I'd love to see you guys tackle Areas of Effect on a Grid. If you want a lot of controversy and missunderstanding, tackle that. I did, in a thread, and it kicked open a hornets nest... because just about nobody actually reads and understands the rules as written. www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/70184-the-cube-fallacy Good luck.
I've disconnected standard ability check and skill combos. I've pushed asking what they want to accomplish and figure out the relevant combo. Searching for someone by talking to people? Charisma investigation. A druid recalling his experience with animals and plants? Wisdom nature. It's forced player's to describe how their particular character would handle a situation and really bolsters descriptions and ingenuity.
@@nibilissilibin9141 I was waiting for them to bring up this possibility because I heard this was an optional rules in one of the books. I first heard if this style in another game system and thought it was an amazing mechanical way to pull out organic role play from the less theatricallh incline players
@@ruga-ventoj that and, it allows for specialisations that make sense. Druid Wis nature. Cleric Wis religion. Dexterity Athletics and strength acrobatics. It opens up concepts and opens up so many options. Need to wear down a politician, Con persuasion. It's freeing.
If the player is announcing a perception check and the DM didn't call for it, that player should lose a turn. Players should instead describe what they want their character to do, and then the DM may call for a relevant check. [Edit - addendum: I play 3.x d20, not 5E, so there are two separate perceptions - listen and spot. The rules under Immediate Actions (What 5E calls Reactions) allow listen or spot to be used as a reaction - even when it isn't that character's turn - but this still doesn't mean a player can just shout out "Spot check!" and start rolling dice whenever they want. If it is a case where the DM describes a scene and includes a subtle visual or audible clue, a player can announce the intention of reacting to it (Ideally in-character: "What was that?" or "I thought I just heard something?"), and then the DM still decides if a perception check is warranted.]
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Cool. So, what kind of punishment does the DM get when he needlessly forces Perception checks on a sighted character every time they want to use their eyeballs?
@@TankTaur A talking to after the game, you know, when they ask "How was the game tonight" you don't just blankly answer "Good". That's when criticisms like that come into play.
player - "erm, i rolled a 5 for investigation to look for loot.... can i grab that magical sword the villian used to beat my ass with?" gm - "No you rolled low so you dnt find anything. Roll better next time buddy." another player - "I'll have a look... i rolled 21, what do i find" gm - "okay so you find that sword...." Gods i hate this skill check for looting.
Don't call for a roll unless there are meaningful consequences for failure. Words to live by! I definitely dislike rolling for something that has little to no effect on what I'm doing or where I'm going in a game
Challenge Level 30 Thats actually a point I disagree with in the video, at least to an extent. I think it's important to recognize that players like rolling dice (even for irrelevant things), and that getting to do that without the tension of significant failure is often a good practice. Put it this way: I kinda still want it to be possible for a character to make a fool of himself while trying to play a random game while playing carnival games during a festival or something of the sort. Is that a meaningful consequence for failure? I wouldnt say so. Is it a failure that adds to the narrative? If the entire group gets a kick out of seeing the character fail, I would say so. Conversely, letting characters automatically succeed in a simple task they're experts in without rolling isnt always a good thing. Just telling a player "yeah you ace [the thing you're trying to do] no problem since you are proficient in [applicable skill]" sometimes robs the player of the opportunity of getting a fun nat20, with the extra cool bells and whistles that come with it - even if it is also not a meaningful success.
Agreed. A nuisance I would include is "pressure". To me, people respond differently in pressured environments and can fail despite the clear aptitude for a particular task. Jumping over a small 3 meter (10ft) gap is much easier when you get to assess the environment. In a situation where you are just running from some one and you just see a gap a roll is definitely required.
I guess that makes sense. Though the mystery of whether you failed your perception check during your watch or there was nothing to see makes the game enjoyable.
I guess being introduced to d and d via critical role made me accustomed to high rolls on trivial checks leading to the dm introducing something interesting in the world. With the rolls determining how the world is shaped to some extent.
@Web DM Terrible! But Great! We spent 90 minutes dealing with tech issues (internet connections, VTT issues, etc.) and then I forgot most of the distinguishing characteristics I made up for the NPCs so I totally botched the roleplaying. But they'll be back next week to search the desert for an ancient Giant mine, so it counts as a win!
Try a tech run through, beforehand to iron out wrinkles, we did. If they return, it's a win! Can you reach out to the players, individually? Ask them what they liked, and what they didnt like and to be brutally honest. Tell them not be mean but to give you constructive criticisms learn from your mistakes.
d ford Yeah, it was everyone’s first time using a VTT (Fantasy Grounds) and one guy just had a crap internet connection. We had one combat that went well and we all learned as it went. I haven’t played any DnD in a decade, so it was great to use those muscles again.
I know right, I have to do that with every video because my mind will go on tangents whenever someone explains something in-depth and I’ll miss what else they talk about.
Currently in an Eberron campaign with a House Lyrandar half elf swashbuckler. During our second session the DM allowed him to roll a vehicle proficiency check to pilot a crash landing air ship. Rolled a natural twenty in true player fashion. DM handled it so well, saying I still failed, ship crashed, but myself and the warforged artificer survived. I thought it was a great instance of how to handle a proficiency ability roll for an impossible check and scoring that natural twenty.
sounds like they succeeded, and tbh as a DM I would have also allowed greater salvaging, but yeah there isn't a way to land an airship on ground that doesn't break it.
One of my favorite techniques ive used as a DM is asking for everyone to roll, and then telling the players to only announce either the highest or the lowest roll the table makes. It allows everyone to roll some dice, but highlights both the weaknesses and strengths of the party. Sometimes the wizard rolls a better survival check than the ranger, and with that comes some role play opportunities between those characters.
I think the concept of keeping track of time is completely underrated. To maintain a constant undercurrent of tensions and pressure in your game, have the clock ticking. If someone or the group fail a skill check that has a possibility of succeeding and they can keep trying; the meaningful consequence of failure is advancing the clock. Time passing means your characters are using up resources like food or other adventuring supplies. Time passing means the enemies your trying to find get harder to find, the problem you are trying to solve get's bigger, the random monsters in the woods have more chances of finding you.
Super stoked! Thanks again guys! Between this and the patreon content, you guys (and gals) have definitely kept me ever evolving my game, both as a player and dm
Ah the Gods have returned to bring good favor to my Dungeons & Dragons games. Love you guys you've helped me out a lot as both a Dungeon Master and a player so thank you guys.
This episode was super useful to me. I always want to utilize skill checks in a more dynamic way, but I tend to fumble with them at the table unless it's something i've specifically planned and written out. There were lots of useful ideas and I guess just small revelations that I can add to my DM improv tool box.
Only halfway through the video and doing my first campaign (first time playing along with the players) and this will already massively streamline my sessions, thank you for the great content guys.
On the acrobatics and athletics discussion: I see Pruitt's examples of proper technique executed at high speed being how the DM explains how a dexerity character succeeds in a grapple check against a brutish ogre. I do really like Jim's take on forcing it to be a contested strength athletics check, acrobatics need not apply. Going to bring this up with my players next chance I get.
Loved Jim's take on the possibility of Mathematics and Mercantile skills. Personally, ive added 2 new skills to my game as well: Culture and Theory. Culture is all about people, current events and trends, linguistics, etiquette, memes, the who's who, etc. And Theory is basically the STEM skill, with distance calculations, mathematics, engineering, formulas, equations, etc. I thought of adding Commerce as well, but every time i came up with examples of its use in play i found i could easily rationalize them as either a Culture, History, or Theory check, so i left it out. Very validating to see that Jim had a similar train of thought!
