I will add to my answer that in the case of spammed checks - either from one PC or several, all trying the same thing over and over - It's important to consider the consequences:
A: No Consequences - making noise or taking time is irrelevant here. Perhaps it's an abandoned shack in the woods, and they're trying to break the door down. In this case, narrate from the first roll - if the player rolls 5 or less ,they fail, and 6+ is a success, the higher they roll, the more successful (EG a 6 is "after a few minutes of battering it with your axe, you manage to break the door open" and a 15+ is "you break the door down in one kick".
B: some consequences - making noise or taking time could affect a ticking clock or attract/alert enemies. Each check risks a roll to see if they are noticed, and takes 6 seconds. 2 people cannot attempt the same thing in a 6-second turn, so if 6 people try, it takes 36 seconds minimum. Narration indicates the time passing and noises made; "You kick the door, the loud boom echoing down the corridors, but it doesn't give." Rogue: "I will pick the lock" - "The barbarian moves aside and you kneel down, carefully taking out your lockpicks, and start working the lock, make a roll".
Bear in mind most people won't have their lockpicks in their hands, so it's an action to get them from their packs, then an action to start pick9ing. I'm also against the idea of locks only taking 6 seconds to pick, but that's a more specific issue!
C: Immediate consequences - they make the first failed check, and bad things happen. Maybe a trap clamps hold of their foot, grappling them to the door. maybe enemies start scrabbling at the other side. maybe the room fills with a pale mist which renders any organic matter numb. in any case, a second attempt is the last thing on their minds!
I will add to my answer that in the case of spammed checks - either from one PC or several, all trying the same thing over and over - It's important to consider the consequences:
A: No Consequences - making noise or taking time is irrelevant here. Perhaps it's an abandoned shack in the woods, and they're trying to break the door down. In this case, narrate from the first roll - if the player rolls 5 or less ,they fail, and 6+ is a success, the higher they roll, the more successful (EG a 6 is "after a few minutes of battering it with your axe, you manage to break the door open" and a 15+ is "you break the door down in one kick".
B: some consequences - making noise or taking time could affect a ticking clock or attract/alert enemies. Each check risks a roll to see if they are noticed, and takes 6 seconds. 2 people cannot attempt the same thing in a 6-second turn, so if 6 people try, it takes 36 seconds minimum. Narration indicates the time passing and noises made; "You kick the door, the loud boom echoing down the corridors, but it doesn't give." Rogue: "I will pick the lock" - "The barbarian moves aside and you kneel down, carefully taking out your lockpicks, and start working the lock, make a roll".
Bear in mind most people won't have their lockpicks in their hands, so it's an action to get them from their packs, then an action to start pick9ing. I'm also against the idea of locks only taking 6 seconds to pick, but that's a more specific issue!
C: Immediate consequences - they make the first failed check, and bad things happen. Maybe a trap clamps hold of their foot, grappling them to the door. maybe enemies start scrabbling at the other side. maybe the room fills with a pale mist which renders any organic matter numb. in any case, a second attempt is the last thing on their minds!
In general, why do you assume each skill check takes 6 seconds? 6 seconds is the time a turn takes when in combat, but there are plenty of things that take longer to do than 1 turn. Searching a room, lockpicking a door, disarming a trap, breaking down a door with a crowbar, etc.. Even things like a History check to try to remember some lore can take longer (thinking takes time). A persuasion check to try to convince someone to help you can take minutes or even hours! Even actions that in combat really do just take 1 turn don't necessarily take 6 seconds when out of combat. In combat you are rushing and doing everything at peak performance, but out of combat your heroes will typically take more time. They'd be physically and mentally exhausted if they dealt with everyday situations the same way they dealt with combat (well known example is regular speed vs traveling speed)
I will add to my answer that in the case of spammed checks - either from one PC or several, all trying the same thing over and over - It's important to consider the consequences:
A: No Consequences - making noise or taking time is irrelevant here. Perhaps it's an abandoned shack in the woods, and they're trying to break the door down. In this case, narrate from the first roll - if the player rolls 5 or less ,they fail, and 6+ is a success, the higher they roll, the more successful (EG a 6 is "after a few minutes of battering it with your axe, you manage to break the door open" and a 15+ is "you break the door down in one kick".
