Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
Interesting question. I'd say that if they specifically asked if the npc is lying, implying they are suspicious, failing the insight roll would have them believe the npc is indeed lying.
That'd be kinda harsh for a simple failed roll... I'd rather save that for a 1-that-fails, if that rule is being used.
Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
Interesting question. I'd say that if they specifically asked if the npc is lying, implying they are suspicious, failing the insight roll would have them believe the npc is indeed lying.
That'd be kinda harsh for a simple failed roll... I'd rather save that for a 1-that-fails, if that rule is being used.
I feel like that wouldn't work terribly well on a 1 roll, unless your players are exceedingly good at not allowing their dice knowledge to influence their characters' behaviour (I check if he's lying; roll a 1; DM nods suspiciously and says yes he is lying; this seems all fine and dandy). I'm currently planning a method for these sorts of knowledge checks where a pass gives you the truth, nat 20 gives truth plus bonus, a fail gives you continued uncertainty, and a critical fail gives you a harmful untruth - but a critical fail is not a 1, but a roll of exactly one less than a successful pass. DC 17 means 17+ passes, 15- fails, and 16 exact fails harder. Not sure exactly how to handle rolls with advantage that come up on that 16. Maybe just this sort of critical fail is impossible with advantage.
Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
Interesting question. I'd say that if they specifically asked if the npc is lying, implying they are suspicious, failing the insight roll would have them believe the npc is indeed lying.
That'd be kinda harsh for a simple failed roll... I'd rather save that for a 1-that-fails, if that rule is being used.
I feel like that wouldn't work terribly well on a 1 roll, unless your players are exceedingly good at not allowing their dice knowledge to influence their characters' behaviour (I check if he's lying; roll a 1; DM nods suspiciously and says yes he is lying; this seems all fine and dandy). I'm currently planning a method for these sorts of knowledge checks where a pass gives you the truth, nat 20 gives truth plus bonus, a fail gives you continued uncertainty, and a critical fail gives you a harmful untruth - but a critical fail is not a 1, but a roll of exactly one less than a successful pass. DC 17 means 17+ passes, 15- fails, and 16 exact fails harder. Not sure exactly how to handle rolls with advantage that come up on that 16. Maybe just this sort of critical fail is impossible with advantage.
Just curious as to how/why you came up with that, since it's mathematically identical to "nat-1-that-fails as crit failure, nat-20-that-success as crit success" that is explicitly offered as an option.
(If the character has, say, +10 to the skill, and the DC is 17, then on a roll of 7-20, they succeed, on a roll of 2-5, they fail, and on rolls of 1 or 6 they critically fail, depending on which system is used. It's still a 1/20 chance to critically fail, unless the bonus is high enough that a natural 1 would succeed, in which case there is no chance of failure, critical or otherwise: with a +16, the character succeeds on rolls 1-20 against a DC of 17, with a critical success on a roll of natural 20, in both systems.)
Granted, both of these depend on "secret rolling" for knowledge-based skills, unless the players are really good at separating character and player knowledge.
Yes, the point is for it to be mathematically identical to a 1=crit fail system. The difference is that the player can make their own roll, the result can look believably like a success so they trust it just as their character should, and only later is it revealed to be false information. I don't like any rolls to be secret, but also open rolls shouldn't necessarily mean perfect knowledge of success/fail.
Yes, the point is for it to be mathematically identical to a 1=crit fail system. The difference is that the player can make their own roll, the result can look believably like a success so they trust it just as their character should, and only later is it revealed to be false information. I don't like any rolls to be secret, but also open rolls shouldn't necessarily mean perfect knowledge of success/fail.
Ooh, I get it now, that's perfect! I might just steal that for my games. ;D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You could always go back to Pathfinder and 3.5e where Aiding granted a static bonus instead of Advantage.
Yes, the point is for it to be mathematically identical to a 1=crit fail system. The difference is that the player can make their own roll, the result can look believably like a success so they trust it just as their character should, and only later is it revealed to be false information. I don't like any rolls to be secret, but also open rolls shouldn't necessarily mean perfect knowledge of success/fail.