Great video! I like to tell my players that some tasks are so easy that no check is required, where some are impossible and no check is warranted. When players know that they can automatically succeed at some tasks instead of rolling, they will begin to be more descriptive of their actions. Another great way to do this is if a player asks for an ability check, ask them to describe what their character is doing instead, then decide if one is needed and what skill should be used. Eventually they will learn that if you always ask them, they might as well just describe it instead.
Honestly one of my favourite videos you guys have done, my friends and I are developing our own roleplaying system partly due to watching your videos and realising that there is not a one size fits all system and it it is ok to tweak things and do something that works for you and your friends. Continuing to watch your discussions and have some of our own feeling affirmed gave us the impetus to work towards actually publishing it. Thank you
This was one of my favorite episode topics and discussions. I loved the dive into expanding the scope of skills, revisiting the RAW aspects of skills, and what skills can or should be at the table. Great insight as always gents.
Coming to 5e from 3.5, the streamlined skills list became something I loved once I fully understood what it could be used to do. Older editions had dozens of skills that could easily become traps if the player didn't have a clear picture of what their characters needed and what their DM was going to actually throw at them. Pairing the laundry list down to the 5e skills put an end to players investing dozens of points into a skill the DM will never ask them to roll. It also made the game easier to adapt to settings outside of the medieval fantasy genre. It doesn't matter whether you're moving a boulder in the stone age or a section of spaceship bulkhead in the space age. It's a strength athletics check. It doesn't matter if you're moving across the decks of pirate ships tossing and turning during a Caribbean storm, bending and sliding around security system laser beams in a cyberpunk hallway, or walking a tightrope just before your parents get murdered and you have to go live with Batman. It's a dexterity acrobatics check. Once you add in tool proficiencies the limits on genre and setting go away completely. You don't need to add in different new skills for net hacking, surveillance, information gathering, and all manner of other things needed to run a cyberpunk game when just adding "Computers" to the list of tools you can be proficient in will solved almost all your problems. Sailing across an ocean or across the void of space is in both cases a simple Navigator's tools check. Flying planes and even space ships is as simple as adding Vehicles: Air, and Vehicles: Space to the Vehicles: Land and Vehicles: Sea tool proficiencies already in the books. The only things that feel like they were abandoned when the skills list was streamlined were Appraisal and a half dozen Knowledge skills. Apraisal feels like it's been split up among generic Intelligence checks and almost every tool proficiency related to crafting an art piece or commodity. The Dwarf still gets bonuses for stone masonry checks, but Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering is no longer a skill they can have. Knowledge: The Planes is crucial to the Planescape setting they keep teasing, but it's been folded into Arcana with no real guidance on how Arcana will work pulling double duty. Jim said it best. Mathematics and Mercantile are needed to fill the gaps in the list of skills players can choose. Especially if you're expanding the game to settings outside of medieval fantasy Europe.
@@Grinnar it was a nice way to make Int an important stat for every character, but it was still a whole rules set onto itself that drew focus and added extra steps and math that all too often slowed down the game.
For insight I might handle it opposite. The player(s) speaking to a suspect would get to roll while the other player might might just get use their passives. The chance of being distracted or off putting while conversing would be decided by the roll. Great video as always. Really gets the wheels turning.
Great episode, and I am excited for the rest of the series on skills and abilities. This sort of content is immediately useful no matter what type of game you are running.
Like always agree on all points. However I do love the fact i can describe a simple bridge or underpass in a way that scares the players? Rolling after asking for Dex checks and Wild Shaping to cross a bridge they can see people and horses and carts crossing without issue.
I give out feats and flaws like hotcakes for specified skills. - Crit fail that thunder wave save? You have tinnitus indefinitely. DisADV on all listen checks. - good at playing cards and proved it at the competition? SoH + 2 on cheat checks with cards. - Nat 20 that Nature check on that tree? ADV on climb athletics checks if it is a tree. I love passive perception as well! - if creature stealth is +3, then a passive 13 will automatically see it. - if creature stealth is +6, then a perception roll 16 is required. As for investigation checks, I do good/ better/ best: "You flip thru the diary for any helpful information" - 12 = Rumor - 15= + hint - 18= ++ hint + direction - crit 20= spill the beans You loot the body (1 player can loot 1 body 1 time) 10= money roll 15= + useful item 18= ++scroll or potion crit 20= DMG magic item roll.
This was a wonderful discussion! Especially loved Pruitt's idea that Acrobatics could be used for "grappling" in the sense of a pinky- or some other sort of pressure-point hold. Thinking about it for a while, I would probably use that only for monks or fighters who specifically train for Dexterity-related combat, and I'd make it a DEX(Athletics) rather than Acrobatics. I love mixing the abilities and skills, when appropriate, because it gives more meaning to the skills in my opinion.
Thank you! The first thing we did when we realized that covid would prevent us from shooting for quite some time was invest in upgraded mics for our home studios. Expect to see camera upgrades in July!
Great video guys, these deep dives are great, can't wait for more! I've been playing since late 2nd edition and find myself making a TON of assumptions on how things work, really nice to get a refresher course on what's possible (and bendable) in 5e!
We had a similar debate at our table on the topic of grapple being athletics vs acrobatics. Ultimately we came to the decision to homebrew that particular check to be a athletics mof+acrobatics mod+1d20 vs athletics mod+acrobatics mod+1d20. It was something we HAD to come to a satisfactory conclusion on because one of my players wanted to be a UFC styled tavern brawler turned adventurer.
I think a thing that would help a lot of DM's id something that Jimme said is that a PC just says what his doing and the DM just pick skill checks around what there doing and maybe combines them to more accurately reflect what the PC is doing.
another use on insight I'd like to see is to help with charisma checks like a charismatic character that also has high wisdom that can use insight to read people, figure out what would persuade them, whether it be flattery, challenging them, etc. or for deception what they would fall for. also along the lines of deception would be impersonation, insight into how they act, etc so you could authentically play yourself off as them
In my game I let the squirmy rogue make an acrobatics check to give him advantage on the athletics check. That seems to work well for my table, because it makes the rogue feel like his nimbleness helps him, without letting auto-escape from every grapple.
Some awesome advice! Still, one thing definitely worth considering is balancing of skills. Kind of with Jim here - Strength is a sad stat in 5e. If you subdivide Athletics, which is almost always paired with Strength for ability checks, you make that stat weaker. Strength and Intelligence don't need to be any weaker than they are now.
I added 3 constitution skills to my homebrew... Endurance, Immunity and Concentration.... Through training they can all be improved, even immunity. I knew of a monk who ate a little poison ivy everyday and become immune. Concentration can be strengthened through exercises. I let the players choose which ability is the base of their concentration skill between constitution, intelligence, wisdom or charisma.
Dael Kingsmill from Monarch Factory is a huge proponent of players using Dex OR Wisdom for rolling initiative. Considering using that when I go back to DM-ing
That's one reason why I like Shadowrun, Skill Groups, you can raise multiple related skills to a certain level before specializing, so you can have a crack shot with Rifles but only average with Pistols, instead of being the master of all Ranged weaponry as is the case with DnD, or being absolutely shit with anything but Rifles as is the case for games like Wasteland. Also Survival isn't seeing how long you can go without something, Survival is seeing how well you know your environment so that you can find what you need to survive, while avoiding it's dangers.