B: some consequences - making noise or taking time could affect a ticking clock or attract/alert enemies. Each check risks a roll to see if they are noticed, and takes 6 seconds. 2 people cannot attempt the same thing in a 6-second turn, so if 6 people try, it takes 36 seconds minimum. Narration indicates the time passing and noises made; "You kick the door, the loud boom echoing down the corridors, but it doesn't give." Rogue: "I will pick the lock" - "The barbarian moves aside and you kneel down, carefully taking out your lockpicks, and start working the lock, make a roll".
Bear in mind most people won't have their lockpicks in their hands, so it's an action to get them from their packs, then an action to start pick9ing. I'm also against the idea of locks only taking 6 seconds to pick, but that's a more specific issue!
C: Immediate consequences - they make the first failed check, and bad things happen. Maybe a trap clamps hold of their foot, grappling them to the door. maybe enemies start scrabbling at the other side. maybe the room fills with a pale mist which renders any organic matter numb. in any case, a second attempt is the last thing on their minds!
In general, why do you assume each skill check takes 6 seconds? 6 seconds is the time a turn takes when in combat, but there are plenty of things that take longer to do than 1 turn. Searching a room, lockpicking a door, disarming a trap, breaking down a door with a crowbar, etc.. Even things like a History check to try to remember some lore can take longer (thinking takes time). A persuasion check to try to convince someone to help you can take minutes or even hours! Even actions that in combat really do just take 1 turn don't necessarily take 6 seconds when out of combat. In combat you are rushing and doing everything at peak performance, but out of combat your heroes will typically take more time. They'd be physically and mentally exhausted if they dealt with everyday situations the same way they dealt with combat (well known example is regular speed vs traveling speed)
All fair points, I was angling for a minimum of 6s, and ticking clocks tend to (for me) happen at initiative, though now I think about it there's a lot more things which can be ticking clocks - getting home from the ball by midnight, for example!
I allow two characters to work together on a given task in any situation. If they want to roll with advantage via help action, they do it, otherwise they both roll. Any other players can use guidance/bless or anything else to help if they want and it makes sense for the situation.
If they all want to work towards a specific task, I treat it like a group skill check. They tell me their intent, I assign a skill and a DC, and at least half the party must succeed in order for the overall task to succeed.
For example, the party wants to investigate a crime scene. Rather than having 6 people roll investigation, all but guaranteeing success, I ask them how they use their backgrounds or talents to help with the investigation. If they spend spell or feature resources, they automatically succeed as appropriate, at best, or generate advantage for themselves, at worst.
Same thing can be applied to a bunch of situations, rather than allowing full success or failure from a single check, have successes and failures advance the situation or complicate the situation, this way the party can all have chances to contribute with skill checks if they should want to.
If it's for perception, just don't call for checks except for when calling for specific players. Use passive perception all the time and roll against that passive perception or set DC's and if the DC falls below a passive perception, it's automatically spotted.
Lastly, if the issue is that people want to keep just retrying checks, then the foundation of DnD has fallen apart. If there is no consequence to a failed check, there is no reason to have a roll at all. If the characters can just keep trying to open the door, then just have it open when they attempt to open it, or have the lockpicking automatically succeed. Otherwise, complicate the situation (Broken lockpicks, enemy patrols, traps) and then after that complication is applied, let them try again, likely with even more dire consequences should they fail again.)
I usually limit rolls to PCs that have proficiency in the skill. Not for things like Athletics but knowledge skills like Religion or History.
Sticking to that as a hard rule would eliminate the highly entertaining times when the INT-as-a-dump-stat barbarian suddenly blurts out some obscure bit of esoteric knowledge after a great roll, and you ask the player to explain how their character could possibly know that information
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
My players normally don't do the skill check dog pile. However, if they were to attempt to I would limit it to characters who would have a reason to make an additional skill check.
For example, If there is something related to a dragon, one of my players might make a History check to see if they know anything about dragons in the local area. My dragon-themed player, who is not proficient with history, may also make a check because it would be something specific that they might know or have been interested in as a character. Another example of when I would allow some sort of dogpiling would be if they were interacting with someone that they expect to be untrustworthy. IF they all want to make an insite check on what the NPC was saying to determine its validity, there is no problem with that.
