The issue with full-party skill checks is that eventually, someone will succeed if you let them repeat it enough.
Still, you can't just say that only one person is allowed to try a given thing.
So I came up with an idea: Roll a d100 instead, with a DC between ~30 & 100. The relevant skill/ability is added or subtracted for every party member and NPC involved (so a party with +3, +1, +0, and -2 would add a total 2 to the roll). Like D20 tests, you succeed if you beat the DC, sometimes with an extra bonus for a crit.
Do it when the party is looking at something or for saving throws where the group succeeds or fails together; it would probably be quicker than everyone rolling their own d20. You would still do that ofc, for individual atk rolls or ab checks that only affect one or two chars.
Do you guys see any possible problems? I wanted some advice before I try it with my group. I can't be the first guy to think of this, can I?
I put it in homebrew/house rules but didn't get any responses.
You can certainly say only one person is allowed to try. It happens all the time in my games both as a player and a DM. And if someone else is proficient, they can take the help action to give that one person advantage on the roll. Usually, the person with the highest modifier makes it, but sometimes, someone else does.
People understand it’s a game, and in order for a roll to be meaningful there has to be chance of success or failure, and the risk of failure diminishes as the number of rolls increase.
- Yes, you can say that only one person is allowed to try a given thing. When picking locks for example, lockpicks can break. When trying to persuade a person, another person's help isn't always going to be helpful. Trying to disarm a trap is a single try endeavour. If they succeed it's disarmed. If they fail, the trap is going to go off and deal damage. - Checks should only be made when there is either a time pressure, or a significant risk/consequence for failing.
I genuinely can't think of a check a DM would be asking for that is repeatable, or attemptable by the whole party. You could conceivably be asking the whole party to make a perception check, but let's be honest in that scenario it's not repeatable.
So my question is to ask if you can give us some example of the checks that you're referring to here?
One thing our DM has done, is to offer a group check on applicable challenges. That means, everyone rolls the check and the average is used against the DC. He would then narrate how Player 1 (who rolled exceptionally well) helps Player2 (who rolled poorly) accomplish the task. This was primarily for checks that could realistically become a group effort, scaling a wall, crossing a chasm and so forth.
For other checks, like locked doors, understanding strange symbols and such, he would adjust things as required. A locked door's DC would increase with each failure (so hammering away would eventually jam the lock) while interpreting some new symbols would require a minimum Intelligence to even allow a roll on it. This is a good method (IMO) of preventing the inevitable dogpile of checks for a single task.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
If there are no consequences to failure, then somebody will succeed eventually, and you shouldn't make them roll.
If the only consequence is the amount of time, then have somebody roll, and determine how long it takes by how well they succeed/fail.
If there are consequences, they whether you let them roll until they succeed or give them one roll only depends on the circumstances. Social interactions are usually best handled with the single roll.
For situations where the "group" is going in, I say "who is officially making the check?" Then I allow one relevant person to "help" provided they can provide a context.
In the past I had made people make a check to provide help, and for every successful "help" the main roller got a re-roll. It does get bogged down with a "we're gonna win" which is often the case when you get up to 4 tries at a roll. But dice are funny and sometimes they just don't want to play nice.
The issue with full-party skill checks is that eventually, someone will succeed if you let them repeat it enough.
Still, you can't just say that only one person is allowed to try a given thing.
So I came up with an idea: Roll a d100 instead, with a DC between ~30 & 100. The relevant skill/ability is added or subtracted for every party member and NPC involved (so a party with +3, +1, +0, and -2 would add a total 2 to the roll). Like D20 tests, you succeed if you beat the DC, sometimes with an extra bonus for a crit.
Do it when the party is looking at something or for saving throws where the group succeeds or fails together; it would probably be quicker than everyone rolling their own d20. You would still do that ofc, for individual atk rolls or ab checks that only affect one or two chars.
Do you guys see any possible problems? I wanted some advice before I try it with my group. I can't be the first guy to think of this, can I?
I put it in homebrew/house rules but didn't get any responses.
You can certainly say only one person is allowed to try. It happens all the time in my games both as a player and a DM.
And if someone else is proficient, they can take the help action to give that one person advantage on the roll. Usually, the person with the highest modifier makes it, but sometimes, someone else does.
People understand it’s a game, and in order for a roll to be meaningful there has to be chance of success or failure, and the risk of failure diminishes as the number of rolls increase.
A couple of things I would say is:
- Yes, you can say that only one person is allowed to try a given thing. When picking locks for example, lockpicks can break. When trying to persuade a person, another person's help isn't always going to be helpful. Trying to disarm a trap is a single try endeavour. If they succeed it's disarmed. If they fail, the trap is going to go off and deal damage.
- Checks should only be made when there is either a time pressure, or a significant risk/consequence for failing.
I genuinely can't think of a check a DM would be asking for that is repeatable, or attemptable by the whole party. You could conceivably be asking the whole party to make a perception check, but let's be honest in that scenario it's not repeatable.
So my question is to ask if you can give us some example of the checks that you're referring to here?
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
One thing our DM has done, is to offer a group check on applicable challenges. That means, everyone rolls the check and the average is used against the DC. He would then narrate how Player 1 (who rolled exceptionally well) helps Player2 (who rolled poorly) accomplish the task. This was primarily for checks that could realistically become a group effort, scaling a wall, crossing a chasm and so forth.
For other checks, like locked doors, understanding strange symbols and such, he would adjust things as required. A locked door's DC would increase with each failure (so hammering away would eventually jam the lock) while interpreting some new symbols would require a minimum Intelligence to even allow a roll on it. This is a good method (IMO) of preventing the inevitable dogpile of checks for a single task.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
If there are no consequences to failure, then somebody will succeed eventually, and you shouldn't make them roll.
If the only consequence is the amount of time, then have somebody roll, and determine how long it takes by how well they succeed/fail.
If there are consequences, they whether you let them roll until they succeed or give them one roll only depends on the circumstances. Social interactions are usually best handled with the single roll.
For situations where the "group" is going in, I say "who is officially making the check?" Then I allow one relevant person to "help" provided they can provide a context.
In the past I had made people make a check to provide help, and for every successful "help" the main roller got a re-roll. It does get bogged down with a "we're gonna win" which is often the case when you get up to 4 tries at a roll. But dice are funny and sometimes they just don't want to play nice.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir