I like using gradients of Difficulty Class. I feel that a DC 10 doesn’t cover things all the time, but some things aren’t yet 15. So I put in 12s and 14s as well.
First time to the channel. This guy bounces from "Rules as Written" to "Rules as Intended" to "Rules Be Damned' and back and forth faster than a meteorologist changes their forecast.
That bouncing is called skill gained from years of experience. Adapting, modifying or changing is what DM's do. And thats if the only thing youknow about being one is the game rules. The least important part ofthe equation. Curios w yrs later if you still find this changing it at will odd.
You can totally assist the heavy armour wearer in being moving silently. Unfortunately, this involves wrapping them up in the tapestry you looted 3 rooms back to muffle the sound and dedicating 2 party members to carrying them.
For the stealth check (and actually all checks), I'd have the player describe what they're trying to do. For instance, if the character is in a busy Marketplace (even in broad daylight) and wants to lose a tail by "disappearing into the crowd", I'd allow a stealth roll to see if the character is able to use the crowd to break line of sight. Likewise, in your combat scenario, combat is a very chaotic event. You may be actively aware of your surroundings, but even the best of us can be overwhelmed and lose track of important details, like the sneaky-sneaky rouge capable of backstabbing. Give me, the DM, a plausible situation, and I'll consider it. But, both of those situations will be contested rolls, with the person being evaded getting to make a perception check to see if they can spot the person who's trying to sneak away. And, depending on the factors, there may be disadvantage applied on the roll. For instance, if the rouge trying to disappear in the crowd is wearing an outfit that makes them stand out like a sore thumb, that's going to be a disadvantage roll.
A group Stealth check can be described as a, "What was that noise?" **rogue makes bird noises** "Ah, must be nothing..." situation. I allow group stealth in macro situations, like sneaking into the castle, as opposed to micro situations, like sneaking past a specific guard, because it serves the narrative by allowing advancement of the plot without creating a "roll until you fail" single point of failure.
That's actually a really good idea. I'm going to keep track of that. Maybe they also throw a small pebble at the same time to sell the idea that it's a small critter/bird/whatever. I like that.
Recently played an Oath of the Ancients paladin (10th level or so). We were trying to 'stealth' our way past a critical guardpost. I was actually doing pretty well up to that point, then I rolled a 1. Well damn. Go for it then... I closed with the guard as he raises his whistle and hit him with a thunderous smite... So much for stealth...
Yeah, maybe have the rest of the party that helps the guy out roll with disadvantage to show them DESPERATELY trying to hold the chainmail pieces still
So as much as I like this, I think we all know that _most_ groups would just use group stealth checks as a way to give the Paladin consequence free stealth. Which brings back the video creators point about embracing failure. The idea that the Paladin _can't_ stealth means parties need to come up with creative solutions rather than "we just stealth passed this encounter". That, or they need to start spending resources to give the Paladins stealth.
My group found a way around the armored character ruining their stealth. They had the magic user cast levitate and just floated him behind the group and he held real still. It was brilliant and creative so I allowed it. He still had to roll, just not at disadvantage and I made the magic user roll to maintain concentration with his stealth roll, as he would be focusing on moving quietly and on the spell at the same time.
Thats not how concentration works Personally I'd argue they have to attach rope (spending about 1 minutes to get it right) But at that rate I'd just give them a magical armor to not have disadv.
Luke: "the rules clearly state..." *ten minutes later* Luke: "I know the rules say this, but..." *ten more minutes later* Luke: "the rules clearly state..."
On that natural 20 issue, I always thought it was a holdover from 3.5e, but looking at the PHB for that, it's actually quite explicitly not the case. I think this just comes down from tradition/house rules. Here is the exact text, though: The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. *Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.* So there it is.
@@AlbinosaurusR3X Yeah I've always been hard against auto-pass 20s for skill checks, having started my gaming by reading the 3.5 books. In the advice for setting DCs, 3.5 preempted some DMs who may want to discern between "impossible" and "nearly impossible" tasks, knowing that characters could and would be encouraged to (like in the Epic Level Handbook to come) become INSANELY powerful. They went on to suggest a "nearly impossible" swim check DC of 90 for swimming up a waterfall. So yeah, suggesting that was theoretically possible, they could not suggest that any random person could do so 5% of the time. Impossible-to-obtain DCs allow for gods to have a chance of failure (the ones that have to roll, anyway), and for superhero powerhouses to succeed at essentially unreal checks.
I've always thought of perception checks as things we perceive. "I go the door and listen for voices on the other side" or "I climb the rafters to get a better viewpoint". Perception check. If you are actively looking for something like "I take my hand and feel around the top of the doorframe" or "I toss the room looking for his spellbook". If you are actively trying to do a particular thing, that's investigation. That's how I rule it anyway.
That’s how I run the checks too. Perception is looking, listening and in some cases smelling while investigation is hands on. Moving things and feeling for hidden switches and the like.
Be careful with asking for perception rolls for sensory checks when you should be using passive perception and "freebie" sensory checks. If the room smells bad, you should be able to tell them that without asking for a successful sniff, rolling high doesnt turn you into a bloodhound. Nor should a roll dictate whether you can hear or see something that is not hidden. There could be cases where a creature is hiding and you roll opposing perception vs stealth, but allowing someone to 'roll to see __' is inviting the chance (if roll is low) to 'occassionally see nothing'/go blind for a round
"When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check." - Player's Handbook
Acrobatics vs athletics: have them describe HOW they’re climbing that wall to decide which roll. Knowledge checks for Goblins: History: what it’s tribe has done/served in the past Arcana: likelyhood of him being a shaman Nature: lifestyle of this tribe Religion: does this particular tribe follow that particular dark god?
I'd probably be strict and say that athletics is used for straight climbing. Even if you do like a parkour wall run (which is still pretty athletic), that probably isn't going to let you scale a 30ft wall... At least at low levels.
@@AnaseSkyrider Yeah, I do allow Athletics or Acrobatics for climbing. Hell, the old edition Rogues had wall climbing as a built-in feature, not the Fighter. I like the dexterous parkour, but I do require a plan of attack that uses the environment. Even the regular Athletics climbing should be exceedingly difficult without some kind of grapple.
'have them describe HOW they’re climbing that wall to decide which roll.' this is great advice in general. players should be interacting with the world and describing their actions, not picking options from their character skill list. i prefer when players tell me what their character is trying, rather than just asking 'can i do an acrobatics check'. this also helps because sometimes i may not even ask for a roll for what they are attempting. if the player is creative in interacting with the world and describes how they use the environment to their advantage then this could either ignore a roll entirely or reduce the DC.
As someone who climbs a lot that works, or I would rule it based on what they are climbing. Very smooth wall with few holds? Acrobatics. Long drawn out climb for 60 feet or more? Athletics. The issue is climbing is a mixture of the two :/
Without spoiling the episode, on the most recent Critical Role, Liam provided a good example of point number 6. On a check he made, he rolled a natural 1, which as a halfling he has the option to reroll. But he said, “I could reroll it, but I’ll just let it happen.” He did that because he felt, as a player, the failure would lend itself to a more entertaining story. If a rule gets in the way of a player’s enjoyment of the story and game, don’t use it. Embrace the failure because they are often more fun than successes.
I mean, i wouldn't call this " a rule getting in the way of player's enjoyment" not saying that your statement overall is wrong, but in this particular example, the halfling feature is a possibility, not a rule. It says you CAN, which means you decide if you do or not. - Its the same with Finesse weapons, you CAN use DEX instead of STR, but you might still use STR. The difference is, only the DM can ignore rules in turn to increase enjoyment, but the players can ignore their features which gives them the possibilty to do something.
As a new DM, this video is packed with more USEFUL information than almost any other video I’ve watched on DM’ing. and I have binged...trust me I have binged.
@@dominusdane3304 It would be true if this guy didn't both use the rules to prove his points and disregard them when it didn't fit his points. It's great to have personal preferences, but calling anything that doesn't align with them "mistakes" doesn't help.
I believe it's perfectly reasonable to let somebody use an Investigation to search for traps or secret doors and such, because there is a lot of deductive reasoning used to do so. Figuring out that a drawer has a false bottom isn't always just looking at it and seeing the space discrepancy, it starts with knowing where to look
The high prescription notes something doesn't add up. The investigation reveals why, if the roll is met. In this case failure might mean more time. Beacuse you KNOW something is different there
Sure, when you declare you want to check for a false bottom, that'd be Investigation. It represents your character playing with the drawer, looking for any way to open it. And if they find nothing, they won't know if they failed or if there was nothing to find. But a general, I search? Not without that specificity. Maybe I'd tell you you realize the space inside the drawer is too small for the size of the drawer
If you're going to use acrobatics for climbing, at least still use strength. You're allowed to switch with the ability score is used. Performance is only for entertainment, singing, storytelling, music etc. Any type of lying or trickery is deception. While listening to the video, I considered allowing performance only for something like trying to pass yourself off as another person, but that's called out as deception in the php. Obviously, the DM can always alter things, but that's the designers intent. While there's a few places where you put your foot down, luke, you seem to be too willing to allow the players to do whatever skill they want. They'll always pick the highest number!
I always ask whether a player is using their hands and being tactile, or just using sight, smell or hearing. Perception = Ranged and often gives less information Investigation = Close and often gives more information
Best alternate rule for skill checks: Dissociate skills from stats, at least partially. Using Intimidate as an example: Sure, you may be able to intimidate somebody with your charisma, but if you're a Goliath Barbarian trying to intimidate somebody by your sheer physical presence, Intimidate (Str) or Intimidate (Con) may be appropriate. If you're a Wizard trying to intimidate someone with your magical prowess, Intimidate (Int) might make sense. If you're Monk trying to stop a creature from running away because you are way too fast to escape, Intimidate (Dex) is fitting. The same is true for other checks. Survival(Con) if you're trying to endure the elements of a harsh landscape, or maybe Str to make your way through physically demanding terrain quickly. Perception (Con) if you're trying to perceive a slight tremor, Perception (Int) if you're trying to detect a magical field, and so on.
I do this too. Bothers me that someone cant use intelligence to read a persons body language and make an intelligence insight check. Its also an optional rule anyway.
Yeah, I hate that a barbarian can't be intimidating because he front loaded strength, con, and dex. Although an effective death machine, your barbarian fails to intimidate anyone because he has no charisma and walks the Path of the Milquetoast
On that last one, i would imagine the same goes for the opposite, rolling a nat 1 on a skill check doesnt mean you automatically fail, and can actually still be passed if its a low DC, youre a rogue, or you have a really good modifier in it.
Here's my take on the last point: logically speaking, a Nat 20 in any roll is the best possible roll you can get for that situation, ignoring a bardic inspiration or bless addition. If the DM knows that the player cannot achieve the task with the highest possible roll, they shouldn't let that player roll, period. The task is truly impossible, and the DM shouldn't entertain an exercise in futility. The same with a character who could pass a check with a nat 1. Just let them do it. That's my opinion, but then again there's always the potential for DMs to base degrees of success or failure on the dice roll. For instance, a rogue rolls a nat 1 for a total of 12 on an easy lock. They do a super slipshod job and get in, but it takes longer and everyone hears it. Conversely, player does an impossible jump, but rolls a Nat 20, so they don't make it across but are able to tuck and roll to avoid damage.
@airsoftingpanda5843 There's a tactic I use in some cases that both speeds up the game and rewards the player for investing their precious skill prof. I call it "you do the thing". If a rogue is trying to crack a basic lock? He does the thing. If a barb is trying to intimidate some smol nameless gobbo? She does the thing. If the artificer is using one of their 150 expertised tool sets to find a weakness in old architecture? They do the thing. Not only does it keep the flow moving, but sometimes a player is going for a really interesting tactic and I wanna give them the confidence to cook
I'm the DM and I love my players. I was dropping some lore in a shared dream and they heard a name. The warlock spent 30 years studying in an abandoned magic library and wanted to do an intelligence check. The paladin might have known it because of religious implications and I have them roll a religion check. Since the outcome wasn't particularly important I asked if the other two characters wanted to roll. Both of them said no because they didn't think the characters would know anything about an obscure religious name It's so simple but that made me happy
Hey there DM Lair, first video of yours I have seen and I am about to check out more because it was great. But earlier in the video you were discussing certain PC's being unable to perform an action based on whether or not they are proficient in that field, ie a lawful good paladin has no experience at all with thieves tools and would be unable to pick a lock as he has never even SEEN thieves tools or know of the inner workings of a lock before. Now this is very similar to the 3e and 3.5 edition of dnd ruling that only specific classes can perform certain tasks that 5e was trying to get out of. Now even though I like the side of you cannot even attempt to pick a lock, I also understand that it can be hard if you do not have anyone who has proficiency with thieves tools in the party, and so as a DM I made a special homebrew rule for my party. VARIABLE DC's which is to say a skilled thief attempting to pick a lock on a plain lock on a mundane door would take a DC 10, as they have knowledgeable skill in that area. However, if the rogue cannot pick the lock for some reason and the cleric says "move aside I can do better than that" by 5e rules he can definitely try, but it would be MUCH harder for him to pick a lock with no knowledge or understanding and so the DC for THAT CHARACTER is a 20. This makes it still possible for any character to do anything without saying it is almost equally easy for all characters to perform the same action. What are your thoughts?
I also allow nature checks for figuring out things that have to do with anatomy. Also I like to do sliding scales for checks, particularly knowledge checks. The higher they roll, the more info and the more relevant the info that I give.
I like to do sliding scales with knowledge checks. I also account for the character's background. For example, players want to check their knowledge about Smirnam, a figure from dwarf history. If the character is a dwarf from the same region of the world, then I'd say a DC 5 = they've heard of her, DC 10 = they know a few facts about her, DC 15 = they know how she figures in their history (similar to how an average American knows a fair bit about some less recent presidents, like either Roosevelt), etc. If a wood elf with no special dwarf connections makes the same check, the DCs will be higher and the bits they do know are likely to be different. (For example, how the Wright brothers are perceived by Americans compared to how they are perceived by Brazilians and many Europeans.)
@@atk05003 I do knowledge checks like you, and if a check isn't obvious (like lock picking) and they can explain their reasoning, I let my players choose their check. They know that what they get changes depending on what they choose, what they might know, and that the DC may be higher to get something useful. I haven't run into issues yet (my group is really good about that) and I like that it encourages both them and me to think about what and why a character might know something. To identify a magic item, a wizard might use arcana to read the runes, a bard might use history to try to recall a tale about the hero who last held it, a rogue might use investigation to see if they pick out context clues in its aesthetic, and a fighter might make a smithing check for clues in how the item was made.
@@flaissondasilva5144 I mean, I know every mammal has a heart, lungs, stomach, brain and where they are situated, mostly. I know what a leg of several animals look like, so real basic anatomy. But preventing them from bleeding if they got hurt at the wrong location, if they have 1, 2, 3 or 4 stomachs might be a different story. Would Medicine be a general check for humans, or also for animals? As per PHB, Medicine allows you to stabilize characters, and diagone illnesses (they don't even mention diseases). So, yea, I'd argue Nature would be fine for general anatomy.
I was super happy to hear you explain your take on proficiency checks for things like thief tools. The way the current D&D is setup it seems that now everyone can do anything without training
When it comes to changing something's demeanor, in D&D 3.5 and pathfinder at least, you can't move them more than 2 categories (hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful) in a 24 hour period and it takes 1 minute to do (so not in combat). You can't scream out "Martha!" and turn an enemy into a friend.
Thanks for sharing this! 5e only has 3 social states (Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile) in the DMG and I was having difficulty thinking of names for additional social states.
I don't know about pathfinder but i just cheked for d&d 3.5 and I didn't find anything about the limitation of 2 categories in 24h, but I found a table that set the DC to change the demeanor of a NPC that clearly allow you to change it more than two categories (hostile to friendlyis DC 35, hostile to helpful is 50), also you can use it quicly, for exemple tto make two people stop fighting with a -10 to the check
That was not a rule in 3.5, also you could accept a -20 (or was it -30...) to skill to cut the time down to 1 round, at least if you played with the Epic rules. The DC's were high, but it was technically possible to turn a creature from hostile to helpful in a single turn, and like almost anything in 3.5, if you wanted to, you could optimize the hell out of your Diplomacy skill.
I desagree a bit with the "Not using group skill checks" because its normal to enter a room and everyone to start invistigating", people normally do stuff together to be more efficient but even if you want to do this that way , i suggest allowing them to roll with advantage because there would be a lot of people "thinking" if it was a investigation check and 2 heads think better than 1
dungeon Delver feat in PHB first ability states, "you have advantage on wisdom (perception) and intelligence (investigation) checks made to detect the presence of secret doors". with this wording I think that both could be used to detect secret doors, it depends on how you are going about it. if you take some systematic method like spreading flower to detect drafts or tapping to listen for hollow spots, I might use int, whereas if I was relining on noticing differences in stone or wood work, I might use wis.
I would say as a dm "are you looking around or moving around touching things". I'm my mind perception is just looking for something, investigation is like Sherlock touching things to figure out clues. Let's say there a trapdoor under a rug. A perception check would not show that or would be higher, but investigating by moving the rug would be something different. Just my two cents, what do you think?
Guys, read the rules, please. PHB explains that Perception is about using your senses to detect something, and Investigation is about using clues and making deductions. Every skill in the game has a passive score. The difference between Perception and Investigation is not whether you are actively using it or passively using it. A smart character can passively deduce (Investigation) that the shape and difference in the dust on the furniture means it's been occupied and in frequent use (maybe even the ways in which it's been used), and a wise character can actively look (Perception) for the key in between the clothing in the drawer.
As for the Perception versus investigation, remember that the key word for Perception is Notice. Perception is what you can see just walking through an area. Investigation is more of a concerted effort to find something out or deduce facts. For example: If I am walking through a parking lot to get to the store from my car, I am going to use Active Perception to make sure I'm not going to get hit and ran over by some idiot not paying attention in their car. Once I'm done shopping, I will use Investigation to find my car because I forgot where I parked (like a dumbass). The difference is that with perception, while I'm doing something, I'm not spending more time checking each and every car to make sure it's a threat, where the investigation is time spent actively searching for my car. So, in the "Room with potential secret doors", just walking through the room to see if anything looks off would be Perception, while actively looking for secret doors would be Investigation. Finding traps would be more Investigation. Disarming traps/picking locks would require Thieves' Tools.
Investigation allows you to look for hidden doors and objects. It deals with deduction. Perception utilizes your senses to perceive your general surroundings. Unless, there was someone whispering from behind the hidden door or you could feel a subtle draft coming from behind it. Investigation would be the more appropriate check when looking for a hidden door. The rules literally say that investigation is used to find hidden objects. Of course, ability checks are going to have some over lap which is fine. It's entirely feasible for people to have different skills and reach the same conclusion. I would allow separate players to make separate checks to interact with the same thing.
@@quonomonna8126 the First sentence of the rules for Investigation says “when you look around for clues”. That must imply look around for traps and secret Doors. Whereas Perception literally says “lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. From that we Can conclude that perception is “what Can you see, hear, smell, or otherwise detect from where you stand by using your 5 senses”, hence it is a wisdom based skill check. Whereas Investigation is “what Can you find from actively looking around, searching for clues, moving things around to find that hidden trap door underneath the closet. Hence, being your Intelligence telling you to look underneath the closet. So I also disagree with Luke on the Perception vs Investigation.
@@quonomonna8126 It doesn't matter. You can logic it anyway you want and use either. You notice a faint quarter arc patch on the floor near the book shelf a little less dusty than the rest of the floor (sight / perception). You find subtle wooden hinges on the bookshelf similar to those gnomish tinkers build into their puzzle boxes. (knowledge / investigation). Both make perfect sense and either can apply to the same situation.
Totally agree on using investigation for hidden objects and doors. I tend to use investigation for stuff that assumes you're walking around a room (or other limited area) while looking for it, while perception is something you would be able to notice from your specific spot at the moment of rolling. There may be some overlap in the two. There's also a (in my opinion) very important reason for doing so. which is : Perception is rolled *all the damn time*. I wouldn't be surprised if perception was rolled as much as all the other skills combined. Not to mention that almost every kind of deduction is also covered already by one of the other skills. Looking for footprints, nature or survival. Anything magic related, arcana. Anything dealing with gods, religion. Dealing with people, insight. The example that Luke gave, using perception to see the pressure plate and holes in the wall, and then requiring investigation to put those 2 pieces together? Who needs investigation for that to begin with? In the end, I just think D&D skills overlap more than their descriptions would suggest. My advice is to make it a habit of having the players ask "Can I use X instead?". And if it sounds at least plausible, allow it. If there's too much doubt as is, consider allowing it but increasing the DC.
As a new Dungeon Master who sort of started a campaign blind to the specific rules and mechanics of the game, your videos have been extremely helpful. My goal is to provide my players with an awesome story and world to play in. Your channel is such a great place to learn.
"Offended" comment: meteorology is actually extremely accurate, upwards of 90% accuracy. A big part of the perception it isn't is because they don't do a great job explaining it on TV, since they use common terms to mean something specific without making sure the public knows what they're trying to convey. End result? Well there's no difference, but the algorithm wants a comment.
Its funny that you dropped the words Perception (i use passive perception to deduce it is raining currently) and Common terms (i have proficiency in the language: Common) and i dont think meteorology is inaccurate, just agree with the statement "a prediction is still a prediction, and anyone can make a prediction" i do a bit of weather guessing from time to time myself
His eleventh point gave me an idea for a magic item to give players. The Rememberall. When used during a knowledge check, they gain advantage, because the ball will fill with red smoke if they forget something. Can only be used twice per day. 😉
RE: Proficiency checks without proficiency. As an alternative, you could bump the DC. It is possible for an untrained character to simply have an affinity for a skill, or happened to have dabbled or watched others. So maybe the DC is a 15 for someone with the proficiency, but 20 for the person bumbling through. They may still get lucky.
I like the buzz of a nat 20 in a skill check. It usually means that what they intend is happening fairly well - obviousely not everything succeeds, but it's just a cool & rewarding feeling to make something awesome happen. It feels like the dice really count and can change things. Im my games a nat 20 is always something extraordinary because my nr. 1 rule is the rule of cool :)
I've done the same thing. So far this has only happened in fights where a PC wanted to do something badass but not super realistic. He rolled a nat 20 that ended up being like a 26 or 27 with bonuses and proficiencies so I let him do it cuz it would have been cool.
I agree, I don't like the idea of "Oh, nat 20's don't mean you autosucceed, give me your total and we'll see if it beats the DC" because to me a nat20 means not only did you succeed, it also means that something additionally went in your favor. Guards protecting a keep and the rogue nat 20's on their stealth check? One of the guards is very clearly sleep deprived and beginning to doze off and seeing that, you can capitalize on the opportunity as you help guide the group through this section, giving the guard disadvantage on his perception checks (and therefore a -5 penalty to his passive perception). You manage a nat20 on your check to climb the wall? You find specific points in this section of the wall that make it noticeably easier to climb, whether intentional or not, and you may point them out to your party to lower the DC by X amount for their checks. And vice versa for nat1's, not only did you fail, something is now acting against you. Nat 1 on your stealth check? You can hear the sound of the clattering armor of multiple guards approaching, one of them hears you and you notice them beginning to pick up the pace. Nat 1 on your athletics check to climb a wall? You notice a brick sticking out of the wall that you assume would be a sturdy foothold, but as you put some weight on it, you realize it is weak and eroded, and more importantly it starts to break, make a dexterity saving throw.
Nat 20 fails are like failing upwards. You failed to pick the lock, slip, and your hand lands on a key. Or a map. You fail, and get a reward that is tangential.
the thing with nat 1 and nat 20s on skills checks being critical failures or critical successes is that players love it. I've dmed for different groups and every single group expected a nat 1 to be a catastrophic failure and a nat 20 to be an epic win. So you just gotta roll with it, players love it
I have to disagree. I hate that houserule. It makes no sense to me. Playing a character with a 5 Modifier, Proficiency and maybe even being under the influence of Guidance, your Nat 1 might still be a 14, or 19 if you have expertise, but because you roll a 1 you just failed a 10DC, which is pretty much the easiest check you can make. And having the most absurd idea, and the DM, why in the hells he would do that, nobody knows, allows them to make a check, thinking they will fail anyway, but they roll a Nat20. Even if the DC would be a 99, which is literally impossible to beat, you'd just became the new king of the whole continent, because you successfully persuaded the former king to make you his heir and then commit suicide to atone for his evil deeds. Nothing of the above makes sense, so Nat1/20 shouldn't be a thing with skill checks. - However, what you can do is, lower or raise the DC. If you have a DC of 30, and your player rolls a Nat20, you might set the DC down to 25, so even if the Player is not proficient in that skill, he might succeed anyway, but not automatically. Likewise, if you roll a NAT1 on a DC10, that DC might turn into a DC15, so you didn't make the check with your 14. - Yes, that might suck, because you still failed, but you don't fail immensly, and depending on what you were doing. So, maybe you got something in your eye which caused you to jam a lock, or you didn't realise the rock you grabbed for climbing was loose, which causes you to slip down half the way, as opposed to maybe breaking your thieves tools entirely, or falling down all the way of the wall, hurting yourself by the fall. - Or, you have enough boni, and you actually still succeed the DC15 with a 16, so you still make the save, even with a Nat1. This would be way more logical to me.
@@MikaeruDaiTenshi have you never heard about the nat 20 to convince the king to give you his kingdom? Of course he doesn't give you his kingdom but he instead thinks you are a funny little guy and offers you to become the court jester instead of being executed for your insults
@@herman1francis @herman1francis That's my point. Going with the Nat20 rule, it's an automatic success, so you succeed in what you want to do. That's the whole point of this rule. What you describe would be: The Nat20 saved your life, which would be forfeited otherwise, but you still don't get what you want. - This is basically what I described, but yes, I have to agree, that I fail to mention it specifically, and only said "reduce DC".
@@MikaeruDaiTenshi it's an interesting conversation to be had. But remember, as the dm you have ultimate power. Players will feel cheated if they fail with a 20 and will feel infantilized if they succeed with a 1. But as the dm you get the power to Define what success and failure mean. Just because the player rolled a 20 he doesn't get the kingdom, and because he rolled a 1 doesn't fall on his face and die. You get to define what success and failure mean in any situation
@@herman1francis Sure, the DM is the one who decided in the end, but in terms of house-ruling, a rule like this should definitely discussed beforehand, so even if you have dozens of boni and get a 19 or higher with a Nat1, and fail only because of that 1... If the majority of the players agree to play with that rule, I will, but I won't be happy. But if the majority is against it, I hope the DM will agree not to use that rule. - At least that's my opinion. But sure, how the fail and success looks like, is again, up to the DM, but I feel like some DMs take those Nat1/20s too seriously and just go with the best extremes they can find. (well, without immediately killing you, though depending on the situation, this could actually be a possibility)
Had a fun session one with my group where I had a dragon pick up the slavers wagon that where they are being held - one player(Monk/rogue) dislocated their thumb to try slip out of their chain - still fail DC (was a low roll on their part - gave them a bonus for the action) - one player(Cleric) managed to slip the chain but take lightning damage when they tried to take the collar off without investigating it first. - After a scripted amount of time, a dragon picked up the carriage (a figure from another players backstory), dispelled and removed all the bindings and picked up the carriage. - Cleric opened the door whilst on the wing ( despite DM warning )- fails Save DC's to not get sucked out of the carriage and ended up in freefall, they had to be saved by Ranger Aarakocra. - When presented with a pond, that same player wanted to dive in, they checked before jumping and decided against it (There would have been serious consequences with bleeding, being unconscious underwater - possible death) After a few dreams for a long rest, Hero's feast for breakfast, equipment + gold uplift: - When landing the Cleric asked for a lift by the Ranger Aarakocra, Ranger critical fails a DC10 strength test, ends up dealing a bit of damage to the Cleric. Now I tend to think that I'm a fair DM - still stupid actions are stupid actions lol
My favorite skill change (that you didn't mention) is allowing Religion checks to be used for knowing about Divine Spells... Because it's "the practical application of miracles" ;-) Also, I don't like how you had all of perception /investigation to require two rolls... It seems like it's unnecessary rolling, and setting the PCs up for failure, because they need to succeed both times (and be proficient in both skills) to do anything. Investigation is: "When you look around for clues [...] You might deduce the location of a hidden object" My differentiator is that Perception is to quickly scan big areas, and Investigation is to carefully scan small areas. Spotting a pressure plate in the hallway is perception, but spotting a needle trap on a doorknob is investigation. I also, from a gameplay perspective, don't like Stealth being "one failure, fails for everybody", because that just means the Paladin always gets left behind when the party advances, and it's no fun for the Paladin.
Speaking of Curse of Strahd, my pro tip to players making a character for the module: Make a character you can laugh at when bad things happen to them. Don't make a character you love.
@@davidbeppler3032 Yeah I'm not happy about the way things have turned out and what it's done to my character because I made a character that I loved so much I put together a $300 cosplay outfit to get into it with.
Really great video. As an “always DM” since about 1979 I agree with just about everything on the list with just a couple of comments. 1. Puzzles and riddles - I hate puzzles and riddles as a player and a DM. It never made sense to me that you could have a character with a 20 intelligence, one of the smartest creatures on the planet played by someone who…..isn’t. Or you can have the opposite. This makes puzzles and riddles problematic because you are taking things out of the realm of the character and into the realm of the player. A really smart player who enjoys puzzles and riddles, playing a character with an intelligence of nine has a better chance of solving the riddle then a not so smart player who hates puzzles and riddles playing a character with an intelligent 20. I don’t like that. Therefore, I will usually give the players a bit of time, and then allow them to roll skill checks for clues. Eventually though, after a number of clues I will allow them to roll to solve, albeit with some type of penalty - they have taken so long to solve the puzzle or riddle, a group of monsters comes by etc. 2. Allowing skill checks for untrained, or not proficient skills. I agree with you on most points, somebody not trained in playing the lute is going to fail their skill check no matter what. There’s no point in even making it. However there are a few things that may make sense even if it seems it is impossible. For example, I once had a group of adventurers who came across a wall of hieroglyphics, an ancient and dead language once used by an evil magic user cult. I determined that either a history or an arcana check which ever is best would be appropriate. Our barbarian was the only one to pass the check and he was neither proficient in history or arcana. After he passed the check I said something along the lines of “A few of the symbols trigger an old memory within you, one from when you were a young child in your tribe, eking out a survival in the cold and harsh north. You remember an old crone who used to visit your village and regal and scare the young children like you with stories of an ancient and throughly evil cult of wizards who were obsessed with bringing a great and terrible evil back into our world. You remember she would draw symbols on the ground when she was telling her story, and some of these symbols look exactly like the symbols the old crone had drawn. You can’t read what this says, but you have a feeling it is connected with that cult.”
Crazy Cat Luke, here's my typical house rule for 20's and 1's on skill checks (or anywhere else they're not explicitly auto successes/failures) (if I house rule it at all): A 20 counts as a 25 then add your modifier. A 1 counts as a -5 then add your modifier.
Not a bad compromise. I like it. The craziness that ensures with a 1 or 20 is always memorable, and they're what I live for when it's game time, but this will definitely be implemented when the line is grey.
I like the 'confirm crit' house rule for skill 20s, its not an automatic skill success, but if you pass the DC with what is essentially "optional disadvantage", it becomes an auto/epic success. Similar with critical fumble, even if you are proficient at something, you could get unlucky, reroll a 1 just once more to confirm if its autofail. Expertise in a skill would negate crit fumble chance, unless player wants to RP the Will Wheaton curse
When it comes ot things like tools or instruments, I will also take class into account. For instance, I'll allow a bard to be passingly familiar with many instruments, even if they are only proficient in a few. I figure this allows for the massive skill gap between someone that CAN play, versus someone that has TRAINED to play. I mean, I taught myself piano afterall, and I can tell you there's a big difference lol. They wont play as well, and that may bump the DC up, but I like to operate under the "you can certainly try" method of allowing players to try, and maybe fail, to encourage variety of play instead of them only ever falling back on what they know will 100% work for them. Plus, watching the Fighter attempt to distract a room with an improve dance is hilarious and if everyone's having fun, I'm doing my job lol.
As a DM, I allow my players to us insight check to determine what their character is thinking. The characters are from that world and there are times when the character would know more than the player. When the Party gets stuck and don't know what to do, they can do an insight check.
@@schwarzerritter5724 My guess is that the roll is to determine how well the character remembers something in a given moment that the player may not know OOC. That's how I interpreted what OP said, anyway. For example: you as a person may "know" the quadratic formula, but you may not be able to remember it on command because the knowledge is rarely used. I think that's how Insight checks are being used here.
@@grammarmaid In this example, it is more like making an insight check to remember if the quadratic formula even exists; you still need to make an arcana check to use it.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I think it still checks out. Ask an average adult what the quadratic formula even is and you'll probably get a blank stare. Something that is definitely taught to most, if not all students at some point. Ha ha. Either way, only OP can confirm. I was just guessing.
Personally at my table, I let nat ones and nat 20's auto "succeed" meaning A nat one will lead to a less than desirable outcome, and a nat 20 will lead to generally positive outcome, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it fails or succeeds, the rogue with insane lockpicking gets a nat 1, you were a little too forceful and your lockpick broke, but you can quickly try again if you have the lockpick "with some time loss" or the bard tries to persuade the king to give them a castle and gets a nat 20 " ohhh, thats a good one, normally such brazen asks would get you thrown in jail, but, now that I think about it, there is an abandoned outpost out in the mountains that's been overun... I'll tell you what, clear that out for me and we'll talk about letting you use it" that sort of thing
I prefer group stealth checks, because otherwise it just means that your entire party is never able to use stealth if you have a fighter or paladin in the party.
Tell that to my paladin - the second sneakiest guy in our group of six... DEX-based pally, with background/lineage skill in Stealth, wearing studded leather and a shield - AC 17 at lvl 1, prefers rapier and longbow. The rogue *is* sneakier, but that's because he can get through some tighter spaces with his weapons, while I can get stuck.
Or you allow the stealthy ones to scout appropriately and report back. If you need to sneak around something, the group stealth really should be a weakest link scenario. Everyone rolls, and if someone fails, yeah...your group got caught because someone was loud...that's how sneaking around works. Or you have to problem solve. Find another route, or the guys with loud clanky armor have to take it off and stow it in the bag of holding to actually effectively sneak past the guards or monster that they REALLY don't want to wake up. Otherwise why does stealth or lack thereof even exist in the game? It's another problem in the game that requires problem solving. If you don't want it, don't use it, but probably tell that to your rogues who were hoping to have their moments to shine when building their characters
I do a case by case depending on what the PCs wanna do. One time, there were these sleeping wolves guarding something in the cave. The group decided for one character to scout ahead and report back. Another instance, the group managed to sneak up on these bad guys who were playing a gambling game. The rogue rolled successfully and managed to pick the lock and quietly open the door, not alerting the people in the room. The group then tried to sneak past these guys cuz they didn't wanna fight them and I had everyone roll stealth checks. Half the group failed, so the way I explained what happened, the people who succeeded had managed to sneak by, but the ones who failed caught the attention of the bad guys. I didn't know creatures have 360 awareness of their surroundings however those guys were drunk, so we could blame it on the alcohol for that one.
"your entire party is never able to use stealth" - which to me is 'right'. You want to sneak? Send in the sneaky guy(s). You want the whole platoon with the heavy gunners? You ain't sneakin'! Stealth is one that I would never do 'group' check in most cases (been doing this long enough to know not to say "never")
I have that most armour can be made (for a significant cost) more stealthy by lining joints with felt etc. This gets rid of disadvantage but it is still a minus 1 to stealth checks. However if a player is using plate, then there are certain grounds in which it will always be at disadvantage, such as stone flooring (sabatons on stone will not be quiet). I tend also to have it so that players can utilise armours under other armours (AC doesn't stack)so a palladin in full plate may have a gambeson underneath (padded armour does not impart disadvantage in stealth checks in my games (stupid rule)) so if it is really important I will make cast off armour available to players and so the full plate armour that was making noise with every step can be removed quickly or at least turned into half plate.
You sure can help that Paladin clad in full plate be more quiet, if you have a caster with "silence" centered on a point you choose. In this case why not center it on the Paladins chest plate, in the center of it? Now for 10 min he can move around without making anyone aware of his presence as far as sound is involved. ;)
This would work with a spell like Darkness, which can target a point including on an object and travel with it, but silence targets a fixed point in space (unless they only need to move in silence within that 20ft radius haha) In older editions it would stick to objects and could travel, but would probably be too abusable in 5e to make all members of the party masters of stealth with a 2nd level spell though!
@@chrisbowes3241 but it does not say that it is a point in space and it can not be cast on an object. It says "centered on a point you choose" not a point in space. If that point is moveable then it stands to reason the effect will also move with it. No where in the spell description does it say that the point is in space and is unmovable. As far as being abused I ask how? It is only abused if the DM allows it and has no skill or imagination. Think about it. If they are using it to sneak into a dragons lair, do you think the dragon is unaware of their presence? Of course not, the dragon surely can smell them. The same with guard dogs and any other creatures with sent. They may also be seen or set off warning alarms and not even know it, since they themselves can not hear it. I have been DM'ing since 1981 starting with Advanced D&D 1st addition. Silence 15' radius was never abused and seldom used. It is funny that people that played 1st addition assumed that if you cast silence 15' radius on a stone you could then place it in a scroll tube and it would hide the effect as if you turned it off or block it just as if you did the same with the light spell. Why would it have any affect on it? It would not, unless the scroll tube itself were enchanted for that specific purpose. As for me, I will allow it to be cast on a point on an object and be moveable, it is way more fun that way. ;)
@@JohnMiller-wf6cm I believe that it can’t be cast on and follow an object because of how spell targets are explained, silence only targets a point that you choose, this position is the point of origin for the spell and remains this way for its duration. If it could target objects like armour then I believe it would say so (like with Darkness, and even then it has to be something you’re holding and not carried or not worn). Also if all concentration spells that target a point could do this, then things like sickening radiance or other nasty area of effects could be stuck onto anything, including your enemies armour (which would be a death sentence with how long it takes to remove!) “A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect […] Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.” Haha yeah they’re not really gonna become undetectable, but it would go a long way with all the clanking induced disadvantage, I think it would just be too powerful for a 2nd level spell - I would be more concerned about how you could just silence enemy mages by getting your barbarian to chase them down while surrounded in a sphere of of silence (wish I could do that on my barbarian/rogue grappler though!) Ha that’s pretty funny, I know the 5e light cantrip can be covered in that way but I wouldn’t have leapt to the conclusion (though I’ve never played that edition) that a bog-standard tube with a cap could somehow have the incredible ability nullify a spells area of effect like that! (Would make magic a lot less impressive if so) Yeah end of the day the great thing about d&d is that it’s a game and we can do what we want with it to have fun, because that’s why we all play it, so keep doing it your way :) (judging by how angry some people get in the comments you do wonder sometimes if they’re actually playing this to have fun!)