I would not allow a situation like "We need to do some research on this thing. We always have our wizard do it but he botched the roll for research so I'm going to roll it too."
Of course, I also limit Players from making checks haphazardly to gain meta information as well. For example, My players got teleported because of the Botched teleportation spell with a deviation percentage of 48 when they were trying to teleport to the actual other side of the world. So they could have teleported almost anywhere. One of my players wanted to make a check to see if they knew where they were despite the character having never been to anyplace on the contentment that they were on and not having any information about where they were aside from a lake and a forest. This was a situation where I didn't allow them to make a check because they would have had no possible idea to know where they were.
I usually limit rolls to PCs that have proficiency in the skill. Not for things like Athletics but knowledge skills like Religion or History.
Sticking to that as a hard rule would eliminate the highly entertaining times when the INT-as-a-dump-stat barbarian suddenly blurts out some obscure bit of esoteric knowledge after a great roll, and you ask the player to explain how their character could possibly know that information
Thats why I use rule that player that said it first can roll. After that first roll only characters that are proficient can try.
I usually limit rolls to PCs that have proficiency in the skill. Not for things like Athletics but knowledge skills like Religion or History.
Sticking to that as a hard rule would eliminate the highly entertaining times when the INT-as-a-dump-stat barbarian suddenly blurts out some obscure bit of esoteric knowledge after a great roll, and you ask the player to explain how their character could possibly know that information
That is the kind of thing I want to eliminate. True, one of my groups might be entertained, but the others would lose their sense of verisimilitude.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I've been lucky enough to play with a group of people who role play enough to not try to just have everyone throw their hat in on stuff that their character wouldn't logically know on the off-chance that they'll succeed through sheer luck. For example, one player in my group took the Far Traveler background and sticks to it... she never attempts history checks unless it's some kind of worldwide feature (like, she might know about general Dwarven culture, but nothing about any famous Dwarves in the game). Our Cleric character doesn't bother for any survival or nature checks, since she was born and raised in a city. Although our Wizard can generally justify contributing to just about any sort of knowledge or logic puzzle, since he's been established as a well-read student who has researched a lot of different topics in his schooling.
It depends on the situation and what the check is for.
Picking a lock, First player fails, I will allow another attempt by a different player as long as they have an equal or better level of skill at the thing, so non thieves tool character attempts, fails, Player with thieves tools but not profficent in it attempts fails, a character proficient can then attempt, but depending on how poor the rolls are the DC may get harder. This represents real life of someone trying to do a thing and then someone more skilled having a go after.
Lifting a heavy box, pushing a boulder etc everyone gets a go, just because the minotaur barbarian failed to lift the thing, maybe he pulled a muscle, or lifted it wrong, that does not stop someone else trying, or 2 people combined.
Deciphering a code, again anyone can have a look and have a try. A close fail may lower the next DC as the player is working things out but hasn't quite got it (I run scaled DC's so there is rarely a binary fail succeed DC).
A history check, I will decide which characters might know a thing and let them roll, I don't just let anyone have a go.
Now taking more attempts may have other impacts, it might take more time meaning the bad guys have time to prepare, or more chance of the party being caught. They might make more noise, or use additional resources.
Searching for traps at most 2 people can look (either both rolling or one getting advantage), searching a room again, one player does it, maybe with help. If there is a reason for another character to think they might have missed something I might let them have another go, but there has to be a clear reason. For instance recently a player rolled a 10 investigating a smugglers storage room, they found the barrels of cheap beer where actually high value spirits, but ignored the 2 barrels full of fish. in the next room another player found a barrel with a false bottom, remembered the 2 barrels of fish in the first room so went back to look for a false bottom, one of them had it. I didn't make them roll for that search as going back and just tipping the barrel over made sense. If the character had not searched the barrel, or found the false bottom they would not have been able to go back and search the room again.
Lifting a heavy box, pushing a boulder etc everyone gets a go, just because the minotaur barbarian failed to lift the thing, maybe he pulled a muscle, or lifted it wrong, that does not stop someone else trying, or 2 people combined.
I no longer do dice rolls for that kind of thing. If the strongest party member (20) can't lift a thing it is unlikely that the weakest (8) could do so. Although lifting and such is under encumbrance rules.
