Hello! So after last session my fighter complained I ask for too many skill checks and I think he was actually right. I was wondering how others handle the above situations:
1. Perception. The party walks into a room there is a trap, object, something that requires a check to be noticed.
a. Do you roll behind the screen for the party and tell the person that got the check 'Your rogue notices X'?
b. Do you ask the players to roll?
c. Do you wait for the PCs to say 'I roll perception to check the room'?
2. Sense motive. This is where its gone BAD for me. Cause when I ask for a sense motive check and they fail, the wizard goes and preps his interrogation spell. Yes, its metagaming on his part but how could I handle it better?
a. Ask for a roll in EVERY dialog?
b. Roll behind the screen?
c. Just talk to the players and tell them that they 'really really believe this guy'?
3. Diplomacy / Intimidation / Bluff.
Problem 1. I have come across a specific player -that might join our game- that rolls say the warrior with 10 int and 8 wis, with 0 points on social skills and then roleplays a charismatic tactical genius. So I've been doing "Let's roleplay this but you also have to roll a check".
Problem 2. How many rolls should I allow in a social situation? 1 per player? 1 per type? Should I up the DC if the first attempt fails? What I had last session was Fighter tries intimidation and fails, Rogue tries intimidation and fails, Fighter tried bluff, Mage tries diplomacy... well, at some point they'll get it.
a. Ask for a roll in every dialog?
b. Roll behind the screen?
c. Allow one check of each type per situation and only one check per person?
Thank you!
Edit: To say nothing of my undead master who is playing a 'charismatic talker' with a shambling skeleton at his back. How do I even handle that? He doesn't have the undead with him all the time but still... shouldn't it affect this 'charismatic roleplay' and rolls?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ad. 1. If the PCs don't have any ability to notice traps automatically, I require them to declare the action of searching for a trap. For the party rogue, who has Trap Spotter talent, I roll before the session and I know from the beginning if she's going to notice it automatically or not.
Same with hidden objects. Without a specific ability they cannot be found without searching.
If there's a detail in the room that isn't hidden, but can be easily overlooked, it varies, but usually I roll beforehand, and if PCs succeed, I tell them the moment they are able to see it (unless they are distracted, which may incur -5 penalty). If they decide to investigate the room on their own decision, they get another roll (remember, with anough time Perception checks can be tried again).
Ad. 2. I roll Sense Motive in secret. That being said, I usualy play using roll20 website, so it's easy for me to make a secret roll without players knowing I make a roll at all.
Ad. 3. I allow the PCs to try various approachs in one conversation, but failed attempts can make future checks more difficult (circumstance modifier to the DC). They roll everything in open - those are their actions, after the fact they can feel how good their attempt was.
If they want to use Diplomacy, and NPC is unfriendly, they first need to shift the attitude at least to indifferent. As in RAW, they can only try to do that once. Only then they can try to make requests, and they can make only one check for a given request, but if they fail they can try asking for something else.
Intimidation can also be used to influence the attitude, and it can be retried, but with every fail the DC rises.
Bluff checks are made for every lie separately. Failed Bluffs cause penalties for future attempts.
If anything makes you think that it would affect the social interaction (like the skeleton), apply a circumstance modifier. At any point, decided by GM, the NPC can refuse to continue the conversation and become uncooperative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 b, 2 b, 3 varies.
Asking for a lot of skill checks is bad for big dumb fighters and for most spellcasters, good for skill monkeys. I don't see discouraging BDFs as a bad thing and encouraging skill monkeys over spellcasters is an outright good thing IMO.
If people are doing dumb things like trying to charm (non-magically) NPCs with stinking undead around then tell them it's a bad idea, describe the NPC running off in fear, whatever. The players should pick this up pretty fast. If you don't provide this feedback then they can reasonably excuse doing it repeatedly though.
Just asking the players not to use metagaming info as you describe the wizard doing when you asked for a sense motive check is also necessary IMO.
Thanks for the advice!
I pre-rolled perceptions for the next session and I'll use your advice on social skills too.
As for the necro, I'll have a few shopkeepers turn him out and give him a penalty on diplomacy rolls and a bonus on intimidation to balance things out. If he wants to play the diplomat he'll have to work for it. I'm one of those DMs who is too worried about upsetting their players :(
Adjoint is correct about Perception checks in that they need to have a special ability for you to prompt them to check for traps. They should check on their own if they feel like they should.
Sense Motive is generally something the players request that they do rather than you prompting them unless there's a specific thing that requires you get them to do a Sense Motive check.
You shouldn't let completely uncharismatic characters just entirely bypass stats. Maybe point out if they're acting out of character.
Hello! So after last session my fighter complained I ask for too many skill checks and I think he was actually right.
Hmm, interesting. I wonder if that has anything to with, you know, Fighters being especially shafted in the skill department (although Advanced Weapon/Armour Training helps) and simply having very few options to be any good at more then 2 or 3 skills tops. And seeing that things like Perception are neither class skills (unless they spend a trait on it), nor do they rely on stats warrior types usually boost...