@@chrisbowes3241 Yeah, I can see that. But trust me it would not be to powerful if you could cast it as in the older versions. And yes I have ran games from 1st addition through 3.5 and have had people do that very thing. carry a stone with silence 15' radius and run up on the caster, usually the healer first, and just try to damage them. But in the older additions most spells were not concentration and had a permanent affect. And it was never to powerful for a second level spell then. You just had to look at the spells that did not require a verbal component. There were plenty to choose from. Unfortunately, in 5e it seems they have mostly pussyfied the game. Killed the spells and made most of them concentration then pilled on the hit points and gave every non spell cast massive damage output. In 1st addition a wizard got a die 4 for hit points plus con, if he was lucky enough to have a bonus, and only got a hit die up to level 9, I think, and then got 1 hit point plus con bonus each level after that. So fighters in the early levels could easily kill most wizards, but at higher levels the wizard would most likely win. They had fire balls that were 1d6 per level and spells they could cast on themselves that would make them a formidable fighter with a sword or other martial weapon. Not to mention the shields to increase AC. It was a far more deadly game to the characters back then. A level 20 fighter would be lucky if he were able to get 100 or better hit points. The got a d10 per level plus con up to level 9 then 3 hit points plus con bonus per level after that. An 18 Str in 1e had a +1 to hit and a +2 damage bonus and was the only stat that could go over 18. And it was 18 then a % roll. So the best bonus was an 18/100 which gave a +3 to hit and +6 damage. And only humans males could get an 18/100. All the other races fell in the lower percentile rolls. So it was a very different game but just as fun. And yes, as angry as some get in these replies makes you wonder if they have fun playing. You are right that it is just a game and the DM's are capable and encouraged to make the changes they want. I have not been running 5e very long and am still learning the rules. There are a lot of things I like that they did and a lot of things I don't like. I don't like the up scale of hit points and damage output. Makes no sense to me to keep increasing that. Not sure why they restricted spell like Fireball, lightning bolt and other spells that gave you a die of damage per level. As it is it is near impossible to kill a character in normal battle. Though I do like the death rolls versus the bleeding to death unless you got stabilized from some one or a spell. In the 1e when you hit zero you were down and stable, but you could take damage beyond zero. -1 to -10. Once you hit -10 your character died. If you had 1 hit point left and took 12 points of damage or more you died. It was rough, but it made people think of tactics. In 5e there really is no tactics used any more because odds of them dying are slim. It comes down to who can put out the most damage first. My son and his friends thought healing spells were useless and all you needed were good berries to pop you up so you could hit and most like go right back down. Another good berry and do it all over again. It wasn't until I started playing with them and showed them that if you start healing them as they hit the half way mark they will do much better and a life cleric now had value. I used an Asimov race, whick increases your healing ability with an extra healing ability. So now that is how they play their clerics that heal. I showed them that if they did not go down then a TPK was less likely to happen. And they actually started winning more tough fights. Have fun with your games. :)
i don't think that he meant that type of help when he said "help" using a magic to silence the whole party isn't "helping the paladin", it's using magic helping is somethign purely handmade. of course that would work, and the silence spell would make the paladin quiet, but what he was trying to say is that, differently from helping someone picking a lock by grabbing them tools or holding them picks, >manually< speaking, you can't help someone with a full plate of heavy metal not make noise.
Regarding the "Not all failures are the same" rant, yes, Rules As Written says regardless if you miss it by one or miss it by twenty, it's still a failure. You can use your DM's digression to say if a character can try again after failing, but a lot of times it's not possible without some time passing (like a short or long rest, as I think some of them are specifically stated.) HOWEVER, other systems (like Fate) have a third options for those narrow misses called, "Yes, but!". You can offer a player the choice of outright failing (and whatever that choice entails) or let them succeed with a consequence. For instance, if the rogue is trying to sneak past a guard to get into the castle and they fail by one or two points, I'd offer them the choice of a "Yes, but!" success. The "But" of this situation is that the rogue slipped up and made some sound. It wasn't enough to outright fail and get caught on the spot, but now the guards knows something is up and all future perception checks are going to be active perception rolls, and maybe even with advantage. One other notable point of the "Yes, but!" option is that Fate specifically allows their gamemasters to offer Fate points when offering this choice. DM's can offer inspiration for characters who chose to take this option, especially if it means the consequences of the "Yes, but" make the game's narrative much more interesting.
I don’t quite agree with number 1. How I understand perception is perceiving your surroundings generally, meaning seeing, hearing, smelling etc. It doesn’t mean looking for SPECIFIC things/people. Investigation on the other hand is for situations where the character is looking for a thing SPECIFICALLY, searching for it and investigating if it is to be found at the location.
The rules specifically state that noticing traps and secret doors is a Perception check. You can disagree with it all you want, but the rules are right there on the paper. See pages 103 and 120 of the DMG for explicit confirmation that hidden doors and traps are both found with Perception, not Investigation.
All skills have active and passive scores. If your distinction between Perception and Investigation is whether you are actively using it, you aren't using the skills RAW.
Those two things you described are passive perception and making a perception check. Perceiving your surroundings generally is what passive is for. Actively searching is when you make a roll.
Perception is for looking for/finding things, making a skill check with it is active, otherwise use passive Perception. Investigation is an intelligence skill for making deductions or connecting clues. Think of Perception as finding the candle stick and Investigation as being able to determine it was Colonel Mustard.
I think of 3.5’s spot and search checks. Perception is spotting something from a distance whereas investigation is physically scouring and searching an area.
I’ve changed investigation to also include a tactile variation of perception too. Eg. Can you see traps in the room from the doorway - perception. Can I find any traps in the room by searching AND looking - investigation. Makes people check based on their actual abilities. More fun to separate some checks this way too so it’s not always the same check 24/7 :)
I view perception as a single action event (ie scan the room) while investigation takes some time. You will never find items thats not in view with perception
#13 Group Skill Checks 18:15 We have several types of group skill checks. 1) Everyone rolls, worst roll applies (e.g., group stealth) 2) Everyone rolls, best applies (e.g., everyone is searching for a secret door) 3) Primary person rolls, everyone rolls to help. If helpers roll DC 10+, the add +2 to primary result; if they roll DC 9-, they subtract 1 from primary result. (e.g., everyone is trying to move a downed tree) I think this is from 4th edition. 4) Primary rolls. No one helps - because this is a 'one man job'. (e.g., pick lock)
Great video! I do disagree in one place: #13: The PC in Plate Mail spoiling a group Stealth check. No offense, but this is (IMO) an example of a common DM flaw I call Arbitrary Realism. This is where the DM decides that "No, the real world doesn't work that way!" and makes a ruling that is "real" in this case while ignoring the fantastical elements of the world. For example, everyone accepts that a level 15 PC could sustain a blast from a Red Dragon's fiery breath (something that would leave horrific scars even if they survived). But drop the PC off the Burj Khalifa, and the DM goes crazy that the PC could walk away from it. Arbitrary Realism most often happens with things like fall damage (where DMs house rule away the damage max), but this is another place it happens. I feel this happens because we have a real life frame of reference for the thing (i.e. how dangerous a fall is or how loud armor is) and it breaks our suspension of disbelief, whereas something fantastical (i.e. dragon fire) doesn't because we don't have that same real world frame of reference. My counter-argument to change your mind is this: by your own admission, you make concessions to game play that are unrealistic (e.g. your chase mechanic - which is a really nice system, btw). That's because realism is not the goal of D&D. The goal is to have a fun game experience. By having the Plate Mail Paladin spoil an entire stealth check, you decrease the fun in the game. Because either the Rogue who Expertised in Stealth gets their Cool Class Feature essentially nullified, or the Plate Mail Paladin has to hang back while potentially the rest of the party scouts ahead. In the former situation, you have a player who doesn't get to do their Cool Thing (or worse, blames another person at the table for preventing it). In the latter situation, you have a player functionally out of the game and sitting around scrolling through stuff on their phone. I recommend that, in the interest of game play, you use the group skill check even if it's unrealistic. In the end, our Rogue's success is likely to balance out the Paladin's failure, so the armor still has a nasty effect. And you could rule that in order to do this, the party must be spread out with 5ft between each person, with the Paladin at the back. That'd create a spread out formation of 30-35ft that could create all kinds of chaos should the party get spotted, ambushed, or just bump into something. But whatever you do, by allowing the check, everyone is still involved in the game.
It's possible to have both. Create more expensive armours that have felt lining in between the joints, this removing the disadvantage. Make magic armour available. Your solution takes away benefits from other classes when there are plenty of choices the DM or even the player can make to resolve an issue regarding stealth. You do you but I personally think the idea of a paladin in plate armour stealthily walking across flagstones in sabatons ludicrous but then again so do my players and they would make adjustments or seek out solution to address the stealth problem.
I've often found that the issue there isn't actually with realism, it's with inconsistency. If a D&D setting states that plate mail grants disadvantage on Stealth checks, then plate mail grants disadvantage on Stealth checks. That is a rule of that setting. It would therefore not be arbitrary for a character in plate mail to spoil a group check, because according to the rules, their plate mail is granting them disadvantage, making it more likely to roll poorly. The issue arises when the rule is shirked or enforced inconsistently by the DM, rather than decided upon once during Session 0 or 1 then maintained as such for the rest of the campaign with only specific exceptions, realistic or not (e.g. a set of plate mail that has lining specifically designed to mitigate the Stealth disadvantage). If the DM consistently asks for the plate mail wearer to roll Stealth with disadvantage when they have done nothing to mitigate the disadvantage, then there isn't a problem. So, my idea to make group Stealth checks fairer without changing anything about the game is to warn the plate mail wearer well in advance that they will impact the check due to their disadvantage. That way, the group can prepare for the check appropriately. There are effects that mitigate penalties and disadvantages already baked into the rules; that's what _pass without trace_ and the Trickery Domain cleric's Blessing of the Trickster feature are for.
I like nat 20s being a critical success for skill checks. It rewards that bit of luck, so it doesn't feel wasted by giving the player who did it the best possible outcome within reason. But if the DC was impossible for the character to begin with, I'd be unsure about letting it succeed in this situation.
I feel like being too strict on the perception vs investigation check is really no different from being too strict on athletics and acrobatics. In either case, all it takes is a different description of how they succeed, or fail.
yes but they are two things completely different, perception is looking for something, while investigation is trying to find info about something, so while i think investigation could work for perception, i dont think perception could work as investigation
@@forrest6939 I think this comes down to a difference in DM perspective. You seem to be trying to find or define what each skill can do. I tend to favor, how can this character overcome what's in front of them. Some of my favorite scenes have been party members solving the same obstacle with assorted skill checks.
I myself like asking the player WHAT they are doing and HOW they are doing it. Make a call from there and work with the player. I think players should be negotiating which proficiency they have (if any) support the check they are making. The rules of this game are open ended and vague for a reason. For example with the investigation vs perception arguement. The intelligent character is going to know why the tile that is raised 1/4 of an inch more than the surrounding tiles would even be worth notice, where as the wise character would naturally understand where people would be inclined to trap things and check those locations. Don't forget which ability score is being checked and why characters can accomplish similar tasks in vastly different ways using the abilities they have.
The irony here is that Athletics and Acrobatics have very little overlap as written. It's just players who don't want to fail an Athletics check and have good Acrobatics.
One time, at level 1, I asked my DM if I could use my passive medicine skill on an enemy who originally had 6 HP, before I dealt him 16 damage in one blow. He looked at me a little confused, and then I said “my passive insight is 9, and my passive medicine is 9.” He then laughed, because my passive wasn’t enough to do anything anyway, even if he wasn’t _dead_ dead. I wasn’t setting a precedent for passive medicine in particular; I agree that trying to stop somebody from dying within 6 seconds is a roll due to being a pressured active choice. I was having fun with my characterization (sheltered girl with no survival or medicine skills), and seeing if the DM would allow passive skills besides the big three.
I'm currently playing a dwarf artificer in a Warhammer campaign that is a living embodiment of "embrace failures"... He has a positive wisdom modifier, actually. The way I see it is that he thinks things through, just is willing to pursue dangerous paths further than most. From level 1 to the current level 3, he has taken damage a total of twice: once when our paladin was trying to throw him up to a second story window to break into a house and he went splat against the wall instead, and once when he used a cursed dagger to carve a creepy symbol that had been popping up all over the place. The YOLO mentality is so much fun to role play
something i did once for group skill checks is that i multiplied the dc by the number of party members, and then added all of their skill check results together. if that number surpasses the multiplied dc, they succeed. if it doesnt, they fail.
the rule around Insight says "CAN HELP" doesn't mean it always will. In fact, when I have someone who seems to prepare to strike at the party I describe it as them seeming a little tense, or looking at the different party members individually and over and over, basically sizing the party up before they attack.. but I never directly would ever say "he seems preparing to strike". Use creative Descriptions and have your Party figure out what that Bodylanguage means.. after all, if the Player doesn't know it, why should the PC?
That'a is bit of a tigth rope to walk. I understand that you want your party to think but on the other hand, what if player wants to play well traveled man who knows people, as opposed to their zero social skills and confidence irl.
@@Karak-_- Well that is always the Issue isn't it? trying to Play something you are personally not good at(like, I love making voices for my Characters, but I also like playing Female characters as a Player, but I suck at Female Voices). But I see social skills as an RP situation. And I tell that to my Players in the First session. For me, You have to act out trying to Bribe the local Guards to not arrest you, Persuade the Dragon not to eat you. Only After you Roleplayed the Talk do you get the Roll. Based on what you said it will be an Easier or Harder DC(I do take the Players personal Social Skills into consideration as well, but if you wanna have a Social character, you gotta talk as them in character, I won't let you just roll your way out of it).. the same goes for Insight. You already have Doubts against someone's Behavior or what they are saying if you Roll Insight. My Descriptions tell you the Information anyone would see, but only you seem to notice it. After all, your Character is only seeing the persons Behavior and then has to put 2 and 2 together. Its the same thing as describing someone hearing a Howl in the distance when they make a Perception check but not telling them it is a Wolves(There are dozens of Creatures that actually Howl, not just wolves) I never had a Player that didn't have at least a little Common sense, cause all you need is just Common Sense to know, from my Descriptions, if the person seems to be hiding something or not. If you lack basic Common Sense then you have more problems then just your DM giving Descriptions that Require it.(don't mean it in a rude way) Also, if you are joining a Group of People you don't know to play DnD you better have some confidence.. After all you are meeting Complete strangers to play a game over who knows how many Months or Years that basically require you to do different voices and talk as your character. Whoof.. I went on a little rant there but one last thing to this: Gratification. Your players, both in my Experience as a DM and as a Player, will find it more enjoyable if they get Descriptions that Hint towards what the Person is planning on doing or hint towards them lying and they figure it out themselves rather than you saying "yea, a 20 Insight reveals that he is lying". Obviously you have to know how to describe things to make them be able to figure it out without needing Crazy Knowledge in Body language reading (like, you don't need to know that commonly people look left when they try to construct a Lie or Right when they try to remember something, It's not a 100% reliable method, but It has well over a 60% success rate) which obviously not everyone can do. I personally know a lot about Body language, so I as a DM can make good descriptions on how someone is acting instead of having to just tell them "yea, he is lying." though, If they roll really high compared to the DC I set, or the Counter Deception Roll (like 10+ higher) I sometimes just tell them if they are lying or what they are planning. That is more the exception than the norm though. All in all, My Players like the way I do it and I have not encountered someone who didn't. Even had a Rather shy Player before, that was self conscious and they had the CHA character of the group, the Way I DM the Social Situations helped them come out of their shell and have a Blast doing so. The Key is to do it 'just right' it is very tricky to do, but once you are there it's a great time for all involved.
@@notrebelbuffoon522 Wow, Wall of Text, that's like 5th level spell? Dumb joke aside, I would agree with you that just "roll out of trouble" with no need for thought is boooring, and if your players enjoy something, then there's nothing wrong with it (with some concerning exceptions). And, yea, the key is doing it "just right", which I would specify as "telling enough for players to figure it out (if they roll high enough) without actually telling it".
For #1, it's totally fine to have Investigation to find clues, etc. (as well as make deductions from them). It's even explicitly called out in the PHB. The difference feels like Spot vs Search in 3.5, where time and intent separated the two. I always like to think of it as if I can imagine the character skulking through the room with a magnifying glass, it's Investigation. If it's "hey look at that!" it's perception.
DCs should have miss by and hit by results. Brew Beer and hit by 10 or more over the DC - Wow that's good beer. 3rd climb check in a long climb and you miss by 10 - you fall, not just back to the last check but all the way down.
We do this. We also added Special Effects to combat with Effects like TRIP, STUN, ENTANGLE, DISARM, SLASH, and IMPALE possible (we took the Effects from FANTASY AGE and MYTHRAS). They are activated when you roll 5 or more over the To Hit needed.
There is an optional rule in the DMG for missing the DC by 1 or 2 as being a mixed or partial success. There is also the rule in the PHB (page 174) that failing to meet the DC can mean either no progress is made (failure) or progress is made with a setback.
14:14-14:30 Ehhh, sometimes. It depends. If it's a low magic setting, then it makes no sense for a strong dude to be able to one punch a door open, but if it's high magic, then i'd allow the barbarian not only to one shot the door, but to hit it so hard it hurts one of the enemies in the other side. If a wizard can rain down meteors, a barbarian can have the strength of a tarasque.
You are confusing 'epic gameplay' with 'high magic' setting. Low magic means you don't frequently find magical things about/it is rare. That is completely unrelated to barbarian strength, which is non-magical. A high magic setting doesnt mean the heroes are superheroes, it means your dungeons are lit up with magical runes, your doors are magically locked, and there is an animated broom tidying up the place so the dust doesn't pile up
If you don't want a barbarian breaking down a door then describe the door better, have it so that is of a heavy wood and has sturdy looking hinges and lock plate. Hell have it so that the door only opens outwards (a sturdy door will not be kicked down or shouldered if it opens towards you). It is however important to be mindful that poor dwellings will not likely have very sturdy doors and not all doors need to be sturdy (the door to the lavatory for instance) and in ruins, doors maybe will have been weakened due to the elements or animal life (termites or Wood-worms).