But given some STR tasks, I give the task a STR threshold. For instance, if a door has a STR threshold of 16, one or more PCs can work at it for a total of 16 STR to open it. No rolls, just add it up. This also stops the random instance where everybody fails and the party can't progress.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
An example I saw in this thread is trying to lift something. Honestly I'd not even have them roll if it falls easily within their lifting capacity. But if it gets close or is somehow unwieldy or stuck, then each party member who piles in should make it easier. So long as there isn't a direct consequence for the first guy failing, they can filter in one by one no problems. If a bunch all come at once again might not have any rolls if their now combined lifting capacity easily handles it.
For tasks where there is no consequence for failure and their attempts don't meaningfully change the situation... each player who chimes in to try it just rolls independently. Say there is a hidden compartment in the desk in a room the rogue investigates but rolls a 3 on. "Nothing here" he says but the wizard isn't doing anything and says they want to investigate too. No biggie, he rolls independently at the DC stays the same.
Whatabout a similar situation but there is a consequence for failure? Let's say this time there are footprints in the room. The rogue rolls a 3 and "nothing here"'s it. The wizard follows up saying he'd like to look around too. Okay, but now the DC is higher because the footprints were disturbed by the rogue.
It all depends on what they're doing, if they can fail, or how well their combined efforts make the task easier or harder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
When rolling do a single roll and only one roll. Don't allow multiples, it wrecks the gameplay. For most scenarios have an out that they can use. Is there a key hidden in the room that could open up the chest they failed on their lockpick or do they just smash the check and maybe damage what's inside to get into the chest? Did they fail the persuasion check and killed the NPC, is there a note on the NPC's body that could be a clue? Is there a hidden door that they failed to open, and just as they leave does a monster open the door?
Typically for things that progress the game, have an alternative route available IF the players search, look, roleplay or think. In some cases, when they fail, that's it, it won't work.
Depends how I am feeling. Usually, I will give them one crack at it. Maybe a second attempt, if its important. However, this is where qualified success comes into play. If a player fails the roll, having them succeed but with a negative consequence really does negate the dogpiling instinct and doesn't stop the action moving forwards.
Lifting a heavy box, pushing a boulder etc everyone gets a go, just because the minotaur barbarian failed to lift the thing, maybe he pulled a muscle, or lifted it wrong, that does not stop someone else trying, or 2 people combined.
I no longer do dice rolls for that kind of thing. If the strongest party member (20) can't lift a thing it is unlikely that the weakest (8) could do so. Although lifting and such is under encumbrance rules.
But given some STR tasks, I give the task a STR threshold. For instance, if a door has a STR threshold of 16, one or more PCs can work at it for a total of 16 STR to open it. No rolls, just add it up. This also stops the random instance where everybody fails and the party can't progress.
How then do you work out how long it takes the party to do a thing. Some tasks I don’t set a DC the roll is simply to gauge how long it takes the party to achieve that guaranteed result. But I track time closely in my sessions because things are constantly happening in the world, it isn’t all static until the characters are in scene. Also as I said I use ranged DCs now far more for tasks and non combat checks, for instance I might set a dc of 13 for success but 11 and 12 also give a successful failure
Heh. This always comes up when my players are like, "I wanna roll a perception...oh I ALSO roll perception"
I always just rule this as, "who in the room would like to make the roll? Roll with adv. as your team is helping you"
Easy...done...no fuss...
How then do you work out how long it takes the party to do a thing
To answer for Wysperra and add my two cents...maybe you don't -- in most cases I don't think it will truly matter. If time is an issue then likely only one player should get a shot at doing the check and then I don't think you'd apply this rule. For everything else, this feels like 3E's "take 10/take 20" action so apply that time accordingly.
It depend if the task can be attempted more than once or not. If nothing prevent someone from doing it after first try, then it can be done again and may or may not have consequences. So once a task is done for the first time;
If no one can do the task again, no check.
If the same person get the task done repeatedly, make passive check.
If a different person get to try the task once, make active check.
Heh. This always comes up when my players are like, "I wanna roll a perception...oh I ALSO roll perception"
I always just rule this as, "who in the room would like to make the roll? Roll with adv. as your team is helping you"
Easy...done...no fuss...
