Parties screwed without an Int-based PC?

[Nail]

Actually,you are completely and utterly wrong without your addendum. Whether or not they can find magic items won't matter one iota in well designed skill challenges.

Again, it's not my thread, and it's not my addendum. It's a paraphrase of the OP's original concern:

It didn't strike me until after their second fight that they're going to be seriously hurting for magic items after a couple of adventures because their odds of walking past magic items are pretty high.

 

[Nail]

RAW does not state one way or the other.

The rules give the DM plenty of latitude ("Some magic items might be a bit harder to identify,...") in identifying the properties of magic items, but the rules do not require that a PC uses the Arcana skill before she may identify the properties of said magic item.

 

[urzafrank]

The Dmg says some thing about this on page 27 on the right at the top

"Magic Items: Speaking of magic items, when the characters get over their fear of the lightning-charged magic sword and pick it up, tell them what it is and what it does after they’ve examined it over the course of a short rest (see page 263 of the Player’s Handbook). It’s not fun to make characters guess what a magic item is or try to use a magic item without knowing its capabilities. You can make an exception for really
special items, including artifacts. Even then, tell the player at least any numerical bonus the item gives. You don’t want to hear, “I hit AC 31 . . . plus whatever this
sword’s bonus is,” for hours or weeks on end."

If this is the 4E approach to magic items why would it then have players struggle to figure out which items are magicial or not.......my frame of thought is that it would not

 

[Keenath]

So the upshot to all this is:

If the DM wants to screw the players over for lacking an Arcana-trained character, then yes, the players are screwed. If the DM doesn't want to screw the players over, then no, they're not screwed.

But there is no rule in the book that requires screwing the players over, nor is there a rule that explicitly forbids it, though it's clear from the above quotes that the rulebook is more on the side of "just give it to them".


In my games, they'll never walk into a room full of garbage and have to guess which bits of junk are magical. They might find three dozen rusty swords and one untarnished, jewel-inlaid sword, and there's no need to even ask if the rusty ones are magical. Or they might find a dozen average quality, bog-standard but perfectly serviceable swords, and one with an inlay as if the blade were circled with vines of ivy, sitting on a velvet cushion on a stand under a spotlight. The haunting voices of an ethereal choir are optional.

 

[KarinsDad]

So the upshot to all this is:

If the DM wants to screw the players over for lacking an Arcana-trained character, then yes, the players are screwed. If the DM doesn't want to screw the players over, then no, they're not screwed.

But there is no rule in the book that requires screwing the players over, nor is there a rule that explicitly forbids it, though it's clear from the above quotes that the rulebook is more on the side of "just give it to them".

This is true no matter which skill is missing.

If no PC in the group has Perception, does the DM just automatically allow them to perceive ambushes?

If no PC in the group has History, does the DM just automatically hand out historical documents instead?

It's not a matter of screwing the PCs. It's a matter of the DM have to adjusting the game because the players screwed themselves.

 

[urzafrank]

So the upshot to all this is:

If the DM wants to screw the players over for lacking an Arcana-trained character, then yes, the players are screwed. If the DM doesn't want to screw the players over, then no, they're not screwed.

But there is no rule in the book that requires screwing the players over, nor is there a rule that explicitly forbids it, though it's clear from the above quotes that the rulebook is more on the side of "just give it to them".


In my games, they'll never walk into a room full of garbage and have to guess which bits of junk are magical. They might find three dozen rusty swords and one untarnished, jewel-inlaid sword, and there's no need to even ask if the rusty ones are magical. Or they might find a dozen average quality, bog-standard but perfectly serviceable swords, and one with an inlay as if the blade were circled with vines of ivy, sitting on a velvet cushion on a stand under a spotlight. The haunting voices of an ethereal choir are optional.

Also the DM can just have the lvl 5 party run into 7 lvl 20 demons.

There is no rule against that in any of the rulebooks.

I think that doing that and the above are poor ideas.

I also think the players should not have spend time "Looking for the fun" as the DMG puts it.

These are just a few of the things a DM should do if they want the game to be fun for all.

 

[NMcCoy]

If no PC in the group has History, does the DM just automatically hand out historical documents instead?

Depends on your DMing style. The way I see it, if a player takes a skill, it's a way of saying "I am interested in making these sorts of skill checks." If nobody in the party took History, then nobody in the party thinks rolling History checks will be fun. Why not focus the campaign on things that the party will find fun instead?

If I'm DMing a game and there's three wizards in the party, you'd better believe that every single encounter I throw at them is gonna have 10+ enemies in it, to give those three wizards a chance to do their stuff, rather than "letting the game punish them for poor choices". My job is not to uphold some standard of how hard the game should be; my job is to do my best to make sure the players are having as much fun as possible.

If everyone in the party took Bluff, Streetwise, and Religion instead of History, then the information they need to find the Ancient Dingus of Power won't be in the library - it'll be the secret lore of the local underground cult that they'll need to find and infiltrate...

 

[KarinsDad]

Depends on your DMing style. The way I see it, if a player takes a skill, it's a way of saying "I am interested in making these sorts of skill checks." If nobody in the party took History, then nobody in the party thinks rolling History checks will be fun. Why not focus the campaign on things that the party will find fun instead?

There is a bit of an assumption here.

Each player is restricted by class. Most players I know do not pick the class based on which skills they will get, instead, they pick the class they want to play and then get skills based off of:

1) Which skills are available for the class.
2) Which skills have decent bonuses based on ability scores, background, etc.

I have seen a few of my players take a skill here or there where they do not get a good bonus to it, but it is the exception instead of the rule. I have never since anyone take Skill Training, but that is probably only because we have never gone higher than 7th level where players are still picking what they individually consider "must have" or "strong desire" feats (typically combat) instead of "nice to have" ones.

So, it's not necessarily true that the player is interested in making those types of skill checks. It's only true that he picked those skills.

Granted, the DM should go out of his way to allow the picked skills to be used often. But, the DM should also have an occasional skill check that none of the PCs have (or have at a real decent bonus). It incentivizes the players to consider taking Skill Training (or even Skill Focus or Jack of All Trades) instead of just taking combat feats all of the time.


As it turned out in our game, every single skill was represented by the 5 PCs until we switched DMs and one PC left and a different PC came in (in which case all but one skill were represented). So, it's not that difficult to get skill representation for most of the skills with 5 PCs if all of the roles are used. This thread just happens to be about a skill that was missed and is generally considered important for game balance. Some skills are more critical than others.

 

[Herschel]

Again, it's not my thread, and it's not my addendum. It's a paraphrase of the OP's original concern:

Yep. The wording and emoticon were just to indicate an answer based on total and utter smartassedness for levity sake. No other intent.

 

[Nail]

Some skills are more critical than others.

What skills are those, I wonder? (...'Cause surely it varies by group and DM.)

In the games I play or run, the critical skills (used in more than just a skill challenge) are:

• Diplomacy
• Heal
• Insight
• Perception
• Stealth
• Thievery

...and of those, Perception easily tops the list.

At any rate, you'll note that Arcana's not on the list. I play with three completely separate groups of people (four groups, if you count one-shots), and Arcana's never in the top ten.

YMMV, FWIW