|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 4:08PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I started using the "If you fail aid another its -2" rule for a while, when my players would just all roll to help on everything. They didn't like the imagry of everyone surrounding anyone who attempts a skill and helping out a bit here or there.
Why didn't they just not do it?
Why don't people in stories and action movies all help out with a task? Do they all sit around waiting on that person, or do they have things that need doing?
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:10PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
When a check can be done by the entire party, it seems nearly certain that someone will get lucky with a good roll . . .
If the entire party is involved then it's a group check: everyone makes the check against the easy DC and if at least half of the group passes their checks, the group collectively succeeds at hearing the noise, sneaking past the ogre, or whatever else it is.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:25PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
I started using the "If you fail aid another its -2" rule for a while, when my players would just all roll to help on everything. They didn't like the imagry of everyone surrounding anyone who attempts a skill and helping out a bit here or there.
Why didn't they just not do it?
Because most of them are fairly decent tactical optimizers, if they don't neccessicarily make the best characters. As such, they realized it was the best tactic and did it, even if they weren't thrilled with it. I'd assume.
Why don't people in stories and action movies all help out with a task? Do they all sit around waiting on that person, or do they have things that need doing?
Yes they do very often. If there are other things they will do that, but generally its as simple as "we stand over his shoulder and ask watch. Or sit around waiting for him to finish".
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:37PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Why don't people in stories and action movies all help out with a task? Do they all sit around waiting on that person, or do they have things that need doing?
Yes they do very often. If there are other things they will do that, but generally its as simple as "we stand over his shoulder and ask watch. Or sit around waiting for him to finish".
The point is, it doesn't have to be. It's easy enough to have other things going on. In general, if combat isn't happening, it's just as reasonable to assume they accomplish whatever it is and move on. Only when there's something else going on is it worth focusing on the risk of failing a task, or the cost (in action or HP or whatever) associated with even attempting the task.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:53PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2011
|
I think that every time you have the PCs make a roll like that, you should have clear success and failure options in your mind, or (if they can't fail it due to a plot thing) degrees of success. It should be meaningful if they succeeded or failed.
In the example I gave above, failing to move the stone pillar off the door didn't mean the adventure was over. They had to try until they succeeded. The reason I didn't just say "yeah you'll succeed someday, don't roll" is because failures accrued damage onto the party and alerted the grell a short distance beyond the door so it could set up an ambush. If there's no difference between them succeeding or failing on rolls...don't make them roll. Adding consequences is my preference rather than skipping all rolls because it helps people who have good skills feel useful.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:56PM
#16
|
|
|
When a check can be done by the entire party, it seems nearly certain that someone will get lucky with a good roll . . .
If the entire party is involved then it's a group check: everyone makes the check against the easy DC and if at least half of the group passes their checks, the group collectively succeeds at hearing the noise, sneaking past the ogre, or whatever else it is.
Bingo.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 11:51AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
I think that every time you have the PCs make a roll like that, you should have clear success and failure options in your mind, or (if they can't fail it due to a plot thing) degrees of success. It should be meaningful if they succeeded or failed.
In the example I gave above, failing to move the stone pillar off the door didn't mean the adventure was over. They had to try until they succeeded. The reason I didn't just say "yeah you'll succeed someday, don't roll" is because failures accrued damage onto the party and alerted the grell a short distance beyond the door so it could set up an ambush. If there's no difference between them succeeding or failing on rolls...don't make them roll. Adding consequences is my preference rather than skipping all rolls because it helps people who have good skills feel useful.
Good, good.
Some skills... I simply go with who has the highest ability in the skill.... or the lowest....
If Pindrop Rabbit-Ears the Nosy can't hear a whisper across the room.... I doubt Loudmouth Bill can either. One check for Pindrop. If he can't hear it, no one can.
If they were sneaking past the dragon, it doesn't matter if Softfoot the Halfling makes it past quietly... Tankard Rattlepot's incessant rattling gives the party away.
