to get people with only a +1 bonus to attempt them.

[Quertus]

Does anyone notice the hidden switch?

Did anyone recognize the design as Vorsic?

Did anyone know that Vorsic items (including switches) are usually magically warded?

How far down this chain you progress changes the game.

[PersonMan]

True, but I do think the argument that not everyone should try every skill roll is still valid.

Yes. But I don't think this is the same argument. Not everyone should try (and specifically excluding dogpiling by people with no reason to succeed just to try and make it work by chance) =/= of course only the person with the highest modifier ever gets a shot, everyone else needs to sit down and wait their turn [to put it in a blunt way].

[Psikerlord]

I have no problem with everyone having a go. But everyone only gets 1 go, generally, unless circumstances significantly change.

5e kinda f*cks things up by making helping someone give adv, which is probably less beneficial than everyone simply trying themselves (given a party of 4-6, the sheer number of rolls, and usually low prof bonus vs Attribute bonus). This is another reason why they should have kept incremental modifiers generally (like they did for AC). Helping someone should grant a +3 or +4 bonus instead of Adv, increasing the highest potential result, rather than simply adv which only increases the average result.

[Pex]

Yes. But I don't think this is the same argument. Not everyone should try (and specifically excluding dogpiling by people with no reason to succeed just to try and make it work by chance) =/= of course only the person with the highest modifier ever gets a shot, everyone else needs to sit down and wait their turn [to put it in a blunt way].

Right. When anyone in the party can do the thing to make the roll and it is accepted only one person in the party will be making a roll, I don't want to be automatically denied the opportunity to be the one who makes the roll because I only have a +2 total modifier where the person who makes the roll has +4. I'll allow some leeway in my peeve. If the task is absolutely essential, we really really really need a success, I'm fine with the character who has the highest total modifier roll because every +1 matters. When failure only means we try something else no harm no foul or even there actually won't be a roll it's all roleplay flavor text and my character is good enough, it's being dismissed because the players (or DM) ask for who has the highest total to do it that bugs me. Even if I do have the highest modifier the act of asking still bugs me.

[Quertus]

Right. When anyone in the party can do the thing to make the roll and it is accepted only one person in the party will be making a roll, I don't want to be automatically denied the opportunity to be the one who makes the roll because I only have a +2 total modifier where the person who makes the roll has +4. I'll allow some leeway in my peeve. If the task is absolutely essential, we really really really need a success, I'm fine with the character who has the highest total modifier roll because every +1 matters. When failure only means we try something else no harm no foul or even there actually won't be a roll it's all roleplay flavor text and my character is good enough, it's being dismissed because the players (or DM) ask for who has the highest total to do it that bugs me. Even if I do have the highest modifier the act of asking still bugs me.

Eh, this is a thing IRL. Sometimes, only your best pitcher will do; other times, you don't care.

Competitive sports teams rarely just let the second best person do stuff. They only do it with purpose - to let the best one rest, or to give the other one practice, especially when the stakes are perceived as being low.

Being that second (or third) best person and demanding field time just because is a **** move in that scenario.

So, it really depends on your play style here.