So what skill checks that the pcs make should the dm roll? i.e. perception, intimidation....
I was thinking perception, disguise, imntimidation, bluff, diplomacy, stealth
i have heard of some games where the DM/GM rolls every die roll in the game, including saves hits everything, i guess its up to the individual playstyle of the players/DM?GM
Oh man that sounds terribad
So what skill checks that the pcs make should the dm roll? i.e. perception, intimidation....
These days, I pretty much let the players make their own rolls. Of course, I also ask for addition perception checks that may or may not mean anything.
Why? Because with most opposed rolls (like intimidation), the PCs don't know what the target DC is anyways, so I can always fudge the result to get a better story.
Will I change? Sure, if the players show me that they can't handle the responsibility. For instance: a character is trying to disguise himself and I let him roll the check. The player rolls a 3, and starts trying to find a way to learn how poorly of a job he did . . . no, sorry, you think you did a great job. You just set the target DC for opposed rolls.
So far, I haven't had an issue.
Besides, as a player I hated when the GM took control away from me, so I want players to think that they have some control over their characters' lives.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM should be rolling Perception checks, particularly when someone is searching for traps or secret doors. Be generous though and give them a chance to notice things when they might not call for perception too. I'd let the players roll if it's an opposed check though, just want to make sure people don't sit in a room re-checking for secret doors over and over while they roll 2's.
They should absolutely roll Disguise checks, since the end result of the check is what the PC using all the methods to his disposal, including asking his friends how it looks. It helps them act like they're well disguised even if there is some flaw in it. This is in the rules too: "The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is."
Random durations on spells (not a skill, I know) are another thing, by the rules, that the DM should be rolling. There aren't a huge amount of spells that have random durations but the players shouldn't know exactly when some spell effects are going to end. I love this one as a player, since it adds an interesting flare to combat when it does come up.
A DM should be rolling Perception checks, particularly when someone is searching for traps or secret doors. Be generous though and give them a chance to notice things when they might not call for perception too. I'd let the players roll if it's an opposed check though, just want to make sure people don't sit in a room re-checking for secret doors over and over while they roll 2's.
They should absolutely roll Disguise checks, since the end result of the check is what the PC using all the methods to his disposal, including asking his friends how it looks. It helps them act like they're well disguised even if there is some flaw in it. This is in the rules too: "The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is."
Random durations on spells (not a skill, I know) are another thing, by the rules, that the DM should be rolling. There aren't a huge amount of spells that have random durations but the players shouldn't know exactly when some spell effects are going to end. I love this one as a player, since it adds an interesting flare to combat when it does come up.
I think 4e made the right move in making the Passive Perception.
Perception rolling is for when you're trying to spot something you already know about - peering off into the distance, stumbling through the dark, that kinda thing.
If someone is sneaking by or picking your pocket, just assume the player took ten - incidentally, you could easily make the claim that everyone awake is always taking ten, since, you know, they can see.
|
In a potential combat situation, for example anywhere at all in a dungeon, I assume the PCs take 10 for any checks. If they say they are actively looking then they can roll. Otherwise I assume 10 plus skill total for them.
Nothing is worse than having your PCs roll to see if they see the bad guy lurking in the shadows, cause then they will go on alert and start looking even if they didn't roll high enough to see anything... sort of like telling them without blatantly saying "hey the assassin is in the shadows."
But then PCs get all pissy and moany and get their panties in a knot if the GM rolls and they still fail to notice. Then you have to hear them whine and cry that they would have rolled better. Bunch of babies! lol
BUT if they are chilling out in their rooms, I assume they are not on alert at all, and they get a big fat 0 for their roll unless they say otherwise.
|
|
I think 4e made the right move in making the Passive Perception.
Perception rolling is for when you're trying to spot something you already know about - peering off into the distance, stumbling through the dark, that kinda thing.
If someone is sneaking by or picking your pocket, just assume the player took ten - incidentally, you could easily make the claim that everyone awake is always taking ten, since, you know, they can see.
What does my post have to do with what your talking about? 4e didn't add taking 10 on spot checks, I know tons of people who did that in 3.5. A lot of groups just seemed to ignore the take 10 rule as a whole it seems like.
And no, if someone is picking your pocket that's a specific example of an opposed roll.
"If you try to take something from a creature, you must make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check. The opponent makes a Perception check to detect the attempt, opposed by the Sleight of Hand check result you achieved when you tried to grab the item. An opponent who succeeds on this check notices the attempt, regardless of whether you got the item. You cannot use this skill to take an object from another creature during combat if the creature is aware of your presence."
I think 4e made the right move in making the Passive Perception.
Perception rolling is for when you're trying to spot something you already know about - peering off into the distance, stumbling through the dark, that kinda thing.
If someone is sneaking by or picking your pocket, just assume the player took ten - incidentally, you could easily make the claim that everyone awake is always taking ten, since, you know, they can see.
What does my post have to do with what your talking about? 4e didn't add taking 10 on spot checks, I know tons of people who did that in 3.5. A lot of groups just seemed to ignore the take 10 rule as a whole it seems like.
And no, if someone is picking your pocket that's a specific example of an opposed roll.
"If you try to take something from a creature, you must make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check. The opponent makes a Perception check to detect the attempt, opposed by the Sleight of Hand check result you achieved when you tried to grab the item. An opponent who succeeds on this check notices the attempt, regardless of whether you got the item. You cannot use this skill to take an object from another creature during combat if the creature is aware of your presence."
I didn't actually mean to quote you ;p
As for pocket picking, I perfer my method. Might not be entirely up to the rules of the game, but hey, who plays things 100% by the rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the results will be immediately apparent to the PC, always let the player roll. Examples: climb checks (you climb or you don't), intimidate checks (he either cowers or he doesn't), knowledge checks (either you know it or you don't), etc.
When the PC won't know the rusults, then the DM should roll it secretly. Examples: Spot checks (if you fail to spot something, then you don't know it's there and you don't know you failed to spot something you don't know about), search checks (success is instantly known, but failure could mean there is nothing there or could mean you blew it and missed something that is there), stealth checks (you might think you're sneaky but you get spotted/heard anyway, and they might not sound the alarm immediately), disguise checks (looks good to you but might not fool everyone), etc.
It's hard not to metagame. What's worse, is that it can take away from the feel of the game when you know you rolled very poorly on that stealth check, etc
That being said, I am lazy, and don't nearly practice what I preach often enough...