If you're enjoying the content here, check out our new site, Thoughtcrime Games. Thanks for visiting!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Wizard: “I’m guessing there’s something more going on with that statue’s mouth- I use Arcana to try to feel out a magic aura. I get a 28.”DM: “There’s definitely some kind of problem with it. You’re not sure you want to go in there.”Swordmage: “I’m trained in Arcana too. I get a 35.”DM: “Uhh, you also detect a problem.”Psion: “We must not be rolling high enough. Lemme see… 38.”DM: “It’s bad, OK? Seriously.”Wizard: “Can I try again?”
DM: “Everybody make a perception check.”The players shout out numbers between 14 and 32.DM: “Everbody who got 15 or higher sees this door.”Ranger: “I tell the Barbarian where the door we all spotted is.”
- With multiple people rolling, the effectiveness of skill DCs drops. Higher DCs are much easier to accomplish with multiple rollers since the effect of variance is reduced.
- The person with a good idea just tends to be the catalyst for other people rolling- and then them getting the credit for the result.
- It dilutes the effect of training for characters.
- Having a group roll and wasting time getting multiple results, when they’re likely to succeed and it not matter at all who rolls what (or whom assists whom.)
These are not issues with 4e specifically (3e’s skill points had the same issue, and I’m sure there are other skill systems that do too), but 4e gives us a good tool to deal with this.
Base Suggestion: Group Training
When calling for a group check (i.e. multiple characters rolling the same skill), simply give the party as a whole one piece of information about the situation per PC trained in the skill. It is assumed that PCs will share knowledge and work together to overcome obstacles, and thus come up with a set of conclusions that would be shared.
This rule does not apply in a situation where only one PC would be rolling at a time: either the PC is separated, or for most skill challenges. It also does not apply on opposed checks (say, stealth versus perception.)
In a published adventure, where the DCs for a room are listed, you can simply ignore those values and start at the bottom, giving one of the results for each trained PC in the party.
For example:
The party has come across a room filled with ancient tapestries. Instead of calling for everyone to roll history, the DM asks how many PCs are trained in History. It turns out the Warlord and Paladin are.
The DM informs the party that the tapestries are from ancient Bael Turath (piece of information #1) and depicts a massive victory at a location at the east of the Nentir Value (piece of information #2.)
OPTION #1: Untrained Characters
Because everyone wants to contribute and you can get more variance in results, you can have anyone not trained make a skill roll as normal, and if they beat the DC, you add an additional piece of information as if they were trained.
For example:
In the example listed above, the trained characters have determined the first two pieces of information that they can determine from ancient tapestries. The Wizard, untrained in History but intelligent and with added bonuses, rolls and gets high enough to get an additional result. The DM also informs the group that the battlefield in question is also likely to contain some leftover infernal energy around the site of the battle.
OPTION #2: Untrained Characters + Risk
You may want to introduce an element of risk to untrained characters attempting something they are not specifically skilled at. When working together on a problem, sometimes an attempt to contribute can lead the group down the wrong path.
Thus, like in the above two examples, the DM asks how many players are trained in the skill. Then any characters untrained in the skill MAY make a roll, with a hidden DC set by the DM. He totals up the number of trained PCs plus those who beat the DC (successes) and the number of those who tried to beat the DC but failed (failures.)
In a list, the DM gives a number of accurate pieces of information about the situation equal to successes, and a number of inaccurate pieces of information about the situation equal to failures, and delivers them in no particular order.
For example:
As before, the tapestries are there, with 2 trained characters in history, 1 untrained who rolled well, and 1 untrained that rolled poorly.
The DM tells everyone:
- The tapestries are from ancient Bael Turath (true)
- They depict an ancient battle somewhere to the east of the Nentir Value (true)
- Bael Turath probably lost the battle (false)
- There is probably some infernal energy leftover at the site (true)
There are probably a few more variations of this that could be carved up as well, but ultimately, the goal is to speed up group skill usage that seems to come up so often, and cut down on the “me too” effect where everyone should roll for everything.