How then do you work out how long it takes the party to do a thing
To answer for Wysperra and add my two cents...maybe you don't -- in most cases I don't think it will truly matter. If time is an issue then likely only one player should get a shot at doing the check and then I don't think you'd apply this rule. For everything else, this feels like 3E's "take 10/take 20" action so apply that time accordingly.
Agreed, getting a stuck door open or pushing a rock to the side doesn't take that long.
As a GM, time in the game is FLUID. Yes the world doesn't/shouldn't stand still while the PCs are doing their thing HOWEVER make the other events happen in the most meaningful way. The PCs don't know what is happening outside the castle while they raid it and it doesn't matter until you want it to matter. Did the patrol come back? Are another group of thieves raiding? Did the prince wake up to take a midnight snack? Doesn't matter until you want it to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As a GM, time in the game is FLUID. Yes the world doesn't/shouldn't stand still while the PCs are doing their thing HOWEVER make the other events happen in the most meaningful way. The PCs don't know what is happening outside the castle while they raid it and it doesn't matter until you want it to matter. Did the patrol come back? Are another group of thieves raiding? Did the prince wake up to take a midnight snack? Doesn't matter until you want it to.
This is true, but remember if you too frequently have things happen at the perfect time, regardless of what the PCs are doing, it'll start feeling awfully convenient. If you set some of these events down on a timeline in advance, and then just let the chips fall where they may, it can add some sense that the world is alive and breathing and might not fully revolve around the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Heh. This always comes up when my players are like, "I wanna roll a perception...oh I ALSO roll perception"
I always just rule this as, "who in the room would like to make the roll? Roll with adv. as your team is helping you"
Easy...done...no fuss...
How then do you work out how long it takes the party to do a thing
To answer for Wysperra and add my two cents...maybe you don't -- in most cases I don't think it will truly matter. If time is an issue then likely only one player should get a shot at doing the check and then I don't think you'd apply this rule. For everything else, this feels like 3E's "take 10/take 20" action so apply that time accordingly.
Agreed, getting a stuck door open or pushing a rock to the side doesn't take that long.
As a GM, time in the game is FLUID. Yes the world doesn't/shouldn't stand still while the PCs are doing their thing HOWEVER make the other events happen in the most meaningful way. The PCs don't know what is happening outside the castle while they raid it and it doesn't matter until you want it to matter. Did the patrol come back? Are another group of thieves raiding? Did the prince wake up to take a midnight snack? Doesn't matter until you want it to.
If the dice rolls are bad enough then it might take 10 -15 mins to get that boulder out of the way, the way i plan out my games are that the world is moving and advancing regardless of the players, they take too long getting through the forest, they reach the town after a dragon attack. They get through the forest quickly, they reach the town just before.
I have had BBEG's be killed by NPC adventuring parties in the past because the party went off on a tangent, but on the micro level, whether or not the Guard comes round and finds them trying to pick a lock def does depend on how quickly they do it, yes they are going to pick the lock regardless, but a poor roll means there is a very good chance they will be disturbed. A good roll means they get through and get the door closed just in time to hear the guards feet walking past.
I don't present linear stories, I have a spreadsheet I maintain for larger world events that tracks the time that has gone and what has happened there are events the party will never get to experiance but may well hear about, or experiance the after effects of, throughout the world. They physically can't interact with them all and that is done on purpose, it is an open world and the players decide which things they want to get involved with and sometimes there choices will result in the deaths of innocents somewhere else. They are learning to balance that and I apply that to every part of the adventure, from how they dislodge a boulder, to deciding which city to visit next, to chasing down the leads to a cult seeking to kill the gods. While they. do X Y is busy causing issues elsewhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will add to my answer that in the case of spammed checks - either from one PC or several, all trying the same thing over and over - It's important to consider the consequences:
A: No Consequences - making noise or taking time is irrelevant here. Perhaps it's an abandoned shack in the woods, and they're trying to break the door down. In this case, narrate from the first roll - if the player rolls 5 or less ,they fail, and 6+ is a success, the higher they roll, the more successful (EG a 6 is "after a few minutes of battering it with your axe, you manage to break the door open" and a 15+ is "you break the door down in one kick".
B: some consequences - making noise or taking time could affect a ticking clock or attract/alert enemies. Each check risks a roll to see if they are noticed, and takes 6 seconds. 2 people cannot attempt the same thing in a 6-second turn, so if 6 people try, it takes 36 seconds minimum. Narration indicates the time passing and noises made; "You kick the door, the loud boom echoing down the corridors, but it doesn't give." Rogue: "I will pick the lock" - "The barbarian moves aside and you kneel down, carefully taking out your lockpicks, and start working the lock, make a roll".
Bear in mind most people won't have their lockpicks in their hands, so it's an action to get them from their packs, then an action to start pick9ing. I'm also against the idea of locks only taking 6 seconds to pick, but that's a more specific issue!
C: Immediate consequences - they make the first failed check, and bad things happen. Maybe a trap clamps hold of their foot, grappling them to the door. maybe enemies start scrabbling at the other side. maybe the room fills with a pale mist which renders any organic matter numb. in any case, a second attempt is the last thing on their minds!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
In general, why do you assume each skill check takes 6 seconds? 6 seconds is the time a turn takes when in combat, but there are plenty of things that take longer to do than 1 turn. Searching a room, lockpicking a door, disarming a trap, breaking down a door with a crowbar, etc.. Even things like a History check to try to remember some lore can take longer (thinking takes time). A persuasion check to try to convince someone to help you can take minutes or even hours! Even actions that in combat really do just take 1 turn don't necessarily take 6 seconds when out of combat. In combat you are rushing and doing everything at peak performance, but out of combat your heroes will typically take more time. They'd be physically and mentally exhausted if they dealt with everyday situations the same way they dealt with combat (well known example is regular speed vs traveling speed)
All fair points, I was angling for a minimum of 6s, and ticking clocks tend to (for me) happen at initiative, though now I think about it there's a lot more things which can be ticking clocks - getting home from the ball by midnight, for example!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I allow two characters to work together on a given task in any situation. If they want to roll with advantage via help action, they do it, otherwise they both roll. Any other players can use guidance/bless or anything else to help if they want and it makes sense for the situation.
If they all want to work towards a specific task, I treat it like a group skill check. They tell me their intent, I assign a skill and a DC, and at least half the party must succeed in order for the overall task to succeed.
For example, the party wants to investigate a crime scene. Rather than having 6 people roll investigation, all but guaranteeing success, I ask them how they use their backgrounds or talents to help with the investigation. If they spend spell or feature resources, they automatically succeed as appropriate, at best, or generate advantage for themselves, at worst.
Same thing can be applied to a bunch of situations, rather than allowing full success or failure from a single check, have successes and failures advance the situation or complicate the situation, this way the party can all have chances to contribute with skill checks if they should want to.
If it's for perception, just don't call for checks except for when calling for specific players. Use passive perception all the time and roll against that passive perception or set DC's and if the DC falls below a passive perception, it's automatically spotted.
Lastly, if the issue is that people want to keep just retrying checks, then the foundation of DnD has fallen apart. If there is no consequence to a failed check, there is no reason to have a roll at all. If the characters can just keep trying to open the door, then just have it open when they attempt to open it, or have the lockpicking automatically succeed. Otherwise, complicate the situation (Broken lockpicks, enemy patrols, traps) and then after that complication is applied, let them try again, likely with even more dire consequences should they fail again.)
Sticking to that as a hard rule would eliminate the highly entertaining times when the INT-as-a-dump-stat barbarian suddenly blurts out some obscure bit of esoteric knowledge after a great roll, and you ask the player to explain how their character could possibly know that information
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
My players normally don't do the skill check dog pile. However, if they were to attempt to I would limit it to characters who would have a reason to make an additional skill check.
For example, If there is something related to a dragon, one of my players might make a History check to see if they know anything about dragons in the local area. My dragon-themed player, who is not proficient with history, may also make a check because it would be something specific that they might know or have been interested in as a character. Another example of when I would allow some sort of dogpiling would be if they were interacting with someone that they expect to be untrustworthy. IF they all want to make an insite check on what the NPC was saying to determine its validity, there is no problem with that.
I would not allow a situation like "We need to do some research on this thing. We always have our wizard do it but he botched the roll for research so I'm going to roll it too."
Of course, I also limit Players from making checks haphazardly to gain meta information as well. For example, My players got teleported because of the Botched teleportation spell with a deviation percentage of 48 when they were trying to teleport to the actual other side of the world. So they could have teleported almost anywhere. One of my players wanted to make a check to see if they knew where they were despite the character having never been to anyplace on the contentment that they were on and not having any information about where they were aside from a lake and a forest. This was a situation where I didn't allow them to make a check because they would have had no possible idea to know where they were.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Thats why I use rule that player that said it first can roll. After that first roll only characters that are proficient can try.
That is the kind of thing I want to eliminate. True, one of my groups might be entertained, but the others would lose their sense of verisimilitude.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I've been lucky enough to play with a group of people who role play enough to not try to just have everyone throw their hat in on stuff that their character wouldn't logically know on the off-chance that they'll succeed through sheer luck. For example, one player in my group took the Far Traveler background and sticks to it... she never attempts history checks unless it's some kind of worldwide feature (like, she might know about general Dwarven culture, but nothing about any famous Dwarves in the game). Our Cleric character doesn't bother for any survival or nature checks, since she was born and raised in a city. Although our Wizard can generally justify contributing to just about any sort of knowledge or logic puzzle, since he's been established as a well-read student who has researched a lot of different topics in his schooling.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It depends on the situation and what the check is for.
Picking a lock, First player fails, I will allow another attempt by a different player as long as they have an equal or better level of skill at the thing, so non thieves tool character attempts, fails, Player with thieves tools but not profficent in it attempts fails, a character proficient can then attempt, but depending on how poor the rolls are the DC may get harder. This represents real life of someone trying to do a thing and then someone more skilled having a go after.
Lifting a heavy box, pushing a boulder etc everyone gets a go, just because the minotaur barbarian failed to lift the thing, maybe he pulled a muscle, or lifted it wrong, that does not stop someone else trying, or 2 people combined.
Deciphering a code, again anyone can have a look and have a try. A close fail may lower the next DC as the player is working things out but hasn't quite got it (I run scaled DC's so there is rarely a binary fail succeed DC).
A history check, I will decide which characters might know a thing and let them roll, I don't just let anyone have a go.
Now taking more attempts may have other impacts, it might take more time meaning the bad guys have time to prepare, or more chance of the party being caught. They might make more noise, or use additional resources.
Searching for traps at most 2 people can look (either both rolling or one getting advantage), searching a room again, one player does it, maybe with help. If there is a reason for another character to think they might have missed something I might let them have another go, but there has to be a clear reason. For instance recently a player rolled a 10 investigating a smugglers storage room, they found the barrels of cheap beer where actually high value spirits, but ignored the 2 barrels full of fish. in the next room another player found a barrel with a false bottom, remembered the 2 barrels of fish in the first room so went back to look for a false bottom, one of them had it. I didn't make them roll for that search as going back and just tipping the barrel over made sense. If the character had not searched the barrel, or found the false bottom they would not have been able to go back and search the room again.
I no longer do dice rolls for that kind of thing. If the strongest party member (20) can't lift a thing it is unlikely that the weakest (8) could do so. Although lifting and such is under encumbrance rules.
But given some STR tasks, I give the task a STR threshold. For instance, if a door has a STR threshold of 16, one or more PCs can work at it for a total of 16 STR to open it. No rolls, just add it up. This also stops the random instance where everybody fails and the party can't progress.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Missing a vote option: "Depends on the task."
An example I saw in this thread is trying to lift something. Honestly I'd not even have them roll if it falls easily within their lifting capacity. But if it gets close or is somehow unwieldy or stuck, then each party member who piles in should make it easier. So long as there isn't a direct consequence for the first guy failing, they can filter in one by one no problems. If a bunch all come at once again might not have any rolls if their now combined lifting capacity easily handles it.
For tasks where there is no consequence for failure and their attempts don't meaningfully change the situation... each player who chimes in to try it just rolls independently. Say there is a hidden compartment in the desk in a room the rogue investigates but rolls a 3 on. "Nothing here" he says but the wizard isn't doing anything and says they want to investigate too. No biggie, he rolls independently at the DC stays the same.
Whatabout a similar situation but there is a consequence for failure? Let's say this time there are footprints in the room. The rogue rolls a 3 and "nothing here"'s it. The wizard follows up saying he'd like to look around too. Okay, but now the DC is higher because the footprints were disturbed by the rogue.
It all depends on what they're doing, if they can fail, or how well their combined efforts make the task easier or harder.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
When rolling do a single roll and only one roll. Don't allow multiples, it wrecks the gameplay. For most scenarios have an out that they can use. Is there a key hidden in the room that could open up the chest they failed on their lockpick or do they just smash the check and maybe damage what's inside to get into the chest? Did they fail the persuasion check and killed the NPC, is there a note on the NPC's body that could be a clue? Is there a hidden door that they failed to open, and just as they leave does a monster open the door?
Typically for things that progress the game, have an alternative route available IF the players search, look, roleplay or think. In some cases, when they fail, that's it, it won't work.
Depends how I am feeling. Usually, I will give them one crack at it. Maybe a second attempt, if its important. However, this is where qualified success comes into play. If a player fails the roll, having them succeed but with a negative consequence really does negate the dogpiling instinct and doesn't stop the action moving forwards.
How then do you work out how long it takes the party to do a thing. Some tasks I don’t set a DC the roll is simply to gauge how long it takes the party to achieve that guaranteed result. But I track time closely in my sessions because things are constantly happening in the world, it isn’t all static until the characters are in scene. Also as I said I use ranged DCs now far more for tasks and non combat checks, for instance I might set a dc of 13 for success but 11 and 12 also give a successful failure
Heh. This always comes up when my players are like, "I wanna roll a perception...oh I ALSO roll perception"
I always just rule this as, "who in the room would like to make the roll? Roll with adv. as your team is helping you"
Easy...done...no fuss...
To answer for Wysperra and add my two cents...maybe you don't -- in most cases I don't think it will truly matter. If time is an issue then likely only one player should get a shot at doing the check and then I don't think you'd apply this rule. For everything else, this feels like 3E's "take 10/take 20" action so apply that time accordingly.
It depend if the task can be attempted more than once or not. If nothing prevent someone from doing it after first try, then it can be done again and may or may not have consequences. So once a task is done for the first time;
Agreed, getting a stuck door open or pushing a rock to the side doesn't take that long.
As a GM, time in the game is FLUID. Yes the world doesn't/shouldn't stand still while the PCs are doing their thing HOWEVER make the other events happen in the most meaningful way. The PCs don't know what is happening outside the castle while they raid it and it doesn't matter until you want it to matter. Did the patrol come back? Are another group of thieves raiding? Did the prince wake up to take a midnight snack? Doesn't matter until you want it to.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
This is true, but remember if you too frequently have things happen at the perfect time, regardless of what the PCs are doing, it'll start feeling awfully convenient. If you set some of these events down on a timeline in advance, and then just let the chips fall where they may, it can add some sense that the world is alive and breathing and might not fully revolve around the party.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If the dice rolls are bad enough then it might take 10 -15 mins to get that boulder out of the way, the way i plan out my games are that the world is moving and advancing regardless of the players, they take too long getting through the forest, they reach the town after a dragon attack. They get through the forest quickly, they reach the town just before.
I have had BBEG's be killed by NPC adventuring parties in the past because the party went off on a tangent, but on the micro level, whether or not the Guard comes round and finds them trying to pick a lock def does depend on how quickly they do it, yes they are going to pick the lock regardless, but a poor roll means there is a very good chance they will be disturbed. A good roll means they get through and get the door closed just in time to hear the guards feet walking past.
I don't present linear stories, I have a spreadsheet I maintain for larger world events that tracks the time that has gone and what has happened there are events the party will never get to experiance but may well hear about, or experiance the after effects of, throughout the world. They physically can't interact with them all and that is done on purpose, it is an open world and the players decide which things they want to get involved with and sometimes there choices will result in the deaths of innocents somewhere else. They are learning to balance that and I apply that to every part of the adventure, from how they dislodge a boulder, to deciding which city to visit next, to chasing down the leads to a cult seeking to kill the gods. While they. do X Y is busy causing issues elsewhere.