The older editions of D&D were more detailed, but 5e was really made to reduce complexity as much as possible. So you end up with stats and skills that are overly broad.
GURPS (which has a ton of very detailed ability) allows you to use a similar ability with a penalty. E.g. if have never put any point in guns you can use your rifle skill minus something.
I wish players were more welcoming to the idea of just describing what they do instead of rolling for EVERYTHING. I get you want to roll your shiny dice, and yes, we have skill checks for uncertainty and the like. Yet, if my players just tell me they investigate something, I understand they are looking hard and I don't always need a skill check. Looking for a wall safe? Awesome, describe it. Looking for a wall safe during combat rounds? Awesome, roll me a check. Some of my players get it, they love the description of doing things. However most are just like "I wanna roll my DICE!" lol.
It's definitely a matter of preference, but you can certainly ask your players to describe things if they're just jumping to dice instead of thinking and immersing themselves!
I know part of the problem I'm still gun shy in those scenarios is because I have a difficulty picturing the scene. Something that might seem obvious is just a pile of rocks. But rolling the search check (back when my problem developed) was an easier way to bypass DM/player interpretation. It's can also be a big disconnect when the player and characters skills are far apart. "HOW do I search for traps? Uhh... with my D20"
Absolutely run your game your own way, but to speak up for a subset of the people you describe it's important for some of us that our characer's numbers come into play. Even if I as a person am really good at coming up with how to thoroughly investigate something, my character might not be, so I want to make a roll to search for that wall safe out of combat to see whether or not my *character* is skilled enough to find it. It's not always people wanting to roll shiny dice, sometimes it's people wanting to play the game and employ the rules and mechanics of that game.
What skill check/s would you consider using if your character is trying to hide information in what they are saying. Is it deception? Is it an opposing insight check? Are you trying to persuade someone that you don't know more?
I tend to give players options for skill checks. Regarding a monster, perhaps they find where it hunted and a body. I give them the option of a roll for history, arcana, insight, investigation, nature or survival (or something they suggest), but each one gets you something slightly different. History will give you a story, tales or old battles, arcana gives you direct knowledge related to magic (ie, resistances), insight/survival on how the attack happened, investigation (or medicine) on what the creature used to kill/damage, nature to identify what the creature might be and knowledge of it. Sometimes the info overlaps, sometimes not. I find it helps specialised characters contribute. Generally I will limit checks to if they have proficiency.
some modifications "with both hands" add the strength modifier twice to the attack and damage "dual wielding" attack with both weapons simultaneously(add the dexterity modifier to the attack and damage once) or off hand parry "parry" increase AC( and add the dexterity modifier) and gain advantage in attack simple enough some HEMA concepts
I allowing insight checks for characters to select an initiative on a pass or last on a fail. I also allow martial characters to get advantage if they sacrifice their bonus action to take an insight check, or sacrifice their reaction to make a check that give their attacker disadvantage if the check is passed. It was getting slight abused by classes that probably shouldn't have used it, so I made it apply automatically for the Fighter all other classes have to sacrifice a minor class ability to take a minor ability I called Dueling. Really cool mechanic and I would like to finish making a full on Sub-Class for Mid to high intelligence fighters to use various skill checks while fighting to gain advantage or inflict disadvantage in various situations, or to dictate the positioning of a fight.
With perception checks, it's always what they're looking for for me. If a player just enters a room and asks, typically they say for some sort of monster after this. I often use checks like that to give tunnel vision to players. They might find a goblin in the back of the room, but miss the dart trap that they weren't looking for.
I have a Monk who is more of a brawler, street fighter. Uses insite to suss out opponents in the ring and figure out who might be the one to cause trouble when out of it. Lot of fun
In regards to dog pooling on checks. I either do group checks or allow 2 characters to make a single roll and then abstractly that is the parties best efforts.
I also thought once that strenght needed some more attention for skills, but really atletics is all I need. In my opinion, it's a deservice to the player to have to spend points on proficiency to jump and to swim separately. The fair approach there is to use encumberance variant rules. The strenght based characters gain strategic value to the team outside of combat when you do that. It seems simple but the consequences of it appear everywhere during the game
I like when a skill check saves the characters time. If the characters walk into a room and there is a massive statue there doesn't need to be a perception check for them to notice it. Now if someone can pass a check relating to the history/significance of the statute then the characters don't have to return to town with a sketch to pay or spend their own time figuring it out.
I’ve had moments where a player failed a check and every time I’ve been tempted to just say “oh... well you don’t get any answers and give up.” I try to now put a spin on it, trying to give them SOMETHING so it wasn’t a complete waste. I feel like it keeps them in the game and not so much of a failure as a character, keeping them invested.
One idea I've bounced around is have the threshold for extreme success be a flat number above the check, but have the threshold for catastrophic failure be ___*modifier, minimum 1. Everyone can screw-up, but people who're talented or experienced are less likely for that screw up to be catastrophic.
I think it is also reasonable to ask the player to roll if the action has varying degrees of success. Rolling low doesnt only mean failure; it may just not further benefit the character!
That’s actually how I handle looting chests and foes in my home game - if you check at all, you’ll get something! But if you roll low, probably just some silver and copper pieces
What about, if an activity has a significant endurance aspect, the relevant ability bonus has to be averaged with the character's relevant ability bonus. So climbing is Str (athletics) check, but climbing for an unusually long time your ability bonus is the average of your Str & Con bonuses.
In pathfinder 2e, initiative IS replaced by skills. Most of the time its perception... but, if you are goading a fight and attempting to feint? Use perception. Sneaking about and your catlike reflexes are what will let you attempt to go first? Use stealth. Giving a rousing speech to throw off some cultist, gaining the advantage in the eventual fight? Use performance! Could be a thing to co opt into dnd 5e if you'd like
My DM actually made use of the ability to add skills to characters in D&D Beyond. I'm playing what is essentially a magic biologist that is constantly autopsying and analyzing biological data from monsters we kill and the like. We put in a Biology skill and it works great. Where usually you would need a 'medicine' check to investigate cause of death, notice anything odd about a new creature, or determine the effects of substances instead my character uses biology. However he doesn't have medicine trained so he isn't as good at actually treating wounds or curing things. He can identify it sure but not treat it unless he has like a full hospital setup.
I like the idea from Pathfinder that instead of Passive Skills you have a DC that other rolls will have to beat. If something is hiding from you and you are not actively looking for you, they have to roll above your Perception DC or you will notice them. The way DCs are usually calculated in 5e is 8 + Prof. Bonus + Ability. The way Passive Skills are calculated has always made me feel weird that you basically can't roll below a 10 on these three skills? I think this system is interesting and might try it
I think if you use acrobatics you shouldn’t be able to drag them with your movement. Not a huge difference but that change could have a significant effect.
I mean grappling for me atleast the grappler uses athletics the defender rd 1 uses either acro or athletics but after rd 1 you can only escape using athletics or have another way out
I would say the defender in the initial grapple check can involve dex acrobatics because grappling is just as much getting a hold of them as it is holding them down. A quick and nimble creature can evade your big brute easily. But if the strength grappler manages to get a hold of the dexterity grappler, then it’s all about strength to escape. Hell I’d still allow them to use acrobatics to escape as their pc tries to twist out of the grip, but use strength mod. Also I agree it sucks all str skills (climbing, swimming) are condensed. Why are those condensed, but persuasion, deception, and intimidation aren’t condensed into like a diplomacy skill?