Fabulous! Adapting this for my own game…
I’ve noticed the same problems. Another solution is to co-opt a pre-existing mechanic: passive skills.
When you have a situation like this, where there’s no consequence for an individual failing and all that matters is that at least one person gets it, you can reverse the check so that it’s passive.
E.g. a DC 27 Arcana check would be 1d20+17 vs. the PCs’ passive Arcana (Arcana skill + 10)
Great Article – I had this exact problem at my table. Eventually I house-ruled it, and it basically goes like this:
If someone has a cool idea that would require a skill check for resolution, they get the option of
1) Making the check themselves
2) Picking another party member to which to suggest the action, and that PC can make the check if they want
3) Suggesting another PC helps them, and they have to give a description of how the help applies. If the help would constitute 40-50% of the work, then they both roll and take the higher result
If another PC wants to assist, but will not be providing at least 40% of the workload, they can roll a d20+mod, if they roll over 15 they give a +1 to the skill check, if over 20, they give a +2
If someone says, e.g. “I make a history check” and then they roll their die, that is the only history check that gets made in that situation. One other player may assist and give a max +2 in this case.
If a player protests and says they have a better history and they should have rolled, then I say something like this: “At the moment you can’t recall anything, but when you take your next extended rest, you can spend some time trying to recall what you know about the issue.” Then, if they remember to roll the check, I will tell them what they recall about the issue.
This does a couple of things:
1) stops the mad rolling situation where there is a high probability that at least one player will roll very high, basically negating the need for a skill check roll
2) allows the players with PCs who may be a bit rash or brash play that out in a way that affects the whole party – they jump the gun and roll and get low, now the players have to scramble to clean up the mess that PC made…
I really like Asmor’s approah to the problem as it both gives a benefit to those trained in a skill and doesn’t trigger a dice rolling avalanche.
Excellent article – we experienced this problem last weekend when the party was looking for secret doors. Everyone wanted a roll & the DM (new to 4e) had no good tools to prevent it within the narrative. Couple of great options here!
I particularly like the idea from Asmor too… having the DM roll a check against passive skills is brilliant.
Thanks for the help!
I think I like the idea of making more trained only skill rolls for overcoming obstacles. It tends to also promote Characters in a group taking a wider range of skills in order to avoid running into a situation where they are lacking in a trained skill. I also like Asmor’s recommendation for passive skill checks – that will streamline things considerably, and avoid “me too” rolling altogether in some instances.
Obviously I play D&D pretty regularly with Dave, and he pretty much taught me how to DM, so our tastes line up on things, but I wanted to add that I’m a fan of his Trained Skills = information method because it gets the players started with information before any rolls are made by anyone.
Great article.
With regard to “knowledge” checks (History, Arcana, etc) figuring out whether untrained checks will produce useful (true) information might depend on how widespread the information is. If the characters are all from far away, the DC might be impossible for untrained characters (not that you would tell them that though) and even for trained characters it may require multiple successes (you think you’ve heard of it…yes, you’ve heard of it…ah yes, this is what you know).
Specifically for the History example, I would probably make the Wizard do something like this:
1- Arcana check -> What kinds of energies might surround a battlefield? Maybe Infernal energies linger while Holy energies dissipate quickly.
2- History check -> What kinds of energies were used at _this_ battlefield?
Also, I’m a big fan of the mechanic that DMSamuel posted with one exception: #2 is not my favorite as, at least in the last group I played with, it leads to people ‘running’ the characters of other players.
If you’re in a note-passing group, I’d say that players may make suggestions to the DM (via notes) about what they think another character would do rather than suggesting it out loud. Then the DM can make the judgement about whether or not that character’s player should get the note. I’ve seen one case where a player got pissed off because other players kept suggesting things for their character to do.