D&D General How would you handle this encounter?

[Celebrim]

Probably the same exactly the same down to my preference for trying to give characters distinctive voices and mannerisms, but since this is a situation where the player cannot get immediate feedback as to how well they are performing, I would have rolled the perception checks by the player. Thus, there would be no relief to the players suspicions had they rolled particularly well. All the player would know is that they aren't detecting anything unusual. Whether being paranoid around 'granny' mildly offends her, mildly amuses her, or earns some level of respect would depend on the personality I'd given the character, but would collectively along with the rest of the RP in the scene go to deciding the difficulty of any initial reaction check to see if 'granny' likes the character.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'd only say that when the player/PC says they are suspicious about the tea and that's why they're smelling it then the perception check is appropriate, but the results are irrelevant because there is nothing to perceive. After all, if the check is failed has the PC failed to perceive that tea is tea? I would reply enthusiastically that the player perceives nothing of significance, being firm without saying so outright, that the die roll means nothing. Nothing is there to perceive - or a rare possibility that perception wouldn't find anything even if there were something afoot. By stating suspicion the player earns the right to more information that either confirms or subverts their suspicion. The perception check gives them that information. The request for a medicine check however is redundant and I would simply respond, "You don't need one. It's just tea." Again, that would be regardless of the Perception check. Only if there WERE something to detect (good or bad) and the perception check was a failure, would any kind of additional roll be warranted.

For the same reason that I would be reluctant to have a PC keep making checks of some kind until they finally fail and I could then more easily inflict something nefarious upon them, I'm not going to let players keep making checks of some kind until they succeed and they can AVOID something nefarious happening to their PC. If the player wants to try to detect poison then it is up to the player to decide how best to do that.

Let's assume for a moment that there is poison in the tea. Assuming also that the poison could be detected by either a medicine or perception check the player can choose which check works best for them. If they have more bonuses to apply to a medicine check then they can use that. If they don't know which would be better from a mechanical standpoint they can ask. How the game mechanics work (or how I choose to have them work) is not information I have a right to keep secret from them. But one check of one kind would be all they'd get and that's pass/fail. That's also how the mechanics work. They can't just keep trying to find ways to argue that other checks could also be used to detect the poison and that they get to try them all until they succeed or run out of other checks to weasel into, I don't care how paranoid they or their PC's are.

 

[Oofta]

Some of this also gets down to basic philosophy. In general I don't tell players what the PCs don't know. While there's an exception to every rule (if too much time is being wasted, it's not fun, etc) I'd rather not tell Rae that the tea was just tea.

But without reasonable investigation, Rae had no way of knowing because her PC had no way of knowing. For me, it's more fun if I don't know what's going on, even though I try not to act on meta-game knowledge.

 

[5ekyu]

Two differences...

This bit would have not happened... "Rae didn't mention anything about being subtle, "

I dont require players to bullet proof their exchanges by covering every possible contingency. So, whether granny noticed the efforts or not and put it together would be comparing passive scores in insight snd deception.

The same exact exchange might have occurred but due to character stats, not whether the PC went into every possible facet of their part of the scene verbally.

Also, the assumption of heavy vs light slip would be a quick ask, followed by a choice on advsntage or disadvantage etc.

 

[Oofta]

Two differences...

This bit would have not happened... "Rae didn't mention anything about being subtle, "

I dont require players to bullet proof their exchanges by covering every possible contingency. So, whether granny noticed the efforts or not and put it together would be comparing passive scores in insight snd deception.

The same exact exchange might have occurred but due to character stats, not whether the PC went into every possible facet of their part of the scene verbally.

Also, the assumption of heavy vs light slip would be a quick ask, followed by a choice on advsntage or disadvantage etc.

Fair enough on Rae being subtle. One of those cases where I knew it wasn't dangerous otherwise I might prompt.

 

[Harzel]

Let's assume for a moment that there is poison in the tea. Assuming also that the poison could be detected by either a medicine or perception check the player can choose which check works best for them. If they have more bonuses to apply to a medicine check then they can use that. If they don't know which would be better from a mechanical standpoint they can ask. How the game mechanics work (or how I choose to have them work) is not information I have a right to keep secret from them. But one check of one kind would be all they'd get and that's pass/fail. That's also how the mechanics work. They can't just keep trying to find ways to argue that other checks could also be used to detect the poison and that they get to try them all until they succeed or run out of other checks to weasel into, I don't care how paranoid they or their PC's are.

Ok, is the you-only-get-one-shot-at-this approach only for perception-y kinds of things, or do you apply it generally. For example, upon encountering the canonical locked door, do your players' PC only get to try one of picking the lock or bashing it down?

 

[ad_hoc]

No checks required.

I think calling for so many checks really waters them down.

My rule of thumb is that it should be exciting to roll a 20. In this case if the player rolled a 20 and you said nothing happens/you don't learn anything, well, that doesn't seem fun to me.

If I were to call a skill into the situation I would probably look at the character's passive nature score.

I don't think perception or medicine fit. Perception is for seeing the tea which you do. Medicine is for treating disease which we could extrapolate to poison but not for detecting it.

FWIW Xanathar's suggests proficiency with a poisoner's kit can allow for an investigation or perception check of DC 10 to detect a poison. Though, I think, this is using the kit.

Let's say the PC didn't see the woman pouring the cups and wanted to switch them while her back was turned. That would be a great time to call for a sleight of hand check with failure resulting in being caught out. A 20 here would be exciting because something happened and there was real alarm for failure.

 

[Krachek]

Rae situation can go much worse.
“May I have cookies?”

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Shiroiken]

The scene starts with Rae's PC sitting at the table. I've added my thoughts in brackets.

DM: in my best old woman voice* "Here you go honey, you look like you've had a tough day. Have some tea."​

Rae: "Do I see her pouring both cups?"​

DM: "Yep, she set the cups on the table in plain sight and poured both at the same time."​

[No check, the tea was poured out in the open in plain sight.]​

Rae: "I want to smell the tea, can I tell if it's okay?"​

DM: "Sure. You hold the cup up to your nose and take a deep whiff. Give me a perception check."​

Rae: rolling dice "Ugh. That's only an 8."​

DM: "It smells like mint tea."​

​

​

While fun, I would have jumped to the following part, because she's obviously eyeing the tea warily.​

​

DM: "Granny looks at you, sipping her own tea and says 'Oh, deary it's just tea. If I wanted to kill you, you'd already be dead' with a wink."​

[Rae didn't mention anything about being subtle, Granny didn't need to make a check to see what Rae was doing.]​

Unless she was subtle or "Granny" had a reason otherwise, I don't understand why she'd wait for Rae to fully examine the tea before commenting.