Oh and are you aware of things like the 'Hard to Fool' Rogue Talent? Where a rogue gets to re-roll a Sense Motive check ONCE per day (okay and once more per 5 rogue levels, but still)?
Now imagine if the group needs to ask an entire village worth of people to, say, get a single clue about something. If you make the rogue roll for every single person he talks to, the ability becomes less and less useful.
Now, on the other hand, if you let him roll once for the Gather Information side of Diplomacy, representing 1d4 hours of canvassing people, why not also allow him a single roll to get a hunch about how all the people he talked to feel about the situation?
And if THAT roll reveals that there are one or two Persons of Interest that may require more detailed questioning? Well, that are two new scenes and those require their own rolls.
But even then, making them roll for every single question, well...
But to get into some details:
1. Perception. The party walks into a room there is a trap, object, something that requires a check to be noticed.
Well, Perception is usually rolled actively, that is, you have to announce you want to look for anything not immediately obvious. The Trap Spotter talent means that the rogue PC remembers to check for traps, even if the player doesn't, because having to declare 'I search for traps' every room or corridor gets old fast. VERY fast.
As far as any skills go where the result isn't known to the players, well, usually that means that the GM makes the roll in secret. Especially if the players have a bad habit of metagaming low rolls.
This usually goes for Perception and Sense Motive, but also Disguise and Forgery (function of the Linguistics skill), where people will only find out how good they were when the disguise/forgery actually gets put to the test.
2. Sense motive. This is where its gone BAD for me. Cause when I ask for a sense motive check and they fail, the wizard goes and preps his interrogation spell. Yes, its metagaming on his part but how could I handle it better?
Well, this is a problem with the player, not the game, so maybe ask him to tone it down if he wants to make those rolls himself? Otherwise, simply make the rolls yourself, IN SECRET, and just tell him if HIS CHARACTER gets a hunch there is some dishonesty involved.
As for frequency of rolls, see above.
3. Diplomacy / Intimidation / Bluff.Problem 1. I have come across a specific player -that might join our game- that rolls say the warrior with 10 int and 8 wis, with 0 points on social skills and then roleplays a charismatic tactical genius. So I've been doing "Let's roleplay this but you also have to roll a check".
Ah yes, the old 'wanting to eat your cake and have it problem'.
My advice? Make him roll. If he fails to beat the DC, his character fails at his task, no matter how glib the Player may be.
If he asks why the check failed, maybe tell him something like 'If a Wizard wants to cast Fireball, he needs two things: A free spell slot of 3rd level or higher, and the actual spell formula to memorize. If he has only one, or neither of these things, he simply can not cast the spell. If your character wants to succeed at social skills, he must either put in the skill ranks, or try to compensate with stats, feats and traits. With a skill mod of -1, beating that DC 20 skill check is hard.'
And if he presses you to clarify why his silvered words fail to impress people, just shrug and tell him: 'How does a Wizard cast Fireball? How does a Rogue (with Trapfinding) detect a magical trap with no visible or tangible trigger? Or evade a Fireball completely unscathed? They just do.'
Alternatively: 'Beats me, it's YOUR character, YOU tell me.'
Edit: To say nothing of my undead master who is playing a 'charismatic talker' with a shambling skeleton at his back. How do I even handle that? He doesn't have the undead with him all the time but still... shouldn't it affect this 'charismatic roleplay' and rolls?
Well, that may require a bit more finesse. Maybe have a chat with the player about how he thinks people in this setting should react?
If he figures 'Hey they are dragons and wizards and stuff, why would people bat an eye at what is basically a manservant, who just happens to be a skeleton?', then that is quite different from 'Necromancers are 'Kill on Sight' for every Paladin and people are justifiably scared of undead, because obviously they only exist to extinguish all life...'
Both are valid depending on the setting. As for shops, well, even if people are cool with undead manservants, maybe NOT bring them into places that would ask you to leave your pet outside too? I mean, a magical emporium is one thing, but a food vendor or upscale clothing store may be quite another.
I pre-rolled perceptions for the next session and I'll use your advice on social skills too.
Please don't do that. Rolling dice is still one half of the whole game (the roll-play vs. the role-play), and if you take that away from players, they will feel like you put them on rails.
After all, they will never know if you secretly rolled badly for a highly skilled character and WIS 8 Fighter just got lucky on his Percpetion roll, or if you just decided which outcomes you like best.
Sure, technically they don't know that if you roll secretly either, but believe me, the FEEL is QUITE different, and in this case makes all the difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like the idea of trap spotter talents, because I don't think it's very realistic for players to continually ask to roll for perception.
If I'm in a dangerous situation (like a dungeon) I feel uneasy and I am aware that I am in a dangerous situation. This is why I look around and make sure I'm not being ambushed.
If I'm just a player though, I'm not personally feeling the danger (for obvious reasons) so I could forget. I think of it as requiring players to remember to eat. Players would forget, but characters wouldn't just forget to eat or "take care of business"
I prefer rolling for players as I think that helps the sense of immersion and doesn't penalize players for being forgetful.
Trap Spotter isn't "the character remembers to check for traps". It's that the character notices something that indicates there might be a trap nearby because they know the signs, so they decide to check to see if they find any.