When characters have no hope of success, I will still ask for a role to determine how badly they fail. Like with the example of a preposterous lie to the king. I might ask for a general Charisma or a preformance check, to see whether he takes active offense, or simply brushes it aside, or perhaps, sees that, under the right circumstances, your charm could be a useful tool. He doesn't believe you, but the fact that you even tried and made it sound convincing impresses him enough to give you a chance to lie FOR HIM (with possible death as an alternative).
Hey guys! I love the content and your work so much, and it always comes into play for my games. This video was really quiet for me, which made it difficult to listen to on my way to work, with maxed out volume it was barely audible. Could you bump the volume a little more for future webisodes? I haven't had the same issues with the in person shows.
If you want more skills, I would take Pathfinder 1st editions skill set and replace the +3 flat bonus for class skills with the proficiency bonus, then rather than giving skill points every level just give 1 skill per skill point at 1st level. For example a sorcerer with 14 Int would have 4 skills, a barbarian with 8 would have 3 etc
The way I encourage players to make checks is for them to say "Can I do X" and I decide whether a skill coincides with that task then I ask for the roll I think is appropriate. that way no one is constantly asking to make perception rolls just because they are proficient in it.
What are your guys thoughts on religion and nature being intelligence skills when they're the main focus of wisdom focused classes. In the games I'm in we've let clerics roll religion with wisdom and druids use it for nature checks.
I use different attributes for skill checks all the time and encourage my players to explain to me why we should consider a different attribute for a particular role. It reinforces creativity and gives flexibility to the system.
What are your thoughts on Deception vs. Persuasion? The standard distinction is that you use the former to lie and the latter when telling the truth, but that distinction is based on the character's intent rather than different skills. Couldn't this be covered with a single skill (e.g. Negotiation) and by the DM assigning a higher DC when a PC is attempting to lie?
For skills and ability checks, I run a few things differently in the campaign that I am running. 1. I have added in an Engineering skill under Intelligence (I made a custom character sheet with it). It is basically anything that has to do with technology or physics (among a couple of other things). For example, if a player asks "How much weight would this rope bridge be able to hold?", I would tell them to roll an Engineering check. No characters get proficiency in the skill outright, but if the character studies and uses it enough, I may grant it to them as a bonus proficiency. This is also under the assumption that their Intelligence score is relatively high (probably 13+). 2. For natural 1's and 20's (for both ability checks and saving throws) I count those as -5 and +25 to the roll, respectively. If a character happens to have a +14 in a skill and they roll a 1, they would not mess up as bad as someone who only has a +2. On the other end, if a character has a -3 in a skill and rolls a natural 20 they would get a total of 22, which is very good but still has room for failure. 3. For grappling, I made an entirely new mechanic. Effectively concentration for grappling. In another campaign that I am a part of we noticed that grappling for the grappler's side is often far too one-sided. This is what I came up with. "If you are grappling a creature, and you take damage, you must make a Constitution saving throw with a DC equal to half the damage taken or 10, whichever is higher. On a fail, the creature that is being grappled by you can use their reaction to try and break free. You have disadvantage on the Athletics check to maintain the grapple for this contest." I think it adds some flavour and realism too. If someone is grappling an ally, you can just keep wailing on them to try and get them to let go. In regards to a couple of other things you touched on, I made some feats that I plan on putting on the DMsguild soon. One is a skill point feat (the points have other potential uses) and I also have one that allows you to add your Wisdom modifier to your initiative rolls and some Dex saves.
Insight is so much more than just "Are they lying?" A fighter might look at a group of riders approaching and roll insight "Are these fighters, are they searching or in flight?" (I think a better mechanic of the Soldier background would be that they don't need to roll for this kind of thing, call it "Soldier's Eye", and they get to know the basic deal of most military type enemies, and get free insight into their equipment and tactics) it can even be used for something like discovering the purpose of a puzzle. "There is a window with six monsters in it, and a central figure, what did the artist mean to convey?" Or a guess at an enemies plans. "If I was the overlord of the Seven Halls of Pain, where would I hide the Whip of Seven Sighs?" It's a useful skill for a PC to use their character's knowledge (as averse to the players) to try to understand the game world. I find a good Insight check can be the thing that makes the players all leap to the right conclusions when they've been talking in circles for a bit. Insight for tactical knowledge is great.
First, congratulations on the video! Great subject. Second, you touched the subject lightly, almost as a hint ... However, what do you think about using the Skill Challenges from the 4th edition within the 5th?
I've been wanting to expand the Int skills. I like having specific specialties that your character is good at. Likemaybe for the Arcana skill 8ts expanded to all the schools of magic and History is expanded to lore, ancient history, modern history, ECT. I think it would make characters more fleshed out. I would also give PC's like necromancer wizards have proficient in nechromancy as a default cause it makes sense.
Thanks for watching! Get Dungeon Fog: bit.ly/dungeonfog
Join the Web DMNS and get show audio, a podcast, and more every week! patreon.com/webdm
I'd love to see you guys tackle Areas of Effect on a Grid. If you want a lot of controversy and missunderstanding, tackle that.
I did, in a thread, and it kicked open a hornets nest... because just about nobody actually reads and understands the rules as written.
www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/70184-the-cube-fallacy
Good luck.
I've disconnected standard ability check and skill combos. I've pushed asking what they want to accomplish and figure out the relevant combo. Searching for someone by talking to people? Charisma investigation. A druid recalling his experience with animals and plants? Wisdom nature. It's forced player's to describe how their particular character would handle a situation and really bolsters descriptions and ingenuity.
I have a question why did jim green screen a normal room
@@nibilissilibin9141 I was waiting for them to bring up this possibility because I heard this was an optional rules in one of the books. I first heard if this style in another game system and thought it was an amazing mechanical way to pull out organic role play from the less theatricallh incline players
@@ruga-ventoj that and, it allows for specialisations that make sense. Druid Wis nature. Cleric Wis religion. Dexterity Athletics and strength acrobatics. It opens up concepts and opens up so many options. Need to wear down a politician, Con persuasion. It's freeing.
You walk into the room. "I roll a perception check its a 21 what do I see?!?!" A medusa, make a con save.
"I roll a perception check but I got a total of -1 what do I see?"
"I- uh you know what you're fine, it seems to be an empty room."
If the player is announcing a perception check and the DM didn't call for it, that player should lose a turn. Players should instead describe what they want their character to do, and then the DM may call for a relevant check.
[Edit - addendum: I play 3.x d20, not 5E, so there are two separate perceptions - listen and spot. The rules under Immediate Actions (What 5E calls Reactions) allow listen or spot to be used as a reaction - even when it isn't that character's turn - but this still doesn't mean a player can just shout out "Spot check!" and start rolling dice whenever they want.
If it is a case where the DM describes a scene and includes a subtle visual or audible clue, a player can announce the intention of reacting to it (Ideally in-character: "What was that?" or "I thought I just heard something?"), and then the DM still decides if a perception check is warranted.]
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Cool. So, what kind of punishment does the DM get when he needlessly forces Perception checks on a sighted character every time they want to use their eyeballs?
@@TankTaur A talking to after the game, you know, when they ask "How was the game tonight" you don't just blankly answer "Good". That's when criticisms like that come into play.
player - "erm, i rolled a 5 for investigation to look for loot.... can i grab that magical sword the villian used to beat my ass with?"
gm - "No you rolled low so you dnt find anything. Roll better next time buddy."
another player - "I'll have a look... i rolled 21, what do i find"
gm - "okay so you find that sword...."