My group decided to combine the skills into 9 skills: Animal Handling (INT/CHA) Deception (CHA) Diplomacy (WIS) Intimidation (STR/CHA) - as this can be used physically or verbally Kinesthetic (STR/DEX) - combines athletics and acrobatics - depending what you are doing, its either a DEX or STR check Lore (INT) - we created a list of the many "lores" you can choose which replaces knowledge checks, the wording is simply changed Query (INT/WIS/CHA) - this can be a perception, investigation, or an intuition check - again, depending what you are doing, the applicable ability is used Stealth (DEX) Trade (crafts) - these are professions or skills you learned such as Calligrapher, Herbalist, or Thievery - which we have a long list to choose from
I agree with most of what Luke said, although I sometimes bend the natural 20 success rule, I tend to count natural 20s as even better than what they would've gotten if they rolled a 19 and had a +1 modifier simply because it's the best possible outcome that would've taken place in that specific situation Sure, I would never allow a check that just auto kills the bbeg (unless the players had a really good plan and that would make the game more fun) I think that when the best posible result is not enough I simply don't ask for a check or a roll, unless it's something like a saving throw, where they have to make the check and if the fail there's consequences, sometimes the best possible result is just a lesser consequence that what might have happened otherwise Natural 20s should be epic, yet realistical, at least in my games. My ranger can shoot slightly further than her longbow allows if she rolls a natural 20, sure! But if it's more than 50 ft over the 600 that her bow allows I'd have to say no. Having said this, a success is not always the success you might expect. The weakling bard might challenge the huge bodybuilder guy in the tavern, and the roll will definitely impact the result; but that natural 20 might just mean that the bard does not break a bone, or that the bodybuilder actually struggles a bit before wining anyways :) My bard player had a lot of fun, and his character now wants to join the army because he feels tough, and honestly I love it
In our game, a Nat 20 gives advantage on your next roll; Nat 1 gives disadvantage. You might still succeed (on a skill) with the Nat 1; you might still fail with a Nat 20.
Glyph of Warding clearly states "The glyph is nearly invisible and requires a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC to be found."
I always saw the difference between Perception and Investigation as Perception being noticing or finding out something that you aren't consciously looking for, like noticing that there's a symbol on a weird door, while Investigation is something you are making a conscious effort to find out, like investigating a room for a specific item.
At session zero, the group votes on whether a NAT-20/1 on skill checks and saves are an auto-pass/fail or a crit-pass/fail. whatever they decide ALSO applies for their opponents. It does make it more difficult for me to challenge them when it comes up, but it is also more fun as it adds higher highs and lower lows to the encounters and a little bit of swingy-ness.
Something my father loved saying as I grew up was “anybody can build a brick s*house. It takes an engineer to build one with the fewest nails to weather the storm as long as it is needed to.” This applies quite well to skill proficiency too. There are vastly different levels of artisanship and even ingenuity. Allowing for this can help enrich games. An example for instruments, heart and soul is often a song that can be picked up with little to no practice, often just by hearing it and plunking about to find the notes in order, while recreating mozart’s finest is a display of skill. Apprentice tailors are unlikely to be trusted to fashion clothes for nobles but a player with weaving tools can probably make a burlap sack out of a sheet of burlap and the tools. Cartographer tools includes a compass which is easy to explain being able to use, and sextants that take real skill and intelligence. The disparity between untrained ability mod and level 20 expertise is exactly that. I can see imposing disadvantage in cases of cultural complexities ((like electronics between pre-boomers and millennials)) but that I feel falls heavily under the blanket guidance of “DM Discretion.”As a second part, while I agree a group roll can’t always be used, something like stealth should still be given advantage when a proficient player aids another. With that paladin, a rogue who is trained may know ways of camouflaging of muffling the armour though the use of stuff like cloth and natural elements (muddy oils, leaves and the such). That is the knowledge portion of a trained proficiency, I would think.
Sorry, adding a TLDR; if your player can ‘sufficiently’ explain why they can make an unskilled check with tools and intensive skills, an non-zero chance should still be given.
For the natural 20 one, I will say, unless it’s a high DC and you don’t know exactly what your players modifier is, I would say you usually shouldn’t let them roll if even a nat 20 will fail.
I used to do that until the players started to think that if they roll, they have a chance to succeed. If I tell them no roll and they auto fail, it removes a bit of suspense because they know early to not even try
I always give players "the attempt roll" because maybe that person is getting bored/hasn't rolled d20 in a while/wants to feel like they are participating. But if its impossible i will announce result "you failed" somewhere between the die roll and right before they announce the result (your math doesnt matter) Like sure, if you want to roleplay that your character is attempting to high jump 20ft, then go for it, it will look silly, of course they will fail, but i am not going to say they can't attempt/remove agency
I would disagree there. It also goes back to the point about using degrees of success and failure, so the Nat 20 may significantly reduce the consequences of the failure
I'm starting a new campaign with a previous DM. Last campaign skill checks followed the rules. In our session zero he told us they can crit in the new campaign. I'm glad he said something early, as I'm usually the buzzkill when someone gets really excited when a 20 appears.
You brought up inside jokes in CoS, and it reminded me of an inside joke me and my party have so my I was the DM, and the players had just found Rictavio's wagon and my brother who was playing an Artificer who loved getting new parts for his robotic arm so when they got to close to his wagon I described it shaking violently and the sound of metal clanking together my brother's character shouted "PARTS!!!" raced to the wagon and opened the door to see Rictavio's pet Sabertooth tiger he turned around and slowly closed the door, but it was too late. The tiger ripped off the door and attacked the party. Luckily, Rictavio was there to calm the tiger, and then I described how he was very mad at my brother's character in particular cause he broke the door of his wagon and now when ever anything bad happens to my brother he usually says something along the lines of "why" and the rest of the party always shouts "CAUSE YOU BROKE HIS WAGON!!!!".
The Critical Success rule in rolling a nat 20 is something I always have in my games because it makes sense to me and I love it! HOWEVER I dislike how some DM's make the impossible happen from it or drastically changes the interaction because of it. An example would be trying to persuade a Boss to let the party live if they're struggling. If a player tries it and rolls a nat 20 I'm not just going end the fight and let them leave but I'd make the Boss feel slightly bad about killing you which makes them hesitate giving the party an extra turn too deal with it. Another example like for a Perception check would be if I have a well hidden item and have them roll a 25+ for it and they get a nat 20 but don't land the required check I just say "your character happens by pure luck to discover (the place item is hidden)". If it's under a floor board, they'd find the loose board but they still wouldn't know what's there or how to open it if it's not something so obvious. I wouldn't just give them the item if it's hidden. No your nat 20 did not befriend an enemy that really wants you dead or let your character see through walls for a moment. Shocker.
My rouge tried hiding in snow in a fight vs 3 yeti's and rolled a 22 but they already spotted him before. So I said your character thinks he's well hidden. Then I had all 3 of the yeti's attack him as if he was prone. He almost died that turn lol. Everyone but him thought it was funny and he learned a lesson there lol.
Was it in the middle of a snowstorm and did they have Mask of The Wild? Because it states with that ability that you can hide even when lightly obscured. I believe it's a wood elf ability
@@BrianWalker93 no to both. He attacked one from like 20ft away in daylight and just hide in the open field and is wearing all black against the white snow. Wasn't even a surprise round or anything lol.
First of all, I like your content and videos. Funny and a lot of valuable information ^^ Thanks a lot and hope will continue. About Knowledge Checks (12:00) I usually ask the players HOW to they want to figure out stuff and pick the check based on that. Lets say, there is a creature with a one big eye which cowers almost his all head, his hands and legs are twice as long as his body, his is skinny with ripped skin all over his body. On his back he have spikes which seems like a bones piercing through his skin (Nothic). A player could say "I want to try to remember if I read something about it in a past" (maybe a sage background) so it is a history check. Or perhaps he can choose nature "I saw a lot of weird creatures which most of humans don't. Did I already met a creature like this?" Since Nothic is an aberration creatue, it is less likely to met him in the wild. So even with a high roll I can say something like "No, you do not met a creature like this before. However, based on how this creature looks like, you met a creatures which also had some similarities as this one so based on your experience, you can deduce that he excels in acrobatics." This way, I can give a player at least some information, a player now can guess that this creature have a high DEX stat. But if a would say instead "Okay, give me an arcane check" I would already give a players kind of valuable information without even "challenge" them. Arcane check is related to a magic, so this probably is not a beast or something. IMHO it is a DM metagame (giving a player information which the character do not suppose to know)
Fondly remembering the time my former group's DM had us solving riddles, and one of them pertained to the Norse pantheon (as deduced out of character by another player). Well, my character was a 6th level evocation wizard with the sage background whose backstory was that he was a professor of history and religion, so I eagerly exclaimed, "Yo, this is my wheelhouse! DM, what do I know pertaining to this riddle specifically?" He asked for a History check. I rolled a Nat 20 with a +6 in History, so I just knew I knew the answer...until the DM said some vague shit about Odin hanging a giant's head in his throne room. The answer to the riddle, given by a totally different character who wasn't even trained in History or Religion, was Odin's throne (as in the exact name of the blasted thing). Needless to say, I felt really shafted and other players agreed I got shafted on that one. So what's my point? Well, I 100% appreciate and respect what the DM was trying to do: he didn't want the riddle to be solved by a mere skill check, which is fair. However, if you're going to call for a check, don't shaft a player like that just because you realize you done goofed. The one thing that kind of makes up for that is me having rolled a 21 on Insight much earlier in the campaign, which he later admitted wrecked his entire plot for that particular session; so the other lesson is if all it takes to wreck your plot is a high roll, you really didn't think that plot through. LMAO End rant.
I have a homebrew rule, Critical Skill Saves. If you make a saving throw, and after your modifiers, you match the saving throw exactly, you critically saved, and don't take half damage.
My favorite fail moment was early in my current campaign. My Kenku players was trying to forge documents. They had already seen what this specific one would look like. When they rolled a nat 1, the quill of their pen broke and splattered ink over all the pages they were trying to write on. Kenku tossed the papers and went to bed grumpy. It made them search out more papers, ink, and a new quill and opened up the opportunity for them to explore the area more. It's something both the player and myself look back on and giggle at.
My part did come across some feral wolf, and my Druid's Wild Empathy [pathfinder rules] determined that it had been wounded and possibly poisoned. With a good roll, he was able to calm the beast enough to make a heal check find the arrow lodged in it's hind leg. As much as I wanted to remove the arrow and apply a poultice, a wild animal would not sit still for that kind of thing. My druid cast "Neutralize Poison", then a "cure" spell, and the wolf left us alone. The group was a bit miffed that I used spells on an "animal" so my Druid started asking anyone needed healing "Does this little puppy have a boo boo, or a tummy ache? I only treat animals, you know." It was very entertaining for a few game sessions.
When making social interactions, I allow a performance/music instrument to influence an NPC or groups attitude (as described in DMG p 245) A performance check of 20 or more can change an NPcs attitude by one step, from Hostile or Friendly to Indifferent, or from Indifferent to Hostile or Friendly. The performance takes 10 minutes during which the NPC must be able and willing to observe the performance. The change in attitude is only temporary, lasting at most 24 hours, and can be directed at either the Performer or another individual or group. Thus a performer can cause unrest by causing a crowd to become hostile toward the ruling body, town guards, etc.
Exactly! I never have it that bard fails a performance (unless intoxicated) but the performance check is for how well it affected the crowd/viewers. I will also decide for NPCs how likely they are to be swayed by say a musical performance and what preferences they have in say music (dancing tune, ballad, classical or a bawdy tune) or just make them a grump with very little interest in most entertainments but will give them a different interest (say gambling or drinking instead).
On the topic of perception vs investigation. I tend to rule it as perception being if you're kinda just quickly looking around, investigation if you're looking in detail for anything specific. Like, "I walk in the room, what do I see?" = Perception. "I walk in the room and want to look for the closest agressive creature." = Investigation. Essentially, Investigation has a desired outcome.
Rule 4 sucks, stories can be so much better if a barbarian can describe a spell because he saw a friend blow up to it rather then the level 15 wizard it makes for great stories.
It's funny, an old article I read back in the 3.5 days gave "getting the fighter/paladin in plate mail past the guards" as an example of something mid-high level rogues could do with their 20+ bonus to Move Silently.
Thanks for all this advice! Really helps for me to determine what my players should roll. Had some problems especially with multiple rolls on one thing and that everyone starts to roll dice
The way we handle knowledge checks at my table comes down to two facets: 1) What is it that you are trying to know about 2) How/What qualifications are you using? A Cleric based on eliminating Orcs wouldn't use History to speak about Orcs, as they would use Religion because of the religious texts and teachings A Wizard with proficiency in Alchemy Supplies may attempt Arcana on a plant (potentially with a higher DC) due to their knowledge of the magical signature of the plant A Fighter trying to recall a spell that someone once told them to be weary of may result in a History check as they are trying to remember directly. Won't know much about the spell, but know of it. We use these rules to allow for more personalized uses of skills that allow it to pertain to the character's skillsets and background. It is the way we like it. Of course, the changing of the knowledge roll has to be within reason.
Firstly - Thank you for #1 - It's one of my big pet peeves that people use Perception and Investigation wrong: Even in official published adventures! It seems like so few people understand the difference, and it feels so clearly defined (to me) in the PHB. I agree with a fair number of your statements, even though the bulk of my comments below are on areas I disagree with you on (These wound up in reverse order, because I felt compelled to comment on the first one, and went back to find the others): For #8 - The rules clearly state athletics is for climbing. Rather than further muddy the waters about which skill is for which activity, why not use something already in the rules (which is incredibly underutilized) regarding skill checks? If you feel someone should be able to dexterously climb a wall, instead of switching the skill used, switch the ability score that applies: Athletics can be used with dexterity instead of strength! For #4 - I would rather let someone make the roll, since it's in the rules, and then have them justify the outcome, or find a way to justify it myself, as the GM. A bit of knowledge they have no right to know? Maybe they overheard an argument between a pair of wizards in a bar about the subject (and maybe one of the bits of information there were two sides for that they aren't sure which is right). They pick up a lute and rock the house? Oh, it's the only song they know because they idolized bard x as a kid, and they spent forever figuring it out - don't ask them to play anything else. People have little niche bits of knowledge and ability that don't really fit as a full on "proficiency" in a skill, but do allow them to shine in an area they normally wouldn't under specific circumstances. I believe that's what the "roll for anything" part is about. For #3 - I disagree with your take on higher level players easily making a 20 in a check - this only applies if they're proficient, since they're unlikely to have increased their ability scores a ton as they go up in level. Keeping to the outlined DCs in the DMG for difficulty level (or thereabouts) is the players' reward for investing in the specific skills they've chosen to be proficient in. For example, if you're talking about that greased and no-handhold climb from earlier, if that's DC 25 in a low level adventure, it should still be DC 25 in a high level adventure too - The wizard is still likely to need to be hauled up by rope, or use a spell to get up, even if the ranger is able to make the DC fairly easily. I see a lot of DMs increase the difficulty of checks arbitrarily because the PCs are getting better at things - but that's the whole point of levelling up! If their new level of competency doesn't matter at all, what's the benefit of it? And god forbid someone actually take expertise in a skill, and maybe a feat that improves their ability to succeed even more - suddenly DCs in that category of check all jump by 5 or even 10! Sometime's it's okay to let your PCs feel like a task that would be super difficult, or even nigh impossible for some people was even trivial for them. They invested in the skill, that's their reward. Plus it makes it hilarious when they still manage to fail somehow by rolling a 3 when they have a +15 and the DC is 20. I realize your words were "bump up the DCs a little" but a lot of people take the idea of that and run way too far with it.
Instead of just saying "I want to do an insight check", i phrase it as "I want to get a vibe check on this person, get a sense of what their motive is".
Monster of the Week has a neat system I'm borrowing for my table. Failures yield experience! That way even failing leads to learning and progress, and it encourages players to try when normally they might not.
Did you know the probability of rain in a city does not account how probable it is to rain in that city, but the portion, the area of it that is probably to be affected? Like 100% means it is expected to rain in all the city, and 50% it means it expected to rain in half the city. That changes it all, 50% means it is likely going to rain somewhere in that city, not maybe it's gonna rain maybe not. Great video by the way.
The armored sneak brings a situation to mind, where the group check may generally be done by the best, I could see that some situations are done by the worst at said skill
I use Critical Success and Critical Failure by choice. You know, it‘s really fun for both my players and me when a character succeeds in an incredibly epic way. There are some skill checks 8that are for example impossible) where this won‘t work. But usually it is more fun for everyone involved.
I like using gradients of Difficulty Class. I feel that a DC 10 doesn’t cover things all the time, but some things aren’t yet 15. So I put in 12s and 14s as well.
Yeah I do the same thing,
Tho the 5, 10, 15 is a reasonable guideline
Me too
Nothing wrong with that.
I think that's how most people do it. Heck, that's how most modules do it.
I use 13 a lot myself.
First time to the channel.
This guy bounces from "Rules as Written" to "Rules as Intended" to "Rules Be Damned' and back and forth faster than a meteorologist changes their forecast.
So basically how every DM runs their game? Some rules are written and make sense some need to be bent lol
That bouncing is called skill gained from years of experience. Adapting, modifying or changing is what DM's do.
And thats if the only thing youknow about being one is the game rules. The least important part ofthe equation.
Curios w yrs later if you still find this changing it at will odd.
Because 'fun' is the most important rule to follow.
You can totally assist the heavy armour wearer in being moving silently. Unfortunately, this involves wrapping them up in the tapestry you looted 3 rooms back to muffle the sound and dedicating 2 party members to carrying them.
Toss them in the chest of holding and have them hold their breath. Move quickly. ;)
How dare you say I can't, sir, when I so clearly can lol.
So the Cleopatra treatment then
Throw a rock down a different hall and give everyone advantage on their check. Now the fighter roles regularly instead of at disadvantage
Disadvantage is generally equivalent to a - 5, pass without trace is a +10, mathematically equal to canceling the disadvantage and applying advantage
For the stealth check (and actually all checks), I'd have the player describe what they're trying to do. For instance, if the character is in a busy Marketplace (even in broad daylight) and wants to lose a tail by "disappearing into the crowd", I'd allow a stealth roll to see if the character is able to use the crowd to break line of sight. Likewise, in your combat scenario, combat is a very chaotic event. You may be actively aware of your surroundings, but even the best of us can be overwhelmed and lose track of important details, like the sneaky-sneaky rouge capable of backstabbing. Give me, the DM, a plausible situation, and I'll consider it.
But, both of those situations will be contested rolls, with the person being evaded getting to make a perception check to see if they can spot the person who's trying to sneak away. And, depending on the factors, there may be disadvantage applied on the roll. For instance, if the rouge trying to disappear in the crowd is wearing an outfit that makes them stand out like a sore thumb, that's going to be a disadvantage roll.
A group Stealth check can be described as a, "What was that noise?" **rogue makes bird noises** "Ah, must be nothing..." situation. I allow group stealth in macro situations, like sneaking into the castle, as opposed to micro situations, like sneaking past a specific guard, because it serves the narrative by allowing advancement of the plot without creating a "roll until you fail" single point of failure.
That's actually a really good idea. I'm going to keep track of that. Maybe they also throw a small pebble at the same time to sell the idea that it's a small critter/bird/whatever. I like that.
I would posit that to be a deception check, or a stealth check using charisma instead of dex.
Recently played an Oath of the Ancients paladin (10th level or so). We were trying to 'stealth' our way past a critical guardpost. I was actually doing pretty well up to that point, then I rolled a 1.
Well damn. Go for it then...
I closed with the guard as he raises his whistle and hit him with a thunderous smite...