Depends on circumstance, as most things.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 12:00PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
I do a house-rules version of "group" checks for some appropriate actions, because the RAW Assist action doesn't work very well in many situations:
Let's say we're doing a group Stealth check. I want to ensure that the character who has put a lot of points into Stealth really helps, but also that the character who sucks at Stealth doesn't completely destroy the check (otherwise, they would never bother to attempt it). Fluff it as one master sneaker going ahead a couple of steps, scouting the way, beckoning the others forward, holding up his hand to stop, etc.
The PCs choose one character as the leader for the roll. His roll will determine success or failure (or degree of success).
All of the other participating PCs BESIDES the leader roll Stealth vs. the difficulty. Let's say it was 23 here.
Now the leader makes his critical roll. For every PC who succeeded, the leader gets +2 to the roll. For every PC who failed, -2.
For some checks, I alter this a bit. For example, they wanted to make a group Strength check to push a stone pillar off a door. I ruled that we'd do a group Strength check, but it doesn't make sense that more people who help could lead to penalties--even someone worthless helps just by their body weight.
So I changed it slightly. Only three characters could help without getting in each other's way (unless they came up with an idea such as using a lever or pully or whatever--in which case all could participate). The leader for the roll was chosen. All non-leader PCs made their rolls. Then the leader rolled the make-it-or-break it check. As usual, for every success the helpers got, the leader got +2 to his critical roll. However, failures didn't give -2 in this case. Instead, everyone who failed contributed nothing AND took 1d6 damage as the pillar shifted while they pushed.
I think good use of group rolls can really make everyone feel like they participated but also make players feel valued because they put a lot of points (feats, etc, you know what I mean) into that skill.
Interesting approach... I think I can find some variation of this to use.
Maybe as simple as a mass-assist, or perhaps average the lowest check with the highest check. That could even cut it down to a single dice roll... which I'm all about cutting out dice rolls when possible.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 10:14AM
#19
|
|
|
I think that every time you have the PCs make a roll like that, you should have clear success and failure options in your mind, or (if they can't fail it due to a plot thing) degrees of success. It should be meaningful if they succeeded or failed.
In the example I gave above, failing to move the stone pillar off the door didn't mean the adventure was over. They had to try until they succeeded. The reason I didn't just say "yeah you'll succeed someday, don't roll" is because failures accrued damage onto the party and alerted the grell a short distance beyond the door so it could set up an ambush. If there's no difference between them succeeding or failing on rolls...don't make them roll. Adding consequences is my preference rather than skipping all rolls because it helps people who have good skills feel useful.
Good, good.
Some skills... I simply go with who has the highest ability in the skill.... or the lowest....
If Pindrop Rabbit-Ears the Nosy can't hear a whisper across the room.... I doubt Loudmouth Bill can either. One check for Pindrop. If he can't hear it, no one can.
If they were sneaking past the dragon, it doesn't matter if Softfoot the Halfling makes it past quietly... Tankard Rattlepot's incessant rattling gives the party away.
Depends on circumstance, as most things.
thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking of. When an entire party is rolling, sometimes Loudmouth Bill will roll better than Pindrop Rabbit-Ears, and that often doesn't make any sense in context.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 10:35AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking of. When an entire party is rolling, sometimes Loudmouth Bill will roll better than Pindrop Rabbit-Ears, and that often doesn't make any sense in context.
Depends on the context you give it. If it's just everyone taking turns, or rolling at the same time, excusing it as a "lucky break" will get old after a while. If it's the second (or last) stringer stepping up to make a necessary check in a stressful situation because the expert isn't in a position to make it, then it's simply an awesome, heroic scene.
The game is often about characters being awesome and the expert getting the job done with a flourish, but that is only part of the fantasy adventure trope. In a "real" fantasy adventure, skill is often neutralized and success depends on other factors: amazing luck, desperate leaps, teamwork, taking a different angle, and even a string of earlier failures. So, sometimes it makes sense for the skilled person to be unable to make the check, and for the unskilled character to step up.
I agree that in the case of everyone just standing around, it doesn't make sense, and the game tries to mitigate this with some skills requiring training, but in general the problem is due to calling for checks while everyone is just standing around.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