Gods i hate this skill check for looting.
Don't call for a roll unless there are meaningful consequences for failure.
Words to live by! I definitely dislike rolling for something that has little to no effect on what I'm doing or where I'm going in a game
Challenge Level 30 Thats actually a point I disagree with in the video, at least to an extent. I think it's important to recognize that players like rolling dice (even for irrelevant things), and that getting to do that without the tension of significant failure is often a good practice.
Put it this way: I kinda still want it to be possible for a character to make a fool of himself while trying to play a random game while playing carnival games during a festival or something of the sort. Is that a meaningful consequence for failure? I wouldnt say so. Is it a failure that adds to the narrative? If the entire group gets a kick out of seeing the character fail, I would say so.
Conversely, letting characters automatically succeed in a simple task they're experts in without rolling isnt always a good thing. Just telling a player "yeah you ace [the thing you're trying to do] no problem since you are proficient in [applicable skill]" sometimes robs the player of the opportunity of getting a fun nat20, with the extra cool bells and whistles that come with it - even if it is also not a meaningful success.
Especially when the Observant Rogue has a passive perception of 24.
Agreed.
A nuisance I would include is "pressure". To me, people respond differently in pressured environments and can fail despite the clear aptitude for a particular task.
Jumping over a small 3 meter (10ft) gap is much easier when you get to assess the environment. In a situation where you are just running from some one and you just see a gap a roll is definitely required.
I guess that makes sense. Though the mystery of whether you failed your perception check during your watch or there was nothing to see makes the game enjoyable.
I guess being introduced to d and d via critical role made me accustomed to high rolls on trivial checks leading to the dm introducing something interesting in the world. With the rolls determining how the world is shaped to some extent.
Just DM’ed my first game this week after getting addicted to you guys last year. Thanks for everything!
Awesome!! How'd it go?
@Web DM Terrible! But Great!
We spent 90 minutes dealing with tech issues (internet connections, VTT issues, etc.) and then I forgot most of the distinguishing characteristics I made up for the NPCs so I totally botched the roleplaying.
But they'll be back next week to search the desert for an ancient Giant mine, so it counts as a win!
Try a tech run through, beforehand to iron out wrinkles, we did. If they return, it's a win! Can you reach out to the players, individually? Ask them what they liked, and what they didnt like and to be brutally honest. Tell them not be mean but to give you constructive criticisms learn from your mistakes.
d ford Yeah, it was everyone’s first time using a VTT (Fantasy Grounds) and one guy just had a crap internet connection. We had one combat that went well and we all learned as it went.
I haven’t played any DnD in a decade, so it was great to use those muscles again.
Holy smokes, exactly the same case for me! Congrats!
This is one of those videos I'm going to have to watch like 20 times to fully think about and understand.
I know exactly what you mean. I actually listened to it twice in a row.
I know right, I have to do that with every video because my mind will go on tangents whenever someone explains something in-depth and I’ll miss what else they talk about.
Currently in an Eberron campaign with a House Lyrandar half elf swashbuckler. During our second session the DM allowed him to roll a vehicle proficiency check to pilot a crash landing air ship. Rolled a natural twenty in true player fashion. DM handled it so well, saying I still failed, ship crashed, but myself and the warforged artificer survived. I thought it was a great instance of how to handle a proficiency ability roll for an impossible check and scoring that natural twenty.
sounds like they succeeded, and tbh as a DM I would have also allowed greater salvaging, but yeah there isn't a way to land an airship on ground that doesn't break it.
One of my favorite techniques ive used as a DM is asking for everyone to roll, and then telling the players to only announce either the highest or the lowest roll the table makes. It allows everyone to roll some dice, but highlights both the weaknesses and strengths of the party. Sometimes the wizard rolls a better survival check than the ranger, and with that comes some role play opportunities between those characters.
Can you give me an example of the roleplay that happened? Curious how this played out
Gotta say Jim, I missed the beard. Nice to see it back 😁
Latent effects of Pruitt's spell from Transmutation ep. are getting dispelled.
I like both looks; was fond of the shaved one tbh.
He has too much of a baby face for me to take him seriously.
It is a great beard.
It looks like he's lost some weight too. I should use this down time to exercise. *Oh look, that game is on sale.*
I think the concept of keeping track of time is completely underrated. To maintain a constant undercurrent of tensions and pressure in your game, have the clock ticking.
If someone or the group fail a skill check that has a possibility of succeeding and they can keep trying; the meaningful consequence of failure is advancing the clock.
Time passing means your characters are using up resources like food or other adventuring supplies. Time passing means the enemies your trying to find get harder to find, the problem you are trying to solve get's bigger, the random monsters in the woods have more chances of finding you.
Super stoked! Thanks again guys! Between this and the patreon content, you guys (and gals) have definitely kept me ever evolving my game, both as a player and dm
"A lot of this is just answered in the text of the rules."
HOLY SHIT THANK YOU! Read the rules people!
Trav has been doing a bang up job on these episodes, thanks for all you guys do!
Thank you Andrew!
Ah the Gods have returned to bring good favor to my Dungeons & Dragons games. Love you guys you've helped me out a lot as both a Dungeon Master and a player so thank you guys.
This episode was super useful to me. I always want to utilize skill checks in a more dynamic way, but I tend to fumble with them at the table unless it's something i've specifically planned and written out. There were lots of useful ideas and I guess just small revelations that I can add to my DM improv tool box.
Only halfway through the video and doing my first campaign (first time playing along with the players) and this will already massively streamline my sessions, thank you for the great content guys.
I just spazzed out audibly when I saw this on my page, that's how much I've been needing them to do this video!
On the acrobatics and athletics discussion:
I see Pruitt's examples of proper technique executed at high speed being how the DM explains how a dexerity character succeeds in a grapple check against a brutish ogre.
I do really like Jim's take on forcing it to be a contested strength athletics check, acrobatics need not apply. Going to bring this up with my players next chance I get.
The only thing is acrobatics has almost no use in RAW other than for grapple checks
Loved Jim's take on the possibility of Mathematics and Mercantile skills. Personally, ive added 2 new skills to my game as well: Culture and Theory. Culture is all about people, current events and trends, linguistics, etiquette, memes, the who's who, etc. And Theory is basically the STEM skill, with distance calculations, mathematics, engineering, formulas, equations, etc. I thought of adding Commerce as well, but every time i came up with examples of its use in play i found i could easily rationalize them as either a Culture, History, or Theory check, so i left it out. Very validating to see that Jim had a similar train of thought!
Great video! I like to tell my players that some tasks are so easy that no check is required, where some are impossible and no check is warranted. When players know that they can automatically succeed at some tasks instead of rolling, they will begin to be more descriptive of their actions. Another great way to do this is if a player asks for an ability check, ask them to describe what their character is doing instead, then decide if one is needed and what skill should be used. Eventually they will learn that if you always ask them, they might as well just describe it instead.
Honestly one of my favourite videos you guys have done, my friends and I are developing our own roleplaying system partly due to watching your videos and realising that there is not a one size fits all system and it it is ok to tweak things and do something that works for you and your friends. Continuing to watch your discussions and have some of our own feeling affirmed gave us the impetus to work towards actually publishing it. Thank you
Wow what an excellent discussion about this core portion of 5e. Thanks guys.