So much for stealth...
Yeah, maybe have the rest of the party that helps the guy out roll with disadvantage to show them DESPERATELY trying to hold the chainmail pieces still
So as much as I like this, I think we all know that _most_ groups would just use group stealth checks as a way to give the Paladin consequence free stealth. Which brings back the video creators point about embracing failure. The idea that the Paladin _can't_ stealth means parties need to come up with creative solutions rather than "we just stealth passed this encounter". That, or they need to start spending resources to give the Paladins stealth.
My group found a way around the armored character ruining their stealth. They had the magic user cast levitate and just floated him behind the group and he held real still. It was brilliant and creative so I allowed it. He still had to roll, just not at disadvantage and I made the magic user roll to maintain concentration with his stealth roll, as he would be focusing on moving quietly and on the spell at the same time.
Great idea
Thats not how concentration works
Personally I'd argue they have to attach rope (spending about 1 minutes to get it right)
But at that rate I'd just give them a magical armor to not have disadv.
Oil the armour really well.
Or just cast silence ;)
@@KorvinCoraxsilence only affects a 20-ft sphere in space, not a creature, pass without trace is the spell
Luke: "the rules clearly state..."
*ten minutes later*
Luke: "I know the rules say this, but..."
*ten more minutes later*
Luke: "the rules clearly state..."
Well... this perfectly embodies the nature of the game, the rules and its players.
That's D&D in a nutshell!
The DMG is like the Bible. There is something in there to justify whatever you want.
On that natural 20 issue, I always thought it was a holdover from 3.5e, but looking at the PHB for that, it's actually quite explicitly not the case. I think this just comes down from tradition/house rules. Here is the exact text, though:
The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. *Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.*
So there it is.
@@AlbinosaurusR3X Yeah I've always been hard against auto-pass 20s for skill checks, having started my gaming by reading the 3.5 books. In the advice for setting DCs, 3.5 preempted some DMs who may want to discern between "impossible" and "nearly impossible" tasks, knowing that characters could and would be encouraged to (like in the Epic Level Handbook to come) become INSANELY powerful. They went on to suggest a "nearly impossible" swim check DC of 90 for swimming up a waterfall.
So yeah, suggesting that was theoretically possible, they could not suggest that any random person could do so 5% of the time. Impossible-to-obtain DCs allow for gods to have a chance of failure (the ones that have to roll, anyway), and for superhero powerhouses to succeed at essentially unreal checks.
I've always thought of perception checks as things we perceive. "I go the door and listen for voices on the other side" or "I climb the rafters to get a better viewpoint". Perception check. If you are actively looking for something like "I take my hand and feel around the top of the doorframe" or "I toss the room looking for his spellbook". If you are actively trying to do a particular thing, that's investigation. That's how I rule it anyway.
That’s how I run the checks too. Perception is looking, listening and in some cases smelling while investigation is hands on. Moving things and feeling for hidden switches and the like.
Be careful with asking for perception rolls for sensory checks when you should be using passive perception and "freebie" sensory checks. If the room smells bad, you should be able to tell them that without asking for a successful sniff, rolling high doesnt turn you into a bloodhound. Nor should a roll dictate whether you can hear or see something that is not hidden. There could be cases where a creature is hiding and you roll opposing perception vs stealth, but allowing someone to 'roll to see __' is inviting the chance (if roll is low) to 'occassionally see nothing'/go blind for a round
"When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check." - Player's Handbook
Interesting, I've always done Perception = Physical action, Investigation = Mental action.
i like your take on that.
Acrobatics vs athletics: have them describe HOW they’re climbing that wall to decide which roll.
Knowledge checks for Goblins:
History: what it’s tribe has done/served in the past
Arcana: likelyhood of him being a shaman
Nature: lifestyle of this tribe
Religion: does this particular tribe follow that particular dark god?
I'd probably be strict and say that athletics is used for straight climbing. Even if you do like a parkour wall run (which is still pretty athletic), that probably isn't going to let you scale a 30ft wall... At least at low levels.
@@AnaseSkyrider Yeah, I do allow Athletics or Acrobatics for climbing. Hell, the old edition Rogues had wall climbing as a built-in feature, not the Fighter. I like the dexterous parkour, but I do require a plan of attack that uses the environment. Even the regular Athletics climbing should be exceedingly difficult without some kind of grapple.
'have them describe HOW they’re climbing that wall to decide which roll.' this is great advice in general. players should be interacting with the world and describing their actions, not picking options from their character skill list. i prefer when players tell me what their character is trying, rather than just asking 'can i do an acrobatics check'. this also helps because sometimes i may not even ask for a roll for what they are attempting. if the player is creative in interacting with the world and describes how they use the environment to their advantage then this could either ignore a roll entirely or reduce the DC.
As someone who climbs a lot that works, or I would rule it based on what they are climbing. Very smooth wall with few holds? Acrobatics. Long drawn out climb for 60 feet or more? Athletics. The issue is climbing is a mixture of the two :/
@@AnaseSkyrider well climbing is not all athletics. Someone can be incredibly buff and not get up a wall still. I’ve seen it many times.
Without spoiling the episode, on the most recent Critical Role, Liam provided a good example of point number 6. On a check he made, he rolled a natural 1, which as a halfling he has the option to reroll. But he said, “I could reroll it, but I’ll just let it happen.” He did that because he felt, as a player, the failure would lend itself to a more entertaining story.
If a rule gets in the way of a player’s enjoyment of the story and game, don’t use it. Embrace the failure because they are often more fun than successes.
I mean, i wouldn't call this " a rule getting in the way of player's enjoyment" not saying that your statement overall is wrong, but in this particular example, the halfling feature is a possibility, not a rule. It says you CAN, which means you decide if you do or not. - Its the same with Finesse weapons, you CAN use DEX instead of STR, but you might still use STR.
The difference is, only the DM can ignore rules in turn to increase enjoyment, but the players can ignore their features which gives them the possibilty to do something.
As a new DM, this video is packed with more USEFUL information than almost any other video I’ve watched on DM’ing. and I have binged...trust me I have binged.
Sad thing is that it contains a lot of mistakes. You are better off just reading PHB.
@@MrDrakian what mistakes? Not everything has to stick 100% to the rules
@@dominusdane3304 It would be true if this guy didn't both use the rules to prove his points and disregard them when it didn't fit his points. It's great to have personal preferences, but calling anything that doesn't align with them "mistakes" doesn't help.
I believe it's perfectly reasonable to let somebody use an Investigation to search for traps or secret doors and such, because there is a lot of deductive reasoning used to do so. Figuring out that a drawer has a false bottom isn't always just looking at it and seeing the space discrepancy, it starts with knowing where to look
The high prescription notes something doesn't add up. The investigation reveals why, if the roll is met. In this case failure might mean more time. Beacuse you KNOW something is different there
Sure, when you declare you want to check for a false bottom, that'd be Investigation. It represents your character playing with the drawer, looking for any way to open it. And if they find nothing, they won't know if they failed or if there was nothing to find.
But a general, I search? Not without that specificity. Maybe I'd tell you you realize the space inside the drawer is too small for the size of the drawer
If you're going to use acrobatics for climbing, at least still use strength. You're allowed to switch with the ability score is used.
Performance is only for entertainment, singing, storytelling, music etc. Any type of lying or trickery is deception. While listening to the video, I considered allowing performance only for something like trying to pass yourself off as another person, but that's called out as deception in the php. Obviously, the DM can always alter things, but that's the designers intent.
While there's a few places where you put your foot down, luke, you seem to be too willing to allow the players to do whatever skill they want. They'll always pick the highest number!
I always ask whether a player is using their hands and being tactile, or just using sight, smell or hearing.
Perception = Ranged and often gives less information
Investigation = Close and often gives more information
@theravenousrabbit3671 I agree. I'd like to add, though: investigation should take much more time.
Best alternate rule for skill checks: Dissociate skills from stats, at least partially.
Using Intimidate as an example: Sure, you may be able to intimidate somebody with your charisma, but if you're a Goliath Barbarian trying to intimidate somebody by your sheer physical presence, Intimidate (Str) or Intimidate (Con) may be appropriate. If you're a Wizard trying to intimidate someone with your magical prowess, Intimidate (Int) might make sense. If you're Monk trying to stop a creature from running away because you are way too fast to escape, Intimidate (Dex) is fitting.
The same is true for other checks. Survival(Con) if you're trying to endure the elements of a harsh landscape, or maybe Str to make your way through physically demanding terrain quickly. Perception (Con) if you're trying to perceive a slight tremor, Perception (Int) if you're trying to detect a magical field, and so on.
Perswation (Int) to destroy them with facts and logic.
I do this too. Bothers me that someone cant use intelligence to read a persons body language and make an intelligence insight check. Its also an optional rule anyway.
Yeah, I hate that a barbarian can't be intimidating because he front loaded strength, con, and dex. Although an effective death machine, your barbarian fails to intimidate anyone because he has no charisma and walks the Path of the Milquetoast
This is strong recommended and widely used in pathfinder 2e 😁
It's not a house rule but a variant rule in the dungeon Master's guide
On that last one, i would imagine the same goes for the opposite, rolling a nat 1 on a skill check doesnt mean you automatically fail, and can actually still be passed if its a low DC, youre a rogue, or you have a really good modifier in it.
Correct, RAW a skill cannot autofail one a 1, you add modifiers and have a lower result but it could still end up success against a low DC.
Here's my take on the last point: logically speaking, a Nat 20 in any roll is the best possible roll you can get for that situation, ignoring a bardic inspiration or bless addition. If the DM knows that the player cannot achieve the task with the highest possible roll, they shouldn't let that player roll, period. The task is truly impossible, and the DM shouldn't entertain an exercise in futility. The same with a character who could pass a check with a nat 1. Just let them do it.
That's my opinion, but then again there's always the potential for DMs to base degrees of success or failure on the dice roll. For instance, a rogue rolls a nat 1 for a total of 12 on an easy lock. They do a super slipshod job and get in, but it takes longer and everyone hears it. Conversely, player does an impossible jump, but rolls a Nat 20, so they don't make it across but are able to tuck and roll to avoid damage.
@airsoftingpanda5843 There's a tactic I use in some cases that both speeds up the game and rewards the player for investing their precious skill prof. I call it "you do the thing". If a rogue is trying to crack a basic lock? He does the thing. If a barb is trying to intimidate some smol nameless gobbo? She does the thing. If the artificer is using one of their 150 expertised tool sets to find a weakness in old architecture? They do the thing.
Not only does it keep the flow moving, but sometimes a player is going for a really interesting tactic and I wanna give them the confidence to cook
I'm the DM and I love my players. I was dropping some lore in a shared dream and they heard a name. The warlock spent 30 years studying in an abandoned magic library and wanted to do an intelligence check. The paladin might have known it because of religious implications and I have them roll a religion check. Since the outcome wasn't particularly important I asked if the other two characters wanted to roll. Both of them said no because they didn't think the characters would know anything about an obscure religious name
It's so simple but that made me happy
Humble players who don't feel the need to be good at everything all the time are the absolute most fun to have in a group.
Hey there DM Lair, first video of yours I have seen and I am about to check out more because it was great. But earlier in the video you were discussing certain PC's being unable to perform an action based on whether or not they are proficient in that field, ie a lawful good paladin has no experience at all with thieves tools and would be unable to pick a lock as he has never even SEEN thieves tools or know of the inner workings of a lock before. Now this is very similar to the 3e and 3.5 edition of dnd ruling that only specific classes can perform certain tasks that 5e was trying to get out of. Now even though I like the side of you cannot even attempt to pick a lock, I also understand that it can be hard if you do not have anyone who has proficiency with thieves tools in the party, and so as a DM I made a special homebrew rule for my party. VARIABLE DC's which is to say a skilled thief attempting to pick a lock on a plain lock on a mundane door would take a DC 10, as they have knowledgeable skill in that area. However, if the rogue cannot pick the lock for some reason and the cleric says "move aside I can do better than that" by 5e rules he can definitely try, but it would be MUCH harder for him to pick a lock with no knowledge or understanding and so the DC for THAT CHARACTER is a 20. This makes it still possible for any character to do anything without saying it is almost equally easy for all characters to perform the same action. What are your thoughts?
I also allow nature checks for figuring out things that have to do with anatomy.
Also I like to do sliding scales for checks, particularly knowledge checks. The higher they roll, the more info and the more relevant the info that I give.
I would do medicine for this one, depending on what creature it is. It makes more sense to me
@@flaissondasilva5144 nature + medicine dual check. Just because you know that animal doesn't mean you know diseases and anatomy, and vice versa
I like to do sliding scales with knowledge checks. I also account for the character's background. For example, players want to check their knowledge about Smirnam, a figure from dwarf history. If the character is a dwarf from the same region of the world, then I'd say a DC 5 = they've heard of her, DC 10 = they know a few facts about her, DC 15 = they know how she figures in their history (similar to how an average American knows a fair bit about some less recent presidents, like either Roosevelt), etc.
If a wood elf with no special dwarf connections makes the same check, the DCs will be higher and the bits they do know are likely to be different. (For example, how the Wright brothers are perceived by Americans compared to how they are perceived by Brazilians and many Europeans.)
@@atk05003 I do knowledge checks like you, and if a check isn't obvious (like lock picking) and they can explain their reasoning, I let my players choose their check. They know that what they get changes depending on what they choose, what they might know, and that the DC may be higher to get something useful. I haven't run into issues yet (my group is really good about that) and I like that it encourages both them and me to think about what and why a character might know something. To identify a magic item, a wizard might use arcana to read the runes, a bard might use history to try to recall a tale about the hero who last held it, a rogue might use investigation to see if they pick out context clues in its aesthetic, and a fighter might make a smithing check for clues in how the item was made.
@@flaissondasilva5144 I mean, I know every mammal has a heart, lungs, stomach, brain and where they are situated, mostly. I know what a leg of several animals look like, so real basic anatomy. But preventing them from bleeding if they got hurt at the wrong location, if they have 1, 2, 3 or 4 stomachs might be a different story. Would Medicine be a general check for humans, or also for animals? As per PHB, Medicine allows you to stabilize characters, and diagone illnesses (they don't even mention diseases).
So, yea, I'd argue Nature would be fine for general anatomy.
I was super happy to hear you explain your take on proficiency checks for things like thief tools. The way the current D&D is setup it seems that now everyone can do anything without training
It's not true that anyone can attempt any check. e.g. Locks and manacles in the PHB equipment sections require proficiency in thieves' tools to pick.
When it comes to changing something's demeanor, in D&D 3.5 and pathfinder at least, you can't move them more than 2 categories (hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful) in a 24 hour period and it takes 1 minute to do (so not in combat). You can't scream out "Martha!" and turn an enemy into a friend.
Thanks for sharing this! 5e only has 3 social states (Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile) in the DMG and I was having difficulty thinking of names for additional social states.
You understand that 5e doesn't have those yet could be homebrewed if you truly desired it? Also skull checks can take longer than 6 seconds.
I don't know about pathfinder but i just cheked for d&d 3.5 and I didn't find anything about the limitation of 2 categories in 24h, but I found a table that set the DC to change the demeanor of a NPC that clearly allow you to change it more than two categories (hostile to friendlyis DC 35, hostile to helpful is 50), also you can use it quicly, for exemple tto make two people stop fighting with a -10 to the check
That was not a rule in 3.5, also you could accept a -20 (or was it -30...) to skill to cut the time down to 1 round, at least if you played with the Epic rules.
The DC's were high, but it was technically possible to turn a creature from hostile to helpful in a single turn, and like almost anything in 3.5, if you wanted to, you could optimize the hell out of your Diplomacy skill.
You can't scream "Martha!" and turn an enemy into a friend simply because none of them are Batman with a heavy PTSD. Heh.
I desagree a bit with the "Not using group skill checks" because its normal to enter a room and everyone to start invistigating", people normally do stuff together to be more efficient but even if you want to do this that way , i suggest allowing them to roll with advantage because there would be a lot of people "thinking" if it was a investigation check and 2 heads think better than 1
dungeon Delver feat in PHB first ability states, "you have advantage on wisdom (perception) and intelligence (investigation) checks made to detect the presence of secret doors". with this wording I think that both could be used to detect secret doors, it depends on how you are going about it. if you take some systematic method like spreading flower to detect drafts or tapping to listen for hollow spots, I might use int, whereas if I was relining on noticing differences in stone or wood work, I might use wis.
I would say as a dm "are you looking around or moving around touching things".
I'm my mind perception is just looking for something, investigation is like Sherlock touching things to figure out clues.
Let's say there a trapdoor under a rug. A perception check would not show that or would be higher, but investigating by moving the rug would be something different.
Just my two cents, what do you think?
Obviously I agree with you and gave examples that are similar. I like the way you think
Guys, read the rules, please. PHB explains that Perception is about using your senses to detect something, and Investigation is about using clues and making deductions. Every skill in the game has a passive score. The difference between Perception and Investigation is not whether you are actively using it or passively using it.
A smart character can passively deduce (Investigation) that the shape and difference in the dust on the furniture means it's been occupied and in frequent use (maybe even the ways in which it's been used), and a wise character can actively look (Perception) for the key in between the clothing in the drawer.
As for the Perception versus investigation, remember that the key word for Perception is Notice. Perception is what you can see just walking through an area. Investigation is more of a concerted effort to find something out or deduce facts. For example: If I am walking through a parking lot to get to the store from my car, I am going to use Active Perception to make sure I'm not going to get hit and ran over by some idiot not paying attention in their car. Once I'm done shopping, I will use Investigation to find my car because I forgot where I parked (like a dumbass). The difference is that with perception, while I'm doing something, I'm not spending more time checking each and every car to make sure it's a threat, where the investigation is time spent actively searching for my car.
So, in the "Room with potential secret doors", just walking through the room to see if anything looks off would be Perception, while actively looking for secret doors would be Investigation. Finding traps would be more Investigation. Disarming traps/picking locks would require Thieves' Tools.
Investigation allows you to look for hidden doors and objects. It deals with deduction.
Perception utilizes your senses to perceive your general surroundings.
Unless, there was someone whispering from behind the hidden door or you could feel a subtle draft coming from behind it. Investigation would be the more appropriate check when looking for a hidden door. The rules literally say that investigation is used to find hidden objects.
Of course, ability checks are going to have some over lap which is fine. It's entirely feasible for people to have different skills and reach the same conclusion.
I would allow separate players to make separate checks to interact with the same thing.
in WotC modules, it always calls for a perception check to find a secret door
@@quonomonna8126 the First sentence of the rules for Investigation says “when you look around for clues”. That must imply look around for traps and secret Doors. Whereas Perception literally says “lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. From that we Can conclude that perception is “what Can you see, hear, smell, or otherwise detect from where you stand by using your 5 senses”, hence it is a wisdom based skill check. Whereas Investigation is “what Can you find from actively looking around, searching for clues, moving things around to find that hidden trap door underneath the closet. Hence, being your Intelligence telling you to look underneath the closet. So I also disagree with Luke on the Perception vs Investigation.
@@quonomonna8126 It doesn't matter. You can logic it anyway you want and use either.
You notice a faint quarter arc patch on the floor near the book shelf a little less dusty than the rest of the floor (sight / perception).
You find subtle wooden hinges on the bookshelf similar to those gnomish tinkers build into their puzzle boxes. (knowledge / investigation).
