[OOC] Wretched Souls Huddled in the Dark

[LinguaManiac]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hi everyone, I guess I'm back. Sorry for any issues or whatever.

The sun elf lives!!! Yay!!!

(And Trinity, it's nice to see you back too )

[Jeffkevlar]

Do, sorry if I gave anyone the idea that Stool was outside of the cell. He was in the corner of the cell with you.

[MrCeeJ]

Lol. I will have to modify my post tomorrow. No worries.

[Trinity]

Thank you

[Disaster Master]

Noticing Begon's suboptimal™ Intimidate check (not better than my own Performance check) reminded me of the following text on (passive) skills, which I found a very interesting and helpful read. The text tries (successfully, in my opinion) to clarify the distinction between passive checks and checks that involve a roll. In your case, Begon, the text would probably have suggested a passive check.

[Begon Ugo]

I was thinking that as well... but I wasn’t sure so I rolled anyway. Wish I didn’t!

[Begon Ugo]

Originally Posted by Disaster Master

Noticing Begon's suboptimal™ Intimidate check (not better than my own Performance check) reminded me of the following text on (passive) skills, which I found a very interesting and helpful read. The text tries (successfully, in my opinion) to clarify the distinction between passive checks and checks that involve a roll. In your case, Begon, the text would probably have suggested a passive check.

I just finished the article and it was quite enlightening...especially as I am thinking of taking the plunge into DMing myself. I wonder if my intimidation check would have used a passive score. In this instance I completed the act of intimidation and only rolled the dice in case it was called for. The DM can choose to ignore the roll at their discretion but having the roll there helps speed up play. I am going to bookmark this article though as I will probably read it a few times. Also thanks for pointing me in the direction of DMsworkshop!

[Begon Ugo]

Just found this in another article from the same site: Using this as a guide a skill check would not be needed for my intimidation as there was no challenge, the outcome is not uncertain (he wants freedom too), there is no immediate cost to failure, so role play takes precedence! I will e using this as my guidline when I dm. Great find!

So when should you call for an ability check? A good guideline to work with is that ability checks are really only necessary in situations where:

a challenge must be overcome
the outcome is uncertain; and
there is a cost associated with failure

[Jeffkevlar]

Interesting. That is actually kind of how I GM. For example in a different game I had someone transformed into a squirrel hiding in a ceiling trying to listen to a conversation. He wanted to roll perception and I told him not to bother. His goal was to hear what was being said openly.

In this case, I asked for performance because you are actively trying to impress someone who is predisposed to dislike you. Intimidation is another check that I will usually prefer rolled because it is an active attempt to change someone’s demeaner. Usually I won’t punish anyone for a failed attempt unless they critically fail. They just didn’t change the attitude of the target.

[Begon Ugo]

Cool...It is interesting to look at these scenarios from the other side of the table. I love learning experiences!

[Disaster Master]

As for the Performance roll, I totally agree, especially as the goal was to make a particularly good performance. I guess a passive Performance check would be called for if I attempted just to sing a lullaby for my children, which I do every day.

With respect to speeding up the gameplay, I wouldn't mind if some of my rolls are rolled by the DM. For example, say, if I write that Rugadh Faoi takes a look at a chamber, and the DM deems that a Perception check is needed, it is fine with me if the DM makes the roll for me so that he can write a reply without waiting for me to roll.

Jeff, as you said something about critical failures with respect to skill checks: As rolling a 1 or 20 for ability checks and saving throws does not mean critical failure or success in 5e, do we have a house rule that rules otherwise (see DMG, p. 242)? If you asked me, I would prefer the base version where 1 and 20 are not special, especially for skill checks.

[Jeffkevlar]

In terms of skill checks, usually 1s and 2s don’t trigger anything. That being said, a roll of a one might trigger something adverse in terms of game play/ story.

Rolling a one means that you have done such a terrible job you might have to deal with the consequences, but it will be story driven not some arbitrary d100 roll.

[Disaster Master]

So, if I have, say +5 on an ability and roll a 1, am I worse off (in terms of story consequences) than someone with a, say, -1 on the same abilities and who rolls a 2?

[LinguaManiac]

Originally Posted by Jeffkevlar

In terms of skill checks, usually 1s and 2s don’t trigger anything. That being said, a roll of a one might trigger something adverse in terms of game play/ story.

Rolling a one means that you have done such a terrible job you might have to deal with the consequences, but it will be story driven not some arbitrary d100 roll.

I've always liked this. It seems to model luck in the real-world so well. Yeah, you might be a master on the uneven bars, but even masters make mistakes. And a mistake of a master is going to (often) have more serious consequences than the mistakes of a novice. After all, the novice was just trying to hang there. The master was trying to do a triple-flip dismount.

[Begon Ugo]

Good point!