This was one of my favorite episode topics and discussions. I loved the dive into expanding the scope of skills, revisiting the RAW aspects of skills, and what skills can or should be at the table. Great insight as always gents.
I love that all of the ideas they have are base rules in pathfinder 2e. Just shows they difference and cool ideas you can take from other systems
Just to say a massive thanks to you both for all the hard work, really appreciate it. You are the best duo doing this in my opinion!
Thanks Rory!
Coming to 5e from 3.5, the streamlined skills list became something I loved once I fully understood what it could be used to do. Older editions had dozens of skills that could easily become traps if the player didn't have a clear picture of what their characters needed and what their DM was going to actually throw at them. Pairing the laundry list down to the 5e skills put an end to players investing dozens of points into a skill the DM will never ask them to roll.
It also made the game easier to adapt to settings outside of the medieval fantasy genre. It doesn't matter whether you're moving a boulder in the stone age or a section of spaceship bulkhead in the space age. It's a strength athletics check. It doesn't matter if you're moving across the decks of pirate ships tossing and turning during a Caribbean storm, bending and sliding around security system laser beams in a cyberpunk hallway, or walking a tightrope just before your parents get murdered and you have to go live with Batman. It's a dexterity acrobatics check.
Once you add in tool proficiencies the limits on genre and setting go away completely. You don't need to add in different new skills for net hacking, surveillance, information gathering, and all manner of other things needed to run a cyberpunk game when just adding "Computers" to the list of tools you can be proficient in will solved almost all your problems. Sailing across an ocean or across the void of space is in both cases a simple Navigator's tools check. Flying planes and even space ships is as simple as adding Vehicles: Air, and Vehicles: Space to the Vehicles: Land and Vehicles: Sea tool proficiencies already in the books.
The only things that feel like they were abandoned when the skills list was streamlined were Appraisal and a half dozen Knowledge skills. Apraisal feels like it's been split up among generic Intelligence checks and almost every tool proficiency related to crafting an art piece or commodity. The Dwarf still gets bonuses for stone masonry checks, but Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering is no longer a skill they can have. Knowledge: The Planes is crucial to the Planescape setting they keep teasing, but it's been folded into Arcana with no real guidance on how Arcana will work pulling double duty.
Jim said it best. Mathematics and Mercantile are needed to fill the gaps in the list of skills players can choose. Especially if you're expanding the game to settings outside of medieval fantasy Europe.
I absolutely hated how convoluted 3e's skills were. Really bogged down everything.
@@Grinnar it was a nice way to make Int an important stat for every character, but it was still a whole rules set onto itself that drew focus and added extra steps and math that all too often slowed down the game.
For insight I might handle it opposite. The player(s) speaking to a suspect would get to roll while the other player might might just get use their passives. The chance of being distracted or off putting while conversing would be decided by the roll. Great video as always. Really gets the wheels turning.
Really looking forward to an ability/skill expansion episode.
Great episode, and I am excited for the rest of the series on skills and abilities. This sort of content is immediately useful no matter what type of game you are running.
Thank you, William!
Best web dm episode in a long while. Can’t wait for the rest of this series.
Love the steampunk industrial lighting on the wall in the background, nice.
Like always agree on all points. However I do love the fact i can describe a simple bridge or underpass in a way that scares the players? Rolling after asking for Dex checks and Wild Shaping to cross a bridge they can see people and horses and carts crossing without issue.
I give out feats and flaws like hotcakes for specified skills.
- Crit fail that thunder wave save? You have tinnitus indefinitely. DisADV on all listen checks.
- good at playing cards and proved it at the competition? SoH + 2 on cheat checks with cards.
- Nat 20 that Nature check on that tree? ADV on climb athletics checks if it is a tree.
I love passive perception as well!
- if creature stealth is +3, then a passive 13 will automatically see it.
- if creature stealth is +6, then a perception roll 16 is required.
As for investigation checks, I do good/ better/ best:
"You flip thru the diary for any helpful information"
- 12 = Rumor
- 15= + hint
- 18= ++ hint + direction
- crit 20= spill the beans
You loot the body (1 player can loot 1 body 1 time)
10= money roll
15= + useful item
18= ++scroll or potion
crit 20= DMG magic item roll.
This was a wonderful discussion! Especially loved Pruitt's idea that Acrobatics could be used for "grappling" in the sense of a pinky- or some other sort of pressure-point hold. Thinking about it for a while, I would probably use that only for monks or fighters who specifically train for Dexterity-related combat, and I'd make it a DEX(Athletics) rather than Acrobatics. I love mixing the abilities and skills, when appropriate, because it gives more meaning to the skills in my opinion.
I know the video format is sorta off due to recent stuff, but you guys' audio is GREAT in this video as an unexpected result of the hardware reconfig
Thank you! The first thing we did when we realized that covid would prevent us from shooting for quite some time was invest in upgraded mics for our home studios. Expect to see camera upgrades in July!
@@WebDM That's awesome to hear :)))
Keep up the great work guys, it's always cool to hear your perspectives on D&D! Stay safe and have a good day!
Great video guys, these deep dives are great, can't wait for more!
I've been playing since late 2nd edition and find myself making a TON of assumptions on how things work, really nice to get a refresher course on what's possible (and bendable) in 5e!
I am really looking forward to this series of Ability and Skill checks.
We had a similar debate at our table on the topic of grapple being athletics vs acrobatics. Ultimately we came to the decision to homebrew that particular check to be a athletics mof+acrobatics mod+1d20 vs athletics mod+acrobatics mod+1d20. It was something we HAD to come to a satisfactory conclusion on because one of my players wanted to be a UFC styled tavern brawler turned adventurer.
I think a thing that would help a lot of DM's id something that Jimme said is that a PC just says what his doing and the DM just pick skill checks around what there doing and maybe combines them to more accurately reflect what the PC is doing.
another use on insight I'd like to see is to help with charisma checks
like a charismatic character that also has high wisdom that can use insight to read people, figure out what would persuade them, whether it be flattery, challenging them, etc. or for deception what they would fall for.
also along the lines of deception would be impersonation, insight into how they act, etc so you could authentically play yourself off as them
The beard is back! Praise be
In my game I let the squirmy rogue make an acrobatics check to give him advantage on the athletics check. That seems to work well for my table, because it makes the rogue feel like his nimbleness helps him, without letting auto-escape from every grapple.
Some awesome advice! Still, one thing definitely worth considering is balancing of skills. Kind of with Jim here - Strength is a sad stat in 5e. If you subdivide Athletics, which is almost always paired with Strength for ability checks, you make that stat weaker. Strength and Intelligence don't need to be any weaker than they are now.
When Jim's head lines up with the figurines behind him, you can kinda see what he would look like with a mullet
I added 3 constitution skills to my homebrew... Endurance, Immunity and Concentration.... Through training they can all be improved, even immunity. I knew of a monk who ate a little poison ivy everyday and become immune. Concentration can be strengthened through exercises. I let the players choose which ability is the base of their concentration skill between constitution, intelligence, wisdom or charisma.
Insight instead of DEX for initiative is such a good idea for fighters against other fighters, or spellcasters against other spellcasters!
Dael Kingsmill from Monarch Factory is a huge proponent of players using Dex OR Wisdom for rolling initiative. Considering using that when I go back to DM-ing
THE best thumbnails always
i like the insight in combat idea. have the rogue subclass that can do that in the game i play in. nice that everyone can do a basic version of it
Something to read your opponent to determine their next move(s)
That's one reason why I like Shadowrun, Skill Groups, you can raise multiple related skills to a certain level before specializing, so you can have a crack shot with Rifles but only average with Pistols, instead of being the master of all Ranged weaponry as is the case with DnD, or being absolutely shit with anything but Rifles as is the case for games like Wasteland.