Both make perfect sense and either can apply to the same situation.
Totally agree on using investigation for hidden objects and doors. I tend to use investigation for stuff that assumes you're walking around a room (or other limited area) while looking for it, while perception is something you would be able to notice from your specific spot at the moment of rolling. There may be some overlap in the two.
There's also a (in my opinion) very important reason for doing so. which is : Perception is rolled *all the damn time*. I wouldn't be surprised if perception was rolled as much as all the other skills combined. Not to mention that almost every kind of deduction is also covered already by one of the other skills. Looking for footprints, nature or survival. Anything magic related, arcana. Anything dealing with gods, religion. Dealing with people, insight. The example that Luke gave, using perception to see the pressure plate and holes in the wall, and then requiring investigation to put those 2 pieces together? Who needs investigation for that to begin with?
In the end, I just think D&D skills overlap more than their descriptions would suggest. My advice is to make it a habit of having the players ask "Can I use X instead?". And if it sounds at least plausible, allow it. If there's too much doubt as is, consider allowing it but increasing the DC.
@@IkaikaArnado We play by the rules in my game.
As a new Dungeon Master who sort of started a campaign blind to the specific rules and mechanics of the game, your videos have been extremely helpful. My goal is to provide my players with an awesome story and world to play in. Your channel is such a great place to learn.
"Offended" comment: meteorology is actually extremely accurate, upwards of 90% accuracy. A big part of the perception it isn't is because they don't do a great job explaining it on TV, since they use common terms to mean something specific without making sure the public knows what they're trying to convey.
End result? Well there's no difference, but the algorithm wants a comment.
Wergle Bergle! Wergle bergle. I say!
Its funny that you dropped the words Perception (i use passive perception to deduce it is raining currently) and Common terms (i have proficiency in the language: Common) and i dont think meteorology is inaccurate, just agree with the statement "a prediction is still a prediction, and anyone can make a prediction" i do a bit of weather guessing from time to time myself
His eleventh point gave me an idea for a magic item to give players.
The Rememberall. When used during a knowledge check, they gain advantage, because the ball will fill with red smoke if they forget something. Can only be used twice per day.
😉
RE: Proficiency checks without proficiency. As an alternative, you could bump the DC. It is possible for an untrained character to simply have an affinity for a skill, or happened to have dabbled or watched others. So maybe the DC is a 15 for someone with the proficiency, but 20 for the person bumbling through. They may still get lucky.
True. Even if you don't know how to do something, it's still possible to figure it out by accident.
This is what disadvantage is for. I keep the same DC and just make them roll with disadvantage.
@@darklard Actually, I like this idea better. Thanks for the inspiration!
I like the buzz of a nat 20 in a skill check. It usually means that what they intend is happening fairly well - obviousely not everything succeeds, but it's just a cool & rewarding feeling to make something awesome happen. It feels like the dice really count and can change things. Im my games a nat 20 is always something extraordinary because my nr. 1 rule is the rule of cool :)
I've done the same thing. So far this has only happened in fights where a PC wanted to do something badass but not super realistic. He rolled a nat 20 that ended up being like a 26 or 27 with bonuses and proficiencies so I let him do it cuz it would have been cool.
I agree, I don't like the idea of "Oh, nat 20's don't mean you autosucceed, give me your total and we'll see if it beats the DC" because to me a nat20 means not only did you succeed, it also means that something additionally went in your favor. Guards protecting a keep and the rogue nat 20's on their stealth check? One of the guards is very clearly sleep deprived and beginning to doze off and seeing that, you can capitalize on the opportunity as you help guide the group through this section, giving the guard disadvantage on his perception checks (and therefore a -5 penalty to his passive perception).
You manage a nat20 on your check to climb the wall? You find specific points in this section of the wall that make it noticeably easier to climb, whether intentional or not, and you may point them out to your party to lower the DC by X amount for their checks.
And vice versa for nat1's, not only did you fail, something is now acting against you. Nat 1 on your stealth check? You can hear the sound of the clattering armor of multiple guards approaching, one of them hears you and you notice them beginning to pick up the pace.
Nat 1 on your athletics check to climb a wall? You notice a brick sticking out of the wall that you assume would be a sturdy foothold, but as you put some weight on it, you realize it is weak and eroded, and more importantly it starts to break, make a dexterity saving throw.
I like nat 20 fails. You try to charm the dragon, fail, but a kobold nearby heard your words and now calls you MASTER in a way that disturbs you.
Nat 20 fails are like failing upwards. You failed to pick the lock, slip, and your hand lands on a key. Or a map. You fail, and get a reward that is tangential.
the thing with nat 1 and nat 20s on skills checks being critical failures or critical successes is that players love it.
I've dmed for different groups and every single group expected a nat 1 to be a catastrophic failure and a nat 20 to be an epic win. So you just gotta roll with it, players love it
I have to disagree. I hate that houserule. It makes no sense to me.
Playing a character with a 5 Modifier, Proficiency and maybe even being under the influence of Guidance, your Nat 1 might still be a 14, or 19 if you have expertise, but because you roll a 1 you just failed a 10DC, which is pretty much the easiest check you can make.
And having the most absurd idea, and the DM, why in the hells he would do that, nobody knows, allows them to make a check, thinking they will fail anyway, but they roll a Nat20. Even if the DC would be a 99, which is literally impossible to beat, you'd just became the new king of the whole continent, because you successfully persuaded the former king to make you his heir and then commit suicide to atone for his evil deeds.
Nothing of the above makes sense, so Nat1/20 shouldn't be a thing with skill checks. - However, what you can do is, lower or raise the DC.
If you have a DC of 30, and your player rolls a Nat20, you might set the DC down to 25, so even if the Player is not proficient in that skill, he might succeed anyway, but not automatically.
Likewise, if you roll a NAT1 on a DC10, that DC might turn into a DC15, so you didn't make the check with your 14. - Yes, that might suck, because you still failed, but you don't fail immensly, and depending on what you were doing. So, maybe you got something in your eye which caused you to jam a lock, or you didn't realise the rock you grabbed for climbing was loose, which causes you to slip down half the way, as opposed to maybe breaking your thieves tools entirely, or falling down all the way of the wall, hurting yourself by the fall. - Or, you have enough boni, and you actually still succeed the DC15 with a 16, so you still make the save, even with a Nat1.
This would be way more logical to me.
@@MikaeruDaiTenshi have you never heard about the nat 20 to convince the king to give you his kingdom? Of course he doesn't give you his kingdom but he instead thinks you are a funny little guy and offers you to become the court jester instead of being executed for your insults
@@herman1francis @herman1francis That's my point. Going with the Nat20 rule, it's an automatic success, so you succeed in what you want to do. That's the whole point of this rule.
What you describe would be: The Nat20 saved your life, which would be forfeited otherwise, but you still don't get what you want. - This is basically what I described, but yes, I have to agree, that I fail to mention it specifically, and only said "reduce DC".
@@MikaeruDaiTenshi it's an interesting conversation to be had. But remember, as the dm you have ultimate power. Players will feel cheated if they fail with a 20 and will feel infantilized if they succeed with a 1. But as the dm you get the power to Define what success and failure mean. Just because the player rolled a 20 he doesn't get the kingdom, and because he rolled a 1 doesn't fall on his face and die. You get to define what success and failure mean in any situation
@@herman1francis Sure, the DM is the one who decided in the end, but in terms of house-ruling, a rule like this should definitely discussed beforehand, so even if you have dozens of boni and get a 19 or higher with a Nat1, and fail only because of that 1... If the majority of the players agree to play with that rule, I will, but I won't be happy. But if the majority is against it, I hope the DM will agree not to use that rule. - At least that's my opinion.
But sure, how the fail and success looks like, is again, up to the DM, but I feel like some DMs take those Nat1/20s too seriously and just go with the best extremes they can find. (well, without immediately killing you, though depending on the situation, this could actually be a possibility)
Had a fun session one with my group where I had a dragon pick up the slavers wagon that where they are being held
- one player(Monk/rogue) dislocated their thumb to try slip out of their chain - still fail DC (was a low roll on their part - gave them a bonus for the action)
- one player(Cleric) managed to slip the chain but take lightning damage when they tried to take the collar off without investigating it first.
- After a scripted amount of time, a dragon picked up the carriage (a figure from another players backstory), dispelled and removed all the bindings and picked up the carriage.
- Cleric opened the door whilst on the wing ( despite DM warning )- fails Save DC's to not get sucked out of the carriage and ended up in freefall, they had to be saved by Ranger Aarakocra.
- When presented with a pond, that same player wanted to dive in, they checked before jumping and decided against it (There would have been serious consequences with bleeding, being unconscious underwater - possible death)
After a few dreams for a long rest, Hero's feast for breakfast, equipment + gold uplift:
- When landing the Cleric asked for a lift by the Ranger Aarakocra, Ranger critical fails a DC10 strength test, ends up dealing a bit of damage to the Cleric.
Now I tend to think that I'm a fair DM - still stupid actions are stupid actions lol
My favorite skill change (that you didn't mention) is allowing Religion checks to be used for knowing about Divine Spells... Because it's "the practical application of miracles" ;-)
Also, I don't like how you had all of perception /investigation to require two rolls... It seems like it's unnecessary rolling, and setting the PCs up for failure, because they need to succeed both times (and be proficient in both skills) to do anything.
Investigation is: "When you look around for clues [...] You might deduce the location of a hidden object"
My differentiator is that Perception is to quickly scan big areas, and Investigation is to carefully scan small areas.
Spotting a pressure plate in the hallway is perception, but spotting a needle trap on a doorknob is investigation.
I also, from a gameplay perspective, don't like Stealth being "one failure, fails for everybody", because that just means the Paladin always gets left behind when the party advances, and it's no fun for the Paladin.
Super helpful tips for a budding meteorologist, thanks man!
Speaking of Curse of Strahd, my pro tip to players making a character for the module: Make a character you can laugh at when bad things happen to them. Don't make a character you love.
That's a great idea. 😂
Shit. Just made a huge, lovable, Teddy like Charakter for curse of strahd.
Curse of Sttahd is dumb. We defeated the crazy druids with a fire spitting tank.
@@davidbeppler3032 Yeah I'm not happy about the way things have turned out and what it's done to my character because I made a character that I loved so much I put together a $300 cosplay outfit to get into it with.
@@quonomonna8126 that sounds painful. Sry to hear that but maybe wear the costume to remember your character.
Really great video. As an “always DM” since about 1979 I agree with just about everything on the list with just a couple of comments.
1. Puzzles and riddles - I hate puzzles and riddles as a player and a DM. It never made sense to me that you could have a character with a 20 intelligence, one of the smartest creatures on the planet played by someone who…..isn’t. Or you can have the opposite.
This makes puzzles and riddles problematic because you are taking things out of the realm of the character and into the realm of the player. A really smart player who enjoys puzzles and riddles, playing a character with an intelligence of nine has a better chance of solving the riddle then a not so smart player who hates puzzles and riddles playing a character with an intelligent 20. I don’t like that. Therefore, I will usually give the players a bit of time, and then allow them to roll skill checks for clues. Eventually though, after a number of clues I will allow them to roll to solve, albeit with some type of penalty - they have taken so long to solve the puzzle or riddle, a group of monsters comes by etc.
2. Allowing skill checks for untrained, or not proficient skills. I agree with you on most points, somebody not trained in playing the lute is going to fail their skill check no matter what. There’s no point in even making it. However there are a few things that may make sense even if it seems it is impossible. For example, I once had a group of adventurers who came across a wall of hieroglyphics, an ancient and dead language once used by an evil magic user cult.
I determined that either a history or an arcana check which ever is best would be appropriate. Our barbarian was the only one to pass the check and he was neither proficient in history or arcana. After he passed the check I said something along the lines of “A few of the symbols trigger an old memory within you, one from when you were a young child in your tribe, eking out a survival in the cold and harsh north. You remember an old
crone who used to visit your village and regal and scare the young children like you with stories of an ancient and throughly evil cult of wizards who were obsessed with bringing a great and terrible evil back into our world. You remember she would draw symbols on the ground when she was telling her story, and some of these symbols look exactly like the symbols the old crone had drawn. You can’t read what this says, but you have a feeling it is connected with that cult.”
Crazy Cat Luke, here's my typical house rule for 20's and 1's on skill checks (or anywhere else they're not explicitly auto successes/failures) (if I house rule it at all): A 20 counts as a 25 then add your modifier. A 1 counts as a -5 then add your modifier.
Good house rule. As a GM with 35 years of experience, I approve.
I run a variant on 3.5 and Nat 20 are counted as 30 then add modifiers. Nat 1 is a -10 then add modifiers.
I like your rule. It think i will use it
Not a bad compromise. I like it. The craziness that ensures with a 1 or 20 is always memorable, and they're what I live for when it's game time, but this will definitely be implemented when the line is grey.
I like the 'confirm crit' house rule for skill 20s, its not an automatic skill success, but if you pass the DC with what is essentially "optional disadvantage", it becomes an auto/epic success. Similar with critical fumble, even if you are proficient at something, you could get unlucky, reroll a 1 just once more to confirm if its autofail. Expertise in a skill would negate crit fumble chance, unless player wants to RP the Will Wheaton curse
When it comes ot things like tools or instruments, I will also take class into account. For instance, I'll allow a bard to be passingly familiar with many instruments, even if they are only proficient in a few. I figure this allows for the massive skill gap between someone that CAN play, versus someone that has TRAINED to play. I mean, I taught myself piano afterall, and I can tell you there's a big difference lol. They wont play as well, and that may bump the DC up, but I like to operate under the "you can certainly try" method of allowing players to try, and maybe fail, to encourage variety of play instead of them only ever falling back on what they know will 100% work for them.
Plus, watching the Fighter attempt to distract a room with an improve dance is hilarious and if everyone's having fun, I'm doing my job lol.
As a DM, I allow my players to us insight check to determine what their character is thinking. The characters are from that world and there are times when the character would know more than the player. When the Party gets stuck and don't know what to do, they can do an insight check.
Cool idea!
If the character knows it, why would you need a check?
Isn't that like reverse metagaming, like punishing beginners for not owning all the books?
@@schwarzerritter5724 My guess is that the roll is to determine how well the character remembers something in a given moment that the player may not know OOC. That's how I interpreted what OP said, anyway.
For example: you as a person may "know" the quadratic formula, but you may not be able to remember it on command because the knowledge is rarely used. I think that's how Insight checks are being used here.
@@grammarmaid In this example, it is more like making an insight check to remember if the quadratic formula even exists; you still need to make an arcana check to use it.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I think it still checks out. Ask an average adult what the quadratic formula even is and you'll probably get a blank stare. Something that is definitely taught to most, if not all students at some point. Ha ha.
Either way, only OP can confirm. I was just guessing.
Personally at my table, I let nat ones and nat 20's auto "succeed" meaning A nat one will lead to a less than desirable outcome, and a nat 20 will lead to generally positive outcome, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it fails or succeeds, the rogue with insane lockpicking gets a nat 1, you were a little too forceful and your lockpick broke, but you can quickly try again if you have the lockpick "with some time loss" or the bard tries to persuade the king to give them a castle and gets a nat 20 " ohhh, thats a good one, normally such brazen asks would get you thrown in jail, but, now that I think about it, there is an abandoned outpost out in the mountains that's been overun... I'll tell you what, clear that out for me and we'll talk about letting you use it" that sort of thing
I prefer group stealth checks, because otherwise it just means that your entire party is never able to use stealth if you have a fighter or paladin in the party.
Tell that to my paladin - the second sneakiest guy in our group of six... DEX-based pally, with background/lineage skill in Stealth, wearing studded leather and a shield - AC 17 at lvl 1, prefers rapier and longbow. The rogue *is* sneakier, but that's because he can get through some tighter spaces with his weapons, while I can get stuck.
Or you allow the stealthy ones to scout appropriately and report back. If you need to sneak around something, the group stealth really should be a weakest link scenario. Everyone rolls, and if someone fails, yeah...your group got caught because someone was loud...that's how sneaking around works. Or you have to problem solve. Find another route, or the guys with loud clanky armor have to take it off and stow it in the bag of holding to actually effectively sneak past the guards or monster that they REALLY don't want to wake up. Otherwise why does stealth or lack thereof even exist in the game? It's another problem in the game that requires problem solving. If you don't want it, don't use it, but probably tell that to your rogues who were hoping to have their moments to shine when building their characters
I do a case by case depending on what the PCs wanna do.
One time, there were these sleeping wolves guarding something in the cave. The group decided for one character to scout ahead and report back.
Another instance, the group managed to sneak up on these bad guys who were playing a gambling game. The rogue rolled successfully and managed to pick the lock and quietly open the door, not alerting the people in the room. The group then tried to sneak past these guys cuz they didn't wanna fight them and I had everyone roll stealth checks. Half the group failed, so the way I explained what happened, the people who succeeded had managed to sneak by, but the ones who failed caught the attention of the bad guys. I didn't know creatures have 360 awareness of their surroundings however those guys were drunk, so we could blame it on the alcohol for that one.
"your entire party is never able to use stealth" - which to me is 'right'. You want to sneak? Send in the sneaky guy(s). You want the whole platoon with the heavy gunners? You ain't sneakin'! Stealth is one that I would never do 'group' check in most cases (been doing this long enough to know not to say "never")
I have that most armour can be made (for a significant cost) more stealthy by lining joints with felt etc. This gets rid of disadvantage but it is still a minus 1 to stealth checks. However if a player is using plate, then there are certain grounds in which it will always be at disadvantage, such as stone flooring (sabatons on stone will not be quiet).
I tend also to have it so that players can utilise armours under other armours (AC doesn't stack)so a palladin in full plate may have a gambeson underneath (padded armour does not impart disadvantage in stealth checks in my games (stupid rule)) so if it is really important I will make cast off armour available to players and so the full plate armour that was making noise with every step can be removed quickly or at least turned into half plate.
I've only just started watching this clip. 30 seconds in, I finally was able to completely read the shirt. LOVE IT!!! WANT ONE!!
You sure can help that Paladin clad in full plate be more quiet, if you have a caster with "silence" centered on a point you choose. In this case why not center it on the Paladins chest plate, in the center of it? Now for 10 min he can move around without making anyone aware of his presence as far as sound is involved. ;)
This would work with a spell like Darkness, which can target a point including on an object and travel with it, but silence targets a fixed point in space (unless they only need to move in silence within that 20ft radius haha)
In older editions it would stick to objects and could travel, but would probably be too abusable in 5e to make all members of the party masters of stealth with a 2nd level spell though!
@@chrisbowes3241 but it does not say that it is a point in space and it can not be cast on an object. It says "centered on a point you choose" not a point in space. If that point is moveable then it stands to reason the effect will also move with it. No where in the spell description does it say that the point is in space and is unmovable.
As far as being abused I ask how? It is only abused if the DM allows it and has no skill or imagination. Think about it. If they are using it to sneak into a dragons lair, do you think the dragon is unaware of their presence? Of course not, the dragon surely can smell them. The same with guard dogs and any other creatures with sent. They may also be seen or set off warning alarms and not even know it, since they themselves can not hear it.
