|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 2:39AM
#1
|
|
|
What do you do when you're facing a single skill check for a task that the entire party could attempt?
The most common examples are:
breaking something
picking a lock
spotting something
searching
hearing something
Sometimes it seems appropriate to limit the PCs you permit to attempt the check. It just doesn't make sense for a lucky role to allow the weak wizard to kick down a door right after the brawny fight has failed.
So when the party faces something that they can all attempt, or all automatically attempt (like hearing something) how decide how to handle it? Here are some options I see:
1. allow everyone to roll and deal with any narrative absurdities
2. only allow the player with the highest appropriate skill make the attempt
3. only allow players with a certain minimum ability in the skill to make the attempt
When do you use these options? How do you decide? Are there are 'solutions' you use at your table?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 3:49AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2008
|
breaking something:
if time is not limited, then you can just break it. The roll (if required) just show how long it took/how much noise you made/how damaged the door-frame is/etc.
if time is limited, let 1-2 people do aid-other checks for the PC that is going to do the actual breaking. If the weak wizard wants to help the brawny fighter kick down a door, let them use arcana to magic-missile the door to weaken it or dungeonering to advise the fighter on technique.
picking a lock:
This is generally a trained-only task, so not such a problem. Again, if you have unlimited time you can just open it, the skill check is to see if you set off the trap first. Allow an aid-other if someone wants to help.
spotting something/hearing something:
Everyone rolls separately, inform those who pass about the information, encourage them to tell the others in-character
searching:
Again, do they have unlimited time? Are they sure there is something to find or are they searching "just in case"?
Either everyone rolls separately, or split up and search parts of the room (they get a bonus as it's a target search, but only find hidden things if they are in the area they search)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 5:07AM
#3
|
|
|
For spot and listen checks:
I'll either roll for the PCs behind my screen if it is better to keep the players unaware that something is up (I keep a cheat sheet with each PCs saves, spot/listen/sense motive modifiers, hit points and characteristics). If I want the players to be expecting trouble I'll call for them each to roll spot and listens.
Searching:
If a PC is actively searching then they either roll their search check, use the take ten or the take twenty depending on how long/how thoroughly they want to search. In the wrong location (like checking a large room in a dungeon) taking twenty can result in wandering monsters or something else coming into the room and attacking. If other PCs have the search skill they might be able to assist with the aid another.
Picking a lock:
Effectively the same as searching in how I'll handle it.
Breaking the door:
Typically the strongest PC will roll to see if they can break down the door (or hack it apart). Again others may be able to assist with aid another, although if it is a narrow hallway and all the PCs are medium sized may limit it to one person assisting.
This would be in 3.0/3.5.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 5:23AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
> picking a lock:
> This is generally a trained-only task, so not such a problem.
In 3.xE, yes. In 4E, no.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:13AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
A few things.
- A 20 is not an auto success. If the door is so hard that the fighter needs to roll well to do it, it may well be impossible for the wizard, even if he does his best. Keeping this in mind may help reduce instances when the wizard gets lucky and breaks down doors the fighter can't.
- Point out the "Take a 20" option for your players. If they have long enough, like picking a lock, the best person can take a 20, and get [very high] giving the best possible result. Why would the other pcs even want to make an attempt, when they know straight out "I am worse at this than him".
- Aid another option. Allow a DC X check to provide a bonus to the best person who then rolls. This is great when you have an awesome guy who invested a lot, and a guy who invested a little and wants to help out. He can aid another and give a bonus to the better guy.
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
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 11:02AM
#6
|
|
|
Thanks for the thoughts, much appreciated. Here's the quandry that made me think of it:
It seems generally like it's ok to limit the door breaking check to the strongest character, and allow the others to assist that PC. say the DC is 19, so technically anyone 'could' pull it off with a lucky roll. What hangs me up is why do this with a break check, but not with a listen check? If the party could hear a noise with DC 19, why wouldn't a limit the check to the character with the best listening ability?
I guess it seems like listening is a skill where you could be distracted, or by luck someone with a lot less skill could get lucky and hear a noise that the keen ranger misses, but I guess I was just thinking about how to define this distinction.
When a check can be done by the entire party, it seems nearly certain that someone will get lucky with a good roll . . . This is especially true in the current DDN playtest bounded accuracy system, which is what made me think about all this.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 11:20AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
Thats where the take 20 rules come in.
If that doors DC is really only 19, then any player in the party should be able to break it down without a role. (barring a few weak level 1 wizards). I doub't I'd even ask for a check, it just happens easily. Someone says "I take a 20 and kick it in" and it shatters everywhere.
Listen checks, no one can take a 20 because it is time sensitive. They don't have all day to make sure they square up on the door. They either heard something, or they didn't. They can't take a 20, so you let everyone roll on those. Maybe someone hears something the others didn't. By and large, the ranger is hearing more than the wizard, but sometimes he gets lucky.
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
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 12:11PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Never roll for anything unless there is an interesting cost or consequence associated with both success and failure.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 3:04PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 4:01PM
#10
|
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.
I think I also upped the DC on paragon and epic tasks by 5 for aid another. (As in if the task is a paragon tier task the DC is 15 to aid another. Regardless of PC level)
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
|
|
|