Also Survival isn't seeing how long you can go without something, Survival is seeing how well you know your environment so that you can find what you need to survive, while avoiding it's dangers.
The older editions of D&D were more detailed, but 5e was really made to reduce complexity as much as possible. So you end up with stats and skills that are overly broad.
GURPS (which has a ton of very detailed ability) allows you to use a similar ability with a penalty. E.g. if have never put any point in guns you can use your rifle skill minus something.
On grappling, I’ve considered using a Dexterity (Athletics) check instead of a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check
your couches line up and match so well it looks like you're in the same room
I wish players were more welcoming to the idea of just describing what they do instead of rolling for EVERYTHING. I get you want to roll your shiny dice, and yes, we have skill checks for uncertainty and the like. Yet, if my players just tell me they investigate something, I understand they are looking hard and I don't always need a skill check. Looking for a wall safe? Awesome, describe it. Looking for a wall safe during combat rounds? Awesome, roll me a check. Some of my players get it, they love the description of doing things. However most are just like "I wanna roll my DICE!" lol.
It's definitely a matter of preference, but you can certainly ask your players to describe things if they're just jumping to dice instead of thinking and immersing themselves!
@@WebDM agreed! Thanks for the videos!
I know part of the problem I'm still gun shy in those scenarios is because I have a difficulty picturing the scene. Something that might seem obvious is just a pile of rocks. But rolling the search check (back when my problem developed) was an easier way to bypass DM/player interpretation. It's can also be a big disconnect when the player and characters skills are far apart. "HOW do I search for traps? Uhh... with my D20"
Absolutely run your game your own way, but to speak up for a subset of the people you describe it's important for some of us that our characer's numbers come into play. Even if I as a person am really good at coming up with how to thoroughly investigate something, my character might not be, so I want to make a roll to search for that wall safe out of combat to see whether or not my *character* is skilled enough to find it. It's not always people wanting to roll shiny dice, sometimes it's people wanting to play the game and employ the rules and mechanics of that game.
What skill check/s would you consider using if your character is trying to hide information in what they are saying. Is it deception? Is it an opposing insight check? Are you trying to persuade someone that you don't know more?
I tend to give players options for skill checks. Regarding a monster, perhaps they find where it hunted and a body. I give them the option of a roll for history, arcana, insight, investigation, nature or survival (or something they suggest), but each one gets you something slightly different. History will give you a story, tales or old battles, arcana gives you direct knowledge related to magic (ie, resistances), insight/survival on how the attack happened, investigation (or medicine) on what the creature used to kill/damage, nature to identify what the creature might be and knowledge of it. Sometimes the info overlaps, sometimes not. I find it helps specialised characters contribute. Generally I will limit checks to if they have proficiency.
some modifications
"with both hands" add the strength modifier twice to the attack and damage
"dual wielding"
attack with both weapons simultaneously(add the dexterity modifier to the attack and damage once) or off hand parry
"parry" increase AC( and add the dexterity modifier) and gain advantage in attack
simple enough some HEMA concepts
These sound insane. You want to make 2handing a polearm with great weapon master even more busted?
I allowing insight checks for characters to select an initiative on a pass or last on a fail. I also allow martial characters to get advantage if they sacrifice their bonus action to take an insight check, or sacrifice their reaction to make a check that give their attacker disadvantage if the check is passed. It was getting slight abused by classes that probably shouldn't have used it, so I made it apply automatically for the Fighter all other classes have to sacrifice a minor class ability to take a minor ability I called Dueling. Really cool mechanic and I would like to finish making a full on Sub-Class for Mid to high intelligence fighters to use various skill checks while fighting to gain advantage or inflict disadvantage in various situations, or to dictate the positioning of a fight.
You guys are the best. I really appreciate your videos.
Thank you!
With perception checks, it's always what they're looking for for me. If a player just enters a room and asks, typically they say for some sort of monster after this. I often use checks like that to give tunnel vision to players. They might find a goblin in the back of the room, but miss the dart trap that they weren't looking for.
As teased, I would really love a part two to this video!
Pretty please with brown sugar on it?
I love Pruitt's shirt!
I have a Monk who is more of a brawler, street fighter. Uses insite to suss out opponents in the ring and figure out who might be the one to cause trouble when out of it. Lot of fun
In regards to dog pooling on checks. I either do group checks or allow 2 characters to make a single roll and then abstractly that is the parties best efforts.
Jim needs to grow his beard longer so that he can start braiding it like a dwarf.
I also thought once that strenght needed some more attention for skills, but really atletics is all I need. In my opinion, it's a deservice to the player to have to spend points on proficiency to jump and to swim separately. The fair approach there is to use encumberance variant rules. The strenght based characters gain strategic value to the team outside of combat when you do that. It seems simple but the consequences of it appear everywhere during the game
I like when a skill check saves the characters time. If the characters walk into a room and there is a massive statue there doesn't need to be a perception check for them to notice it. Now if someone can pass a check relating to the history/significance of the statute then the characters don't have to return to town with a sketch to pay or spend their own time figuring it out.
I half expected Jigsaw to cameo when you guys mentioned broken glass and CON saves.
Instead a close encounter of the technical difficulty kind.
Cannot unsee Jim's magical green aura
Tumble is in the DMG!
I’ve had moments where a player failed a check and every time I’ve been tempted to just say “oh... well you don’t get any answers and give up.” I try to now put a spin on it, trying to give them SOMETHING so it wasn’t a complete waste. I feel like it keeps them in the game and not so much of a failure as a character, keeping them invested.
"...im lost Pruitt..." "it's ok I have expertise" favorite line!
Love y'all keep up the amazing depth humor and self awareness!
I think I'm going to start using charisma for sleight of hand if it's appropriate, as well as strength for intimidation.
Pruitt's acrobatics to grapple example sounds more like a Dexterity (Athletics) check.
One idea I've bounced around is have the threshold for extreme success be a flat number above the check, but have the threshold for catastrophic failure be ___*modifier, minimum 1. Everyone can screw-up, but people who're talented or experienced are less likely for that screw up to be catastrophic.
What I do is disable critical failure for things you are proficient in and enable critical success and vice-versa.
the volume on this is a little too quiet. hopefully this can get fixed when the next one is mixed. I love this series!
I think it is also reasonable to ask the player to roll if the action has varying degrees of success. Rolling low doesnt only mean failure; it may just not further benefit the character!
That’s actually how I handle looting chests and foes in my home game - if you check at all, you’ll get something! But if you roll low, probably just some silver and copper pieces
What about, if an activity has a significant endurance aspect, the relevant ability bonus has to be averaged with the character's relevant ability bonus. So climbing is Str (athletics) check, but climbing for an unusually long time your ability bonus is the average of your Str & Con bonuses.
Hey, awesome episode guys! Are you planning to do an episode on Theros sometime soon?
Yes!
Web DM awesome!!