I have been DM'ing since 1981 starting with Advanced D&D 1st addition. Silence 15' radius was never abused and seldom used. It is funny that people that played 1st addition assumed that if you cast silence 15' radius on a stone you could then place it in a scroll tube and it would hide the effect as if you turned it off or block it just as if you did the same with the light spell. Why would it have any affect on it? It would not, unless the scroll tube itself were enchanted for that specific purpose.
As for me, I will allow it to be cast on a point on an object and be moveable, it is way more fun that way. ;)
@@JohnMiller-wf6cm
I believe that it can’t be cast on and follow an object because of how spell targets are explained, silence only targets a point that you choose, this position is the point of origin for the spell and remains this way for its duration. If it could target objects like armour then I believe it would say so (like with Darkness, and even then it has to be something you’re holding and not carried or not worn). Also if all concentration spells that target a point could do this, then things like sickening radiance or other nasty area of effects could be stuck onto anything, including your enemies armour (which would be a death sentence with how long it takes to remove!)
“A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect […] Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.”
Haha yeah they’re not really gonna become undetectable, but it would go a long way with all the clanking induced disadvantage, I think it would just be too powerful for a 2nd level spell - I would be more concerned about how you could just silence enemy mages by getting your barbarian to chase them down while surrounded in a sphere of of silence (wish I could do that on my barbarian/rogue grappler though!)
Ha that’s pretty funny, I know the 5e light cantrip can be covered in that way but I wouldn’t have leapt to the conclusion (though I’ve never played that edition) that a bog-standard tube with a cap could somehow have the incredible ability nullify a spells area of effect like that! (Would make magic a lot less impressive if so)
Yeah end of the day the great thing about d&d is that it’s a game and we can do what we want with it to have fun, because that’s why we all play it, so keep doing it your way :) (judging by how angry some people get in the comments you do wonder sometimes if they’re actually playing this to have fun!)
@@chrisbowes3241 Yeah, I can see that. But trust me it would not be to powerful if you could cast it as in the older versions. And yes I have ran games from 1st addition through 3.5 and have had people do that very thing. carry a stone with silence 15' radius and run up on the caster, usually the healer first, and just try to damage them. But in the older additions most spells were not concentration and had a permanent affect. And it was never to powerful for a second level spell then. You just had to look at the spells that did not require a verbal component. There were plenty to choose from.
Unfortunately, in 5e it seems they have mostly pussyfied the game. Killed the spells and made most of them concentration then pilled on the hit points and gave every non spell cast massive damage output. In 1st addition a wizard got a die 4 for hit points plus con, if he was lucky enough to have a bonus, and only got a hit die up to level 9, I think, and then got 1 hit point plus con bonus each level after that. So fighters in the early levels could easily kill most wizards, but at higher levels the wizard would most likely win. They had fire balls that were 1d6 per level and spells they could cast on themselves that would make them a formidable fighter with a sword or other martial weapon. Not to mention the shields to increase AC. It was a far more deadly game to the characters back then.
A level 20 fighter would be lucky if he were able to get 100 or better hit points. The got a d10 per level plus con up to level 9 then 3 hit points plus con bonus per level after that. An 18 Str in 1e had a +1 to hit and a +2 damage bonus and was the only stat that could go over 18. And it was 18 then a % roll. So the best bonus was an 18/100 which gave a +3 to hit and +6 damage. And only humans males could get an 18/100. All the other races fell in the lower percentile rolls.
So it was a very different game but just as fun.
And yes, as angry as some get in these replies makes you wonder if they have fun playing. You are right that it is just a game and the DM's are capable and encouraged to make the changes they want. I have not been running 5e very long and am still learning the rules. There are a lot of things I like that they did and a lot of things I don't like. I don't like the up scale of hit points and damage output. Makes no sense to me to keep increasing that. Not sure why they restricted spell like Fireball, lightning bolt and other spells that gave you a die of damage per level. As it is it is near impossible to kill a character in normal battle. Though I do like the death rolls versus the bleeding to death unless you got stabilized from some one or a spell. In the 1e when you hit zero you were down and stable, but you could take damage beyond zero. -1 to -10. Once you hit -10 your character died. If you had 1 hit point left and took 12 points of damage or more you died. It was rough, but it made people think of tactics. In 5e there really is no tactics used any more because odds of them dying are slim. It comes down to who can put out the most damage first. My son and his friends thought healing spells were useless and all you needed were good berries to pop you up so you could hit and most like go right back down. Another good berry and do it all over again.
It wasn't until I started playing with them and showed them that if you start healing them as they hit the half way mark they will do much better and a life cleric now had value. I used an Asimov race, whick increases your healing ability with an extra healing ability. So now that is how they play their clerics that heal. I showed them that if they did not go down then a TPK was less likely to happen. And they actually started winning more tough fights.
Have fun with your games. :)
i don't think that he meant that type of help when he said "help"
using a magic to silence the whole party isn't "helping the paladin", it's using magic
helping is somethign purely handmade.
of course that would work, and the silence spell would make the paladin quiet, but what he was trying to say is that, differently from helping someone picking a lock by grabbing them tools or holding them picks, >manually< speaking, you can't help someone with a full plate of heavy metal not make noise.
Regarding the "Not all failures are the same" rant, yes, Rules As Written says regardless if you miss it by one or miss it by twenty, it's still a failure. You can use your DM's digression to say if a character can try again after failing, but a lot of times it's not possible without some time passing (like a short or long rest, as I think some of them are specifically stated.)
HOWEVER, other systems (like Fate) have a third options for those narrow misses called, "Yes, but!". You can offer a player the choice of outright failing (and whatever that choice entails) or let them succeed with a consequence. For instance, if the rogue is trying to sneak past a guard to get into the castle and they fail by one or two points, I'd offer them the choice of a "Yes, but!" success. The "But" of this situation is that the rogue slipped up and made some sound. It wasn't enough to outright fail and get caught on the spot, but now the guards knows something is up and all future perception checks are going to be active perception rolls, and maybe even with advantage.
One other notable point of the "Yes, but!" option is that Fate specifically allows their gamemasters to offer Fate points when offering this choice. DM's can offer inspiration for characters who chose to take this option, especially if it means the consequences of the "Yes, but" make the game's narrative much more interesting.
I don’t quite agree with number 1. How I understand perception is perceiving your surroundings generally, meaning seeing, hearing, smelling etc. It doesn’t mean looking for SPECIFIC things/people. Investigation on the other hand is for situations where the character is looking for a thing SPECIFICALLY, searching for it and investigating if it is to be found at the location.
The rules specifically state that noticing traps and secret doors is a Perception check. You can disagree with it all you want, but the rules are right there on the paper. See pages 103 and 120 of the DMG for explicit confirmation that hidden doors and traps are both found with Perception, not Investigation.
All skills have active and passive scores. If your distinction between Perception and Investigation is whether you are actively using it, you aren't using the skills RAW.
Those two things you described are passive perception and making a perception check. Perceiving your surroundings generally is what passive is for. Actively searching is when you make a roll.
Perception is for looking for/finding things, making a skill check with it is active, otherwise use passive Perception. Investigation is an intelligence skill for making deductions or connecting clues. Think of Perception as finding the candle stick and Investigation as being able to determine it was Colonel Mustard.
I think of 3.5’s spot and search checks. Perception is spotting something from a distance whereas investigation is physically scouring and searching an area.
Nat. 20s as a crit success and/or nat. 1s as crit failures for ability checks and saving throws is an optional rule from the DMG page 242.
I’ve changed investigation to also include a tactile variation of perception too. Eg. Can you see traps in the room from the doorway - perception. Can I find any traps in the room by searching AND looking - investigation.
Makes people check based on their actual abilities. More fun to separate some checks this way too so it’s not always the same check 24/7 :)
I view perception as a single action event (ie scan the room) while investigation takes some time. You will never find items thats not in view with perception
#13 Group Skill Checks 18:15
We have several types of group skill checks.
1) Everyone rolls, worst roll applies (e.g., group stealth)
2) Everyone rolls, best applies (e.g., everyone is searching for a secret door)
3) Primary person rolls, everyone rolls to help. If helpers roll DC 10+, the add +2 to primary result; if they roll DC 9-, they subtract 1 from primary result. (e.g., everyone is trying to move a downed tree) I think this is from 4th edition.
4) Primary rolls. No one helps - because this is a 'one man job'. (e.g., pick lock)
Great video! I do disagree in one place:
#13: The PC in Plate Mail spoiling a group Stealth check. No offense, but this is (IMO) an example of a common DM flaw I call Arbitrary Realism. This is where the DM decides that "No, the real world doesn't work that way!" and makes a ruling that is "real" in this case while ignoring the fantastical elements of the world. For example, everyone accepts that a level 15 PC could sustain a blast from a Red Dragon's fiery breath (something that would leave horrific scars even if they survived). But drop the PC off the Burj Khalifa, and the DM goes crazy that the PC could walk away from it.
Arbitrary Realism most often happens with things like fall damage (where DMs house rule away the damage max), but this is another place it happens. I feel this happens because we have a real life frame of reference for the thing (i.e. how dangerous a fall is or how loud armor is) and it breaks our suspension of disbelief, whereas something fantastical (i.e. dragon fire) doesn't because we don't have that same real world frame of reference.
My counter-argument to change your mind is this: by your own admission, you make concessions to game play that are unrealistic (e.g. your chase mechanic - which is a really nice system, btw). That's because realism is not the goal of D&D. The goal is to have a fun game experience.
By having the Plate Mail Paladin spoil an entire stealth check, you decrease the fun in the game. Because either the Rogue who Expertised in Stealth gets their Cool Class Feature essentially nullified, or the Plate Mail Paladin has to hang back while potentially the rest of the party scouts ahead. In the former situation, you have a player who doesn't get to do their Cool Thing (or worse, blames another person at the table for preventing it). In the latter situation, you have a player functionally out of the game and sitting around scrolling through stuff on their phone.
I recommend that, in the interest of game play, you use the group skill check even if it's unrealistic. In the end, our Rogue's success is likely to balance out the Paladin's failure, so the armor still has a nasty effect. And you could rule that in order to do this, the party must be spread out with 5ft between each person, with the Paladin at the back. That'd create a spread out formation of 30-35ft that could create all kinds of chaos should the party get spotted, ambushed, or just bump into something. But whatever you do, by allowing the check, everyone is still involved in the game.
Quite. Stealth in D&D isn't all that realistic in the first place and it only takes one failed roll to doom a stealth mission.
It's possible to have both. Create more expensive armours that have felt lining in between the joints, this removing the disadvantage. Make magic armour available. Your solution takes away benefits from other classes when there are plenty of choices the DM or even the player can make to resolve an issue regarding stealth.
You do you but I personally think the idea of a paladin in plate armour stealthily walking across flagstones in sabatons ludicrous but then again so do my players and they would make adjustments or seek out solution to address the stealth problem.
I've often found that the issue there isn't actually with realism, it's with inconsistency.
If a D&D setting states that plate mail grants disadvantage on Stealth checks, then plate mail grants disadvantage on Stealth checks. That is a rule of that setting. It would therefore not be arbitrary for a character in plate mail to spoil a group check, because according to the rules, their plate mail is granting them disadvantage, making it more likely to roll poorly.
The issue arises when the rule is shirked or enforced inconsistently by the DM, rather than decided upon once during Session 0 or 1 then maintained as such for the rest of the campaign with only specific exceptions, realistic or not (e.g. a set of plate mail that has lining specifically designed to mitigate the Stealth disadvantage). If the DM consistently asks for the plate mail wearer to roll Stealth with disadvantage when they have done nothing to mitigate the disadvantage, then there isn't a problem.
So, my idea to make group Stealth checks fairer without changing anything about the game is to warn the plate mail wearer well in advance that they will impact the check due to their disadvantage. That way, the group can prepare for the check appropriately. There are effects that mitigate penalties and disadvantages already baked into the rules; that's what _pass without trace_ and the Trickery Domain cleric's Blessing of the Trickster feature are for.
I like nat 20s being a critical success for skill checks. It rewards that bit of luck, so it doesn't feel wasted by giving the player who did it the best possible outcome within reason. But if the DC was impossible for the character to begin with, I'd be unsure about letting it succeed in this situation.
I feel like being too strict on the perception vs investigation check is really no different from being too strict on athletics and acrobatics. In either case, all it takes is a different description of how they succeed, or fail.
yes but they are two things completely different, perception is looking for something, while investigation is trying to find info about something, so while i think investigation could work for perception, i dont think perception could work as investigation
@@forrest6939 I think this comes down to a difference in DM perspective. You seem to be trying to find or define what each skill can do. I tend to favor, how can this character overcome what's in front of them. Some of my favorite scenes have been party members solving the same obstacle with assorted skill checks.
I myself like asking the player WHAT they are doing and HOW they are doing it. Make a call from there and work with the player. I think players should be negotiating which proficiency they have (if any) support the check they are making. The rules of this game are open ended and vague for a reason.
For example with the investigation vs perception arguement. The intelligent character is going to know why the tile that is raised 1/4 of an inch more than the surrounding tiles would even be worth notice, where as the wise character would naturally understand where people would be inclined to trap things and check those locations.
Don't forget which ability score is being checked and why characters can accomplish similar tasks in vastly different ways using the abilities they have.
@@EnkiTeaches gets it.
The irony here is that Athletics and Acrobatics have very little overlap as written. It's just players who don't want to fail an Athletics check and have good Acrobatics.
LUKE it’s takes YEARS of STUDY and TRAINING and it’s REALLY HARD
I wish I could like this video a million times. As a relatively new DM, I've been looking for this exact type of information. Great explanation.
One time, at level 1, I asked my DM if I could use my passive medicine skill on an enemy who originally had 6 HP, before I dealt him 16 damage in one blow. He looked at me a little confused, and then I said “my passive insight is 9, and my passive medicine is 9.” He then laughed, because my passive wasn’t enough to do anything anyway, even if he wasn’t _dead_ dead.
I wasn’t setting a precedent for passive medicine in particular; I agree that trying to stop somebody from dying within 6 seconds is a roll due to being a pressured active choice.
I was having fun with my characterization (sheltered girl with no survival or medicine skills), and seeing if the DM would allow passive skills besides the big three.
Had a DM that thought EVERYTHING could default to Performance because, "It indicates how well you can perform a given task"
I'm currently playing a dwarf artificer in a Warhammer campaign that is a living embodiment of "embrace failures"... He has a positive wisdom modifier, actually. The way I see it is that he thinks things through, just is willing to pursue dangerous paths further than most. From level 1 to the current level 3, he has taken damage a total of twice: once when our paladin was trying to throw him up to a second story window to break into a house and he went splat against the wall instead, and once when he used a cursed dagger to carve a creepy symbol that had been popping up all over the place. The YOLO mentality is so much fun to role play
A 27 on a baby wolf is the start to a beautiful friendship.
something i did once for group skill checks is that i multiplied the dc by the number of party members, and then added all of their skill check results together. if that number surpasses the multiplied dc, they succeed. if it doesnt, they fail.
the rule around Insight says "CAN HELP" doesn't mean it always will. In fact, when I have someone who seems to prepare to strike at the party I describe it as them seeming a little tense, or looking at the different party members individually and over and over, basically sizing the party up before they attack.. but I never directly would ever say "he seems preparing to strike". Use creative Descriptions and have your Party figure out what that Bodylanguage means.. after all, if the Player doesn't know it, why should the PC?
That'a is bit of a tigth rope to walk.
I understand that you want your party to think but on the other hand, what if player wants to play well traveled man who knows people, as opposed to their zero social skills and confidence irl.
@@Karak-_- Well that is always the Issue isn't it? trying to Play something you are personally not good at(like, I love making voices for my Characters, but I also like playing Female characters as a Player, but I suck at Female Voices). But I see social skills as an RP situation. And I tell that to my Players in the First session. For me, You have to act out trying to Bribe the local Guards to not arrest you, Persuade the Dragon not to eat you. Only After you Roleplayed the Talk do you get the Roll. Based on what you said it will be an Easier or Harder DC(I do take the Players personal Social Skills into consideration as well, but if you wanna have a Social character, you gotta talk as them in character, I won't let you just roll your way out of it).. the same goes for Insight. You already have Doubts against someone's Behavior or what they are saying if you Roll Insight. My Descriptions tell you the Information anyone would see, but only you seem to notice it. After all, your Character is only seeing the persons Behavior and then has to put 2 and 2 together. Its the same thing as describing someone hearing a Howl in the distance when they make a Perception check but not telling them it is a Wolves(There are dozens of Creatures that actually Howl, not just wolves)
I never had a Player that didn't have at least a little Common sense, cause all you need is just Common Sense to know, from my Descriptions, if the person seems to be hiding something or not. If you lack basic Common Sense then you have more problems then just your DM giving Descriptions that Require it.(don't mean it in a rude way)
Also, if you are joining a Group of People you don't know to play DnD you better have some confidence.. After all you are meeting Complete strangers to play a game over who knows how many Months or Years that basically require you to do different voices and talk as your character.
Whoof.. I went on a little rant there but one last thing to this:
Gratification.
Your players, both in my Experience as a DM and as a Player, will find it more enjoyable if they get Descriptions that Hint towards what the Person is planning on doing or hint towards them lying and they figure it out themselves rather than you saying "yea, a 20 Insight reveals that he is lying". Obviously you have to know how to describe things to make them be able to figure it out without needing Crazy Knowledge in Body language reading (like, you don't need to know that commonly people look left when they try to construct a Lie or Right when they try to remember something, It's not a 100% reliable method, but It has well over a 60% success rate) which obviously not everyone can do. I personally know a lot about Body language, so I as a DM can make good descriptions on how someone is acting instead of having to just tell them "yea, he is lying." though, If they roll really high compared to the DC I set, or the Counter Deception Roll (like 10+ higher) I sometimes just tell them if they are lying or what they are planning. That is more the exception than the norm though.
All in all, My Players like the way I do it and I have not encountered someone who didn't. Even had a Rather shy Player before, that was self conscious and they had the CHA character of the group, the Way I DM the Social Situations helped them come out of their shell and have a Blast doing so.
The Key is to do it 'just right' it is very tricky to do, but once you are there it's a great time for all involved.
@@notrebelbuffoon522 Wow, Wall of Text, that's like 5th level spell?
Dumb joke aside, I would agree with you that just "roll out of trouble" with no need for thought is boooring, and if your players enjoy something, then there's nothing wrong with it (with some concerning exceptions).
And, yea, the key is doing it "just right", which I would specify as "telling enough for players to figure it out (if they roll high enough) without actually telling it".
For #1, it's totally fine to have Investigation to find clues, etc. (as well as make deductions from them). It's even explicitly called out in the PHB.
The difference feels like Spot vs Search in 3.5, where time and intent separated the two. I always like to think of it as if I can imagine the character skulking through the room with a magnifying glass, it's Investigation. If it's "hey look at that!" it's perception.
DCs should have miss by and hit by results.
Brew Beer and hit by 10 or more over the DC - Wow that's good beer.
3rd climb check in a long climb and you miss by 10 - you fall, not just back to the last check but all the way down.
We do this.
We also added Special Effects to combat with Effects like TRIP, STUN, ENTANGLE, DISARM, SLASH, and IMPALE possible (we took the Effects from FANTASY AGE and MYTHRAS). They are activated when you roll 5 or more over the To Hit needed.
There is an optional rule in the DMG for missing the DC by 1 or 2 as being a mixed or partial success. There is also the rule in the PHB (page 174) that failing to meet the DC can mean either no progress is made (failure) or progress is made with a setback.
It's funny you should mention the wild animal riding. In 2e, there is a specific skill called animal husbandry just for that reson.
14:14-14:30
Ehhh, sometimes.
It depends. If it's a low magic setting, then it makes no sense for a strong dude to be able to one punch a door open, but if it's high magic, then i'd allow the barbarian not only to one shot the door, but to hit it so hard it hurts one of the enemies in the other side. If a wizard can rain down meteors, a barbarian can have the strength of a tarasque.
You are confusing 'epic gameplay' with 'high magic' setting. Low magic means you don't frequently find magical things about/it is rare. That is completely unrelated to barbarian strength, which is non-magical. A high magic setting doesnt mean the heroes are superheroes, it means your dungeons are lit up with magical runes, your doors are magically locked, and there is an animated broom tidying up the place so the dust doesn't pile up
If you don't want a barbarian breaking down a door then describe the door better, have it so that is of a heavy wood and has sturdy looking hinges and lock plate. Hell have it so that the door only opens outwards (a sturdy door will not be kicked down or shouldered if it opens towards you).
It is however important to be mindful that poor dwellings will not likely have very sturdy doors and not all doors need to be sturdy (the door to the lavatory for instance) and in ruins, doors maybe will have been weakened due to the elements or animal life (termites or Wood-worms).
I'm planning my first official Dm campaign .... wont to just say this is the first time I made notes on a youtube video...thank you
I cannot tell you how many rogue players I get who think they can Skyrim crouch and become invisible.
Literally my rogue player right now, even 51 sessions later. She gave up on hiding, because she "needs" to Dash. Gotta go fast, I guess?
My group decided to combine the skills into 9 skills:
Animal Handling (INT/CHA)
Deception (CHA)
Diplomacy (WIS)
Intimidation (STR/CHA) - as this can be used physically or verbally
Kinesthetic (STR/DEX) - combines athletics and acrobatics - depending what you are doing, its either a DEX or STR check
Lore (INT) - we created a list of the many "lores" you can choose which replaces knowledge checks, the wording is simply changed
Query (INT/WIS/CHA) - this can be a perception, investigation, or an intuition check - again, depending what you are doing, the applicable ability is used
Stealth (DEX)
Trade (crafts) - these are professions or skills you learned such as Calligrapher, Herbalist, or Thievery - which we have a long list to choose from
I agree with most of what Luke said, although I sometimes bend the natural 20 success rule, I tend to count natural 20s as even better than what they would've gotten if they rolled a 19 and had a +1 modifier simply because it's the best possible outcome that would've taken place in that specific situation
Sure, I would never allow a check that just auto kills the bbeg (unless the players had a really good plan and that would make the game more fun)
I think that when the best posible result is not enough I simply don't ask for a check or a roll, unless it's something like a saving throw, where they have to make the check and if the fail there's consequences, sometimes the best possible result is just a lesser consequence that what might have happened otherwise
Natural 20s should be epic, yet realistical, at least in my games. My ranger can shoot slightly further than her longbow allows if she rolls a natural 20, sure! But if it's more than 50 ft over the 600 that her bow allows I'd have to say no.
Having said this, a success is not always the success you might expect. The weakling bard might challenge the huge bodybuilder guy in the tavern, and the roll will definitely impact the result; but that natural 20 might just mean that the bard does not break a bone, or that the bodybuilder actually struggles a bit before wining anyways :)
My bard player had a lot of fun, and his character now wants to join the army because he feels tough, and honestly I love it
In our game, a Nat 20 gives advantage on your next roll; Nat 1 gives disadvantage. You might still succeed (on a skill) with the Nat 1; you might still fail with a Nat 20.
Tomorrow i am starting a campaing as a DM for the first time, so this video really help me. Thanks!
Glyph of Warding clearly states "The glyph is nearly invisible and requires a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC to be found."
I always saw the difference between Perception and Investigation as Perception being noticing or finding out something that you aren't consciously looking for, like noticing that there's a symbol on a weird door, while Investigation is something you are making a conscious effort to find out, like investigating a room for a specific item.
At session zero, the group votes on whether a NAT-20/1 on skill checks and saves are an auto-pass/fail or a crit-pass/fail. whatever they decide ALSO applies for their opponents. It does make it more difficult for me to challenge them when it comes up, but it is also more fun as it adds higher highs and lower lows to the encounters and a little bit of swingy-ness.
Something my father loved saying as I grew up was “anybody can build a brick s*house. It takes an engineer to build one with the fewest nails to weather the storm as long as it is needed to.” This applies quite well to skill proficiency too. There are vastly different levels of artisanship and even ingenuity. Allowing for this can help enrich games. An example for instruments, heart and soul is often a song that can be picked up with little to no practice, often just by hearing it and plunking about to find the notes in order, while recreating mozart’s finest is a display of skill. Apprentice tailors are unlikely to be trusted to fashion clothes for nobles but a player with weaving tools can probably make a burlap sack out of a sheet of burlap and the tools. Cartographer tools includes a compass which is easy to explain being able to use, and sextants that take real skill and intelligence. The disparity between untrained ability mod and level 20 expertise is exactly that. I can see imposing disadvantage in cases of cultural complexities ((like electronics between pre-boomers and millennials)) but that I feel falls heavily under the blanket guidance of “DM Discretion.”As a second part, while I agree a group roll can’t always be used, something like stealth should still be given advantage when a proficient player aids another. With that paladin, a rogue who is trained may know ways of camouflaging of muffling the armour though the use of stuff like cloth and natural elements (muddy oils, leaves and the such). That is the knowledge portion of a trained proficiency, I would think.
Sorry, adding a TLDR; if your player can ‘sufficiently’ explain why they can make an unskilled check with tools and intensive skills, an non-zero chance should still be given.
For the natural 20 one, I will say, unless it’s a high DC and you don’t know exactly what your players modifier is, I would say you usually shouldn’t let them roll if even a nat 20 will fail.
I used to do that until the players started to think that if they roll, they have a chance to succeed. If I tell them no roll and they auto fail, it removes a bit of suspense because they know early to not even try
I always give players "the attempt roll" because maybe that person is getting bored/hasn't rolled d20 in a while/wants to feel like they are participating. But if its impossible i will announce result "you failed" somewhere between the die roll and right before they announce the result (your math doesnt matter) Like sure, if you want to roleplay that your character is attempting to high jump 20ft, then go for it, it will look silly, of course they will fail, but i am not going to say they can't attempt/remove agency
I would disagree there. It also goes back to the point about using degrees of success and failure, so the Nat 20 may significantly reduce the consequences of the failure
I'm starting a new campaign with a previous DM. Last campaign skill checks followed the rules. In our session zero he told us they can crit in the new campaign. I'm glad he said something early, as I'm usually the buzzkill when someone gets really excited when a 20 appears.
Nat 20s and nat 1s are what make DnD great. If we aren't gunna have Critical Successes or failures, what's the point? Go play chess or somthing.
You brought up inside jokes in CoS, and it reminded me of an inside joke me and my party have so my I was the DM, and the players had just found Rictavio's wagon and my brother who was playing an Artificer who loved getting new parts for his robotic arm so when they got to close to his wagon I described it shaking violently and the sound of metal clanking together my brother's character shouted "PARTS!!!" raced to the wagon and opened the door to see Rictavio's pet Sabertooth tiger he turned around and slowly closed the door, but it was too late. The tiger ripped off the door and attacked the party. Luckily, Rictavio was there to calm the tiger, and then I described how he was very mad at my brother's character in particular cause he broke the door of his wagon and now when ever anything bad happens to my brother he usually says something along the lines of "why" and the rest of the party always shouts "CAUSE YOU BROKE HIS WAGON!!!!".
Mistake 0: There are only ability checks, not skill checks, RAW.
The Critical Success rule in rolling a nat 20 is something I always have in my games because it makes sense to me and I love it! HOWEVER I dislike how some DM's make the impossible happen from it or drastically changes the interaction because of it. An example would be trying to persuade a Boss to let the party live if they're struggling. If a player tries it and rolls a nat 20 I'm not just going end the fight and let them leave but I'd make the Boss feel slightly bad about killing you which makes them hesitate giving the party an extra turn too deal with it.
Another example like for a Perception check would be if I have a well hidden item and have them roll a 25+ for it and they get a nat 20 but don't land the required check I just say "your character happens by pure luck to discover (the place item is hidden)". If it's under a floor board, they'd find the loose board but they still wouldn't know what's there or how to open it if it's not something so obvious. I wouldn't just give them the item if it's hidden.
No your nat 20 did not befriend an enemy that really wants you dead or let your character see through walls for a moment. Shocker.
My rouge tried hiding in snow in a fight vs 3 yeti's and rolled a 22 but they already spotted him before. So I said your character thinks he's well hidden. Then I had all 3 of the yeti's attack him as if he was prone. He almost died that turn lol. Everyone but him thought it was funny and he learned a lesson there lol.
Was it in the middle of a snowstorm and did they have Mask of The Wild? Because it states with that ability that you can hide even when lightly obscured. I believe it's a wood elf ability
@@BrianWalker93 no to both. He attacked one from like 20ft away in daylight and just hide in the open field and is wearing all black against the white snow. Wasn't even a surprise round or anything lol.
@@PapiCito Yeahhhhh... I can agree wholeheartedly then with that call. Because that was uh... special.
I'm a new Dungeon Master, thank you so much🙂
Trying to hide behind an object: Stealth (Dexterity)
Trying to blend in with a crowd and not draw attention to yourself: Stealth (Charisma)
First of all, I like your content and videos. Funny and a lot of valuable information ^^ Thanks a lot and hope will continue.
About Knowledge Checks (12:00)
I usually ask the players HOW to they want to figure out stuff and pick the check based on that.
Lets say, there is a creature with a one big eye which cowers almost his all head, his hands and legs are twice as long as his body, his is skinny with ripped skin all over his body. On his back he have spikes which seems like a bones piercing through his skin (Nothic).
A player could say "I want to try to remember if I read something about it in a past" (maybe a sage background) so it is a history check.
Or perhaps he can choose nature "I saw a lot of weird creatures which most of humans don't. Did I already met a creature like this?" Since Nothic is an aberration creatue, it is less likely to met him in the wild. So even with a high roll I can say something like "No, you do not met a creature like this before. However, based on how this creature looks like, you met a creatures which also had some similarities as this one so based on your experience, you can deduce that he excels in acrobatics." This way, I can give a player at least some information, a player now can guess that this creature have a high DEX stat.
But if a would say instead "Okay, give me an arcane check" I would already give a players kind of valuable information without even "challenge" them. Arcane check is related to a magic, so this probably is not a beast or something.
IMHO it is a DM metagame (giving a player information which the character do not suppose to know)
Fondly remembering the time my former group's DM had us solving riddles, and one of them pertained to the Norse pantheon (as deduced out of character by another player). Well, my character was a 6th level evocation wizard with the sage background whose backstory was that he was a professor of history and religion, so I eagerly exclaimed, "Yo, this is my wheelhouse! DM, what do I know pertaining to this riddle specifically?" He asked for a History check. I rolled a Nat 20 with a +6 in History, so I just knew I knew the answer...until the DM said some vague shit about Odin hanging a giant's head in his throne room.
The answer to the riddle, given by a totally different character who wasn't even trained in History or Religion, was Odin's throne (as in the exact name of the blasted thing). Needless to say, I felt really shafted and other players agreed I got shafted on that one. So what's my point? Well, I 100% appreciate and respect what the DM was trying to do: he didn't want the riddle to be solved by a mere skill check, which is fair. However, if you're going to call for a check, don't shaft a player like that just because you realize you done goofed.
The one thing that kind of makes up for that is me having rolled a 21 on Insight much earlier in the campaign, which he later admitted wrecked his entire plot for that particular session; so the other lesson is if all it takes to wreck your plot is a high roll, you really didn't think that plot through. LMAO
End rant.
I have a homebrew rule, Critical Skill Saves. If you make a saving throw, and after your modifiers, you match the saving throw exactly, you critically saved, and don't take half damage.
My favorite fail moment was early in my current campaign. My Kenku players was trying to forge documents. They had already seen what this specific one would look like. When they rolled a nat 1, the quill of their pen broke and splattered ink over all the pages they were trying to write on. Kenku tossed the papers and went to bed grumpy. It made them search out more papers, ink, and a new quill and opened up the opportunity for them to explore the area more. It's something both the player and myself look back on and giggle at.
2:49 "No hand holds and covered in grease"
Monk:*Just casually walks up the wall because of the liquid covered wall*
My part did come across some feral wolf, and my Druid's Wild Empathy [pathfinder rules] determined that it had been wounded and possibly poisoned. With a good roll, he was able to calm the beast enough to make a heal check find the arrow lodged in it's hind leg. As much as I wanted to remove the arrow and apply a poultice, a wild animal would not sit still for that kind of thing. My druid cast "Neutralize Poison", then a "cure" spell, and the wolf left us alone. The group was a bit miffed that I used spells on an "animal" so my Druid started asking anyone needed healing "Does this little puppy have a boo boo, or a tummy ache? I only treat animals, you know." It was very entertaining for a few game sessions.
When making social interactions, I allow a performance/music instrument to influence an NPC or groups attitude (as described in DMG p 245)
A performance check of 20 or more can change an NPcs attitude by one step, from Hostile or Friendly to Indifferent, or from Indifferent to Hostile or Friendly. The performance takes 10 minutes during which the NPC must be able and willing to observe the performance.
The change in attitude is only temporary, lasting at most 24 hours, and can be directed at either the Performer or another individual or group. Thus a performer can cause unrest by causing a crowd to become hostile toward the ruling body, town guards, etc.
Exactly! I never have it that bard fails a performance (unless intoxicated) but the performance check is for how well it affected the crowd/viewers.
I will also decide for NPCs how likely they are to be swayed by say a musical performance and what preferences they have in say music (dancing tune, ballad, classical or a bawdy tune) or just make them a grump with very little interest in most entertainments but will give them a different interest (say gambling or drinking instead).
On the topic of perception vs investigation. I tend to rule it as perception being if you're kinda just quickly looking around, investigation if you're looking in detail for anything specific.
Like, "I walk in the room, what do I see?" = Perception.
"I walk in the room and want to look for the closest agressive creature." = Investigation.
Essentially, Investigation has a desired outcome.
Rule 4 sucks, stories can be so much better if a barbarian can describe a spell because he saw a friend blow up to it rather then the level 15 wizard it makes for great stories.
It's funny, an old article I read back in the 3.5 days gave "getting the fighter/paladin in plate mail past the guards" as an example of something mid-high level rogues could do with their 20+ bonus to Move Silently.
Dang I forgot this channel and I'm very happy to be back!
Thanks for all this advice! Really helps for me to determine what my players should roll. Had some problems especially with multiple rolls on one thing and that everyone starts to roll dice
The way we handle knowledge checks at my table comes down to two facets:
1) What is it that you are trying to know about
2) How/What qualifications are you using?
A Cleric based on eliminating Orcs wouldn't use History to speak about Orcs, as they would use Religion because of the religious texts and teachings
A Wizard with proficiency in Alchemy Supplies may attempt Arcana on a plant (potentially with a higher DC) due to their knowledge of the magical signature of the plant
A Fighter trying to recall a spell that someone once told them to be weary of may result in a History check as they are trying to remember directly. Won't know much about the spell, but know of it.
We use these rules to allow for more personalized uses of skills that allow it to pertain to the character's skillsets and background. It is the way we like it. Of course, the changing of the knowledge roll has to be within reason.
Very helpful! Especially #5... I never knew there were failure states that differed
Firstly - Thank you for #1 - It's one of my big pet peeves that people use Perception and Investigation wrong: Even in official published adventures! It seems like so few people understand the difference, and it feels so clearly defined (to me) in the PHB. I agree with a fair number of your statements, even though the bulk of my comments below are on areas I disagree with you on (These wound up in reverse order, because I felt compelled to comment on the first one, and went back to find the others):
For #8 - The rules clearly state athletics is for climbing. Rather than further muddy the waters about which skill is for which activity, why not use something already in the rules (which is incredibly underutilized) regarding skill checks? If you feel someone should be able to dexterously climb a wall, instead of switching the skill used, switch the ability score that applies: Athletics can be used with dexterity instead of strength!
For #4 - I would rather let someone make the roll, since it's in the rules, and then have them justify the outcome, or find a way to justify it myself, as the GM. A bit of knowledge they have no right to know? Maybe they overheard an argument between a pair of wizards in a bar about the subject (and maybe one of the bits of information there were two sides for that they aren't sure which is right). They pick up a lute and rock the house? Oh, it's the only song they know because they idolized bard x as a kid, and they spent forever figuring it out - don't ask them to play anything else. People have little niche bits of knowledge and ability that don't really fit as a full on "proficiency" in a skill, but do allow them to shine in an area they normally wouldn't under specific circumstances. I believe that's what the "roll for anything" part is about.
For #3 - I disagree with your take on higher level players easily making a 20 in a check - this only applies if they're proficient, since they're unlikely to have increased their ability scores a ton as they go up in level. Keeping to the outlined DCs in the DMG for difficulty level (or thereabouts) is the players' reward for investing in the specific skills they've chosen to be proficient in. For example, if you're talking about that greased and no-handhold climb from earlier, if that's DC 25 in a low level adventure, it should still be DC 25 in a high level adventure too - The wizard is still likely to need to be hauled up by rope, or use a spell to get up, even if the ranger is able to make the DC fairly easily. I see a lot of DMs increase the difficulty of checks arbitrarily because the PCs are getting better at things - but that's the whole point of levelling up! If their new level of competency doesn't matter at all, what's the benefit of it? And god forbid someone actually take expertise in a skill, and maybe a feat that improves their ability to succeed even more - suddenly DCs in that category of check all jump by 5 or even 10! Sometime's it's okay to let your PCs feel like a task that would be super difficult, or even nigh impossible for some people was even trivial for them. They invested in the skill, that's their reward. Plus it makes it hilarious when they still manage to fail somehow by rolling a 3 when they have a +15 and the DC is 20. I realize your words were "bump up the DCs a little" but a lot of people take the idea of that and run way too far with it.
Instead of just saying "I want to do an insight check", i phrase it as "I want to get a vibe check on this person, get a sense of what their motive is".
Monster of the Week has a neat system I'm borrowing for my table. Failures yield experience! That way even failing leads to learning and progress, and it encourages players to try when normally they might not.
At first I didn't understand what you meant about mistakes, but this is really important!!
Did you know the probability of rain in a city does not account how probable it is to rain in that city, but the portion, the area of it that is probably to be affected?
Like 100% means it is expected to rain in all the city, and 50% it means it expected to rain in half the city.
That changes it all, 50% means it is likely going to rain somewhere in that city, not maybe it's gonna rain maybe not.
Great video by the way.
The armored sneak brings a situation to mind, where the group check may generally be done by the best, I could see that some situations are done by the worst at said skill
I use Critical Success and Critical Failure by choice. You know, it‘s really fun for both my players and me when a character succeeds in an incredibly epic way. There are some skill checks 8that are for example impossible) where this won‘t work. But usually it is more fun for everyone involved.