In pathfinder 2e, initiative IS replaced by skills. Most of the time its perception... but, if you are goading a fight and attempting to feint? Use perception. Sneaking about and your catlike reflexes are what will let you attempt to go first? Use stealth. Giving a rousing speech to throw off some cultist, gaining the advantage in the eventual fight? Use performance! Could be a thing to co opt into dnd 5e if you'd like
My DM actually made use of the ability to add skills to characters in D&D Beyond. I'm playing what is essentially a magic biologist that is constantly autopsying and analyzing biological data from monsters we kill and the like. We put in a Biology skill and it works great. Where usually you would need a 'medicine' check to investigate cause of death, notice anything odd about a new creature, or determine the effects of substances instead my character uses biology. However he doesn't have medicine trained so he isn't as good at actually treating wounds or curing things. He can identify it sure but not treat it unless he has like a full hospital setup.
I like the idea from Pathfinder that instead of Passive Skills you have a DC that other rolls will have to beat. If something is hiding from you and you are not actively looking for you, they have to roll above your Perception DC or you will notice them.
The way DCs are usually calculated in 5e is 8 + Prof. Bonus + Ability. The way Passive Skills are calculated has always made me feel weird that you basically can't roll below a 10 on these three skills? I think this system is interesting and might try it
Wrist Lock feat or something that lets you use Acrobatics to initiate a grapple
As for grapples i let acrobatics for the 1st grab after that its a athletics rolls only
I think if you use acrobatics you shouldn’t be able to drag them with your movement. Not a huge difference but that change could have a significant effect.
I mean grappling for me atleast the grappler uses athletics the defender rd 1 uses either acro or athletics but after rd 1 you can only escape using athletics or have another way out
100% agree that dex is way too damn useful and strength and int is way over shadowed
I would say the defender in the initial grapple check can involve dex acrobatics because grappling is just as much getting a hold of them as it is holding them down. A quick and nimble creature can evade your big brute easily. But if the strength grappler manages to get a hold of the dexterity grappler, then it’s all about strength to escape. Hell I’d still allow them to use acrobatics to escape as their pc tries to twist out of the grip, but use strength mod.
Also I agree it sucks all str skills (climbing, swimming) are condensed. Why are those condensed, but persuasion, deception, and intimidation aren’t condensed into like a diplomacy skill?
When characters have no hope of success, I will still ask for a role to determine how badly they fail. Like with the example of a preposterous lie to the king. I might ask for a general Charisma or a preformance check, to see whether he takes active offense, or simply brushes it aside, or perhaps, sees that, under the right circumstances, your charm could be a useful tool. He doesn't believe you, but the fact that you even tried and made it sound convincing impresses him enough to give you a chance to lie FOR HIM (with possible death as an alternative).
Hey guys! I love the content and your work so much, and it always comes into play for my games. This video was really quiet for me, which made it difficult to listen to on my way to work, with maxed out volume it was barely audible. Could you bump the volume a little more for future webisodes? I haven't had the same issues with the in person shows.
If you want more skills, I would take Pathfinder 1st editions skill set and replace the +3 flat bonus for class skills with the proficiency bonus, then rather than giving skill points every level just give 1 skill per skill point at 1st level. For example a sorcerer with 14 Int would have 4 skills, a barbarian with 8 would have 3 etc
The way I encourage players to make checks is for them to say "Can I do X" and I decide whether a skill coincides with that task then I ask for the roll I think is appropriate. that way no one is constantly asking to make perception rolls just because they are proficient in it.
I have that same stained glass dnd shirt!
30:00 "you can try to break that door again, but at the cost of 1 level exhaustion"
Thanks All at WebDM! What does Pruitt's shirt say?
These dice destroy fascists
What are your guys thoughts on religion and nature being intelligence skills when they're the main focus of wisdom focused classes. In the games I'm in we've let clerics roll religion with wisdom and druids use it for nature checks.
Variant attribute skill checks will be in an upcoming video!
I use different attributes for skill checks all the time and encourage my players to explain to me why we should consider a different attribute for a particular role. It reinforces creativity and gives flexibility to the system.
What are your thoughts on Deception vs. Persuasion? The standard distinction is that you use the former to lie and the latter when telling the truth, but that distinction is based on the character's intent rather than different skills. Couldn't this be covered with a single skill (e.g. Negotiation) and by the DM assigning a higher DC when a PC is attempting to lie?
For skills and ability checks, I run a few things differently in the campaign that I am running.
1. I have added in an Engineering skill under Intelligence (I made a custom character sheet with it). It is basically anything that has to do with technology or physics (among a couple of other things). For example, if a player asks "How much weight would this rope bridge be able to hold?", I would tell them to roll an Engineering check.
No characters get proficiency in the skill outright, but if the character studies and uses it enough, I may grant it to them as a bonus proficiency. This is also under the assumption that their Intelligence score is relatively high (probably 13+).
2. For natural 1's and 20's (for both ability checks and saving throws) I count those as -5 and +25 to the roll, respectively.
If a character happens to have a +14 in a skill and they roll a 1, they would not mess up as bad as someone who only has a +2.
On the other end, if a character has a -3 in a skill and rolls a natural 20 they would get a total of 22, which is very good but still has room for failure.
3. For grappling, I made an entirely new mechanic. Effectively concentration for grappling. In another campaign that I am a part of we noticed that grappling for the grappler's side is often far too one-sided.
This is what I came up with.
"If you are grappling a creature, and you take damage, you must make a Constitution saving throw with a DC equal to half the damage taken or 10, whichever is higher.
On a fail, the creature that is being grappled by you can use their reaction to try and break free. You have disadvantage on the Athletics check to maintain the grapple for this contest."
I think it adds some flavour and realism too. If someone is grappling an ally, you can just keep wailing on them to try and get them to let go.
In regards to a couple of other things you touched on, I made some feats that I plan on putting on the DMsguild soon. One is a skill point feat (the points have other potential uses) and I also have one that allows you to add your Wisdom modifier to your initiative rolls and some Dex saves.
Insight is so much more than just "Are they lying?" A fighter might look at a group of riders approaching and roll insight "Are these fighters, are they searching or in flight?" (I think a better mechanic of the Soldier background would be that they don't need to roll for this kind of thing, call it "Soldier's Eye", and they get to know the basic deal of most military type enemies, and get free insight into their equipment and tactics) it can even be used for something like discovering the purpose of a puzzle. "There is a window with six monsters in it, and a central figure, what did the artist mean to convey?" Or a guess at an enemies plans. "If I was the overlord of the Seven Halls of Pain, where would I hide the Whip of Seven Sighs?" It's a useful skill for a PC to use their character's knowledge (as averse to the players) to try to understand the game world. I find a good Insight check can be the thing that makes the players all leap to the right conclusions when they've been talking in circles for a bit.
Insight for tactical knowledge is great.
Jim and Pruitts insight discussion gave me big Sherlock Holmes predictive fight scene vibes
This is great stuff, thanks.
I’d be very interested in a video about breaking down skills further. I wouldn’t know how to do it myself
It's coming! This is a series
Web DM love it! Thank you!
That thumbnail should be on a poster.
First, congratulations on the video! Great subject.
Second, you touched the subject lightly, almost as a hint ... However, what do you think about using the Skill Challenges from the 4th edition within the 5th?
This is a series. Should be more coming soonish on that!
Great news! I'll be looking foward to follow the videos.
I've been wanting to expand the Int skills. I like having specific specialties that your character is good at. Likemaybe for the Arcana skill 8ts expanded to all the schools of magic and History is expanded to lore, ancient history, modern history, ECT. I think it would make characters more fleshed out. I would also give PC's like necromancer wizards have proficient in nechromancy as a default cause it makes sense.