D&D General How would you handle this encounter?

[5ekyu]

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.

"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."

I go a different route - on a 20 or other really good result I look to my list of "PC related add-ins" and toss in something extra that kicks off a personal bit. Of course, progress with setbavk covers the lower results.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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?

? No, it is not a universal rule that governs all game mechanics. It is a response to the situation presented because we were asked for our approach to such an interaction. PC/player suspects poison. Fine. PC gets one attempt to detect poison - players choice of the most applicable/effective means, not 2 or more different means to detect it. That was the issue I saw and felt warranted commentary. Sorry if I made that unclear.

 

[Blue]

@Oofta, that exchange could have happened verbatim at my tables. Or many of the other variations others have posted. If the player has communicated clearly to the DM what they want to do, there's no "play shaming" for referring to something mechanically vs. 100% in character. If there isn't a reasonable assumption (like "did you taste the tea") then ask, but that sort of thing can come up with any type of description as well.

At my table, we don't find it immersion breaking to talk mechanically, other tables may vary. I have yet to see a table that doesn't do it to some degree or another during combat.

Players are the authorities on their respective characters, so reminding me of things such as proficiency in Medicine may change something from "need a roll" to "no roll needed", so even if normally fully in character a reminder like that is useful.

 

[Oofta]

Players are the authorities on their respective characters, so reminding me of things such as proficiency in Medicine may change something from "need a roll" to "no roll needed", so even if normally fully in character a reminder like that is useful.

Yeah, that's one of the things I wanted to point out. I don't remember my player's PC's proficiencies. Heck, half the time I have a hard time remembering PC's names.

Related - I also don't mind giving a little bit of flavor and color to what my player's PCs are doing because some are better at it than others. It's great if everybody at the table can come up with spontaneous descriptions that apply to the situation, but different people have different strengths.

 

[Hriston]

I wanted to share a slightly edited/abbreviated/simplified/paraphrased version of a recent encounter. I'm curious how other people would have run this or similar scenarios. I know I don't own the thread, but I was curious to see if we could just discuss a simple example or provide other brief glimpses into actual game play.

The group is in a particularly dangerous corner of the world and Rae's PC has been separated from the group after bravely retreating. She stumbles on a small cottage with an old woman outside. After some brief introductions Rae is invited inside and served tea by the old woman, Granny.

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."​

[Rae said what she was doing (smelling the tea) and I asked for a perception check. I don't allow re-rolls for things like this unless something changes. If for some reason she hadn't wanted to take a deep whiff she could have stopped me right there. She could have also described it in more detail, but she didn't]​

Rae: "Can I get a medicine check?"​

DM: "You think you'd have to take a small sip. You can probably spit it out if your tongue tingles or goes numb."​

Rae: "Okay, I get a 15 this time."​

[She then asked for a medicine check. Because it wasn't clear what she was doing, I let her know she'd have to take a sip of the tea before proceeding and a general idea of the risk. She was also doing something different than just smelling or getting another perception check.]​

DM: "It's good, you detect nothing unusual. 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.]​

The scene continues. My point to this is that to me this was a very natural conversation. It didn't really matter whether whether the tea was poisoned or not, Rae was paranoid and the skill checks just reflected the actions her PC was taking. It also added a sense of uncertainty and tension for Rae that she would not have had if I had not called for or allowed checks. It was fun. If Rae had pestered me with checks (she doesn't) we may have to have a chat, but that's never been an issue in any of my games.

This is just a simple example of the start of a fun little encounter. Can you run through this scenario with your style of play? Or give an example of something similar and how you handled it?

*Side note: I know not everyone is into acting, but when I do this I try to imitate an old woman. Hunch over, squint, high creaky voice, maybe have a shaky hand wave the PC into the cottage and so on. People learn by doing, so I've gotten better at it over the years. I hope.

Here's how I might have handled it:

DM: "Here you go honey, you look like you've had a tough day. Have some tea." She sets the cups on the table in plain sight and pours both at the same time.

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

DM: Sure. It smells like mint tea.

Rae: Can I get a medicine check?

DM: What do you do, and what are you trying to accomplish?

Rae: I take a small sip to see if my tongue tingles or goes numb. If it does, I spit it out.

DM: It's good. You feel nothing unusual. Granny looks at you, sipping her own tea, and says with a wink, "Oh, deary it's just tea. If I wanted to kill you, you'd already be dead."

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's how I might have handled it:

DM: "Here you go honey, you look like you've had a tough day. Have some tea." She sets the cups on the table in plain sight and pours both at the same time.

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

DM: Sure. It smells like mint tea.

Rae: Can I get a medicine check?

DM: What do you do, and what are you trying to accomplish?

Rae: I take a small sip to see if my tongue tingles or goes numb. If it does, I spit it out.

DM: It's good. You feel nothing unusual. Granny looks at you, sipping her own tea, and says with a wink, "Oh, deary it's just tea. If I wanted to kill you, you'd already be dead."

Hey, that’s almost exactly what I would do too!

 

[Harzel]

? No, it is not a universal rule that governs all game mechanics. It is a response to the situation presented because we were asked for our approach to such an interaction. PC/player suspects poison. Fine. PC gets one attempt to detect poison - players choice of the most applicable/effective means, not 2 or more different means to detect it. That was the issue I saw and felt warranted commentary. Sorry if I made that unclear.

Ok, I was just trying to understand why you would rule that the PC can only try one method. I was hoping you would comment on what, for you, were the relevant differences between the locked door and the possibly poisoned tea.

Perhaps the devil is in the details of the situation or, maybe, process of play. In your earlier post you alluded to a player "making checks of some kind until they succeed" as the problematic situation you were trying to avoid. As long as the player is just describing what their PC is doing, and those actions are plausible in the fiction, then it doesn't seem like the DM should rule auto-failure solely because the PC's goal is the same for subsequent actions as for the first. So what is it that would cause you to rule that the PC only gets one attempt? I can think of a couple things, but I don't know which, if any, correspond to the problematic situation you are envisioning.

• If players are calling for checks instead of declaring actions, then, yes, I can see there might be a problem because you may not be able to tell whether they are in fact thinking of their PC doing different things or if they are just spamming mechanics. That problem does not arise if players do not call/ask for checks.
• If the player's declared action is indistinguishable from the goal, as in, "I attempt to detect whether the tea is poisoned" and more specificity is not required, then, yeah, I'd agree that DM and player will have to settle on one check. Unfortunately, the matter of specificity is likely to open the player skill vs. character skill can of worms, so, as I see it, there's no right answer to whether "I attempt to detect whether the tea is poisoned" is specific enough as a general matter. Personally, at my table, I'd probably push gently for a bit more specificity since there are at least tropes to play to, even if a toxicologist would tell you you are doing it wrong.

In retrospect, I guess the situation as described in the OP is a bit of a mix: the player declares an action in one case, and then asks for a check, and the DM responds by supplying the action. I guess if you interpret the request for a Medicine check as asking for a second check on the smell action, then it would be redundant. Apparently, there is an understanding at the OP's table that that is not what is meant. (Personally, I'd have asked for clarification from the player about what the PC was doing rather than assuming it was a second check on the smell action or supplying an action myself.)

Anyway, does any of this clarify the thrust of my question?

 

[Oofta]

In retrospect, I guess the situation as described in the OP is a bit of a mix: the player declares an action in one case, and then asks for a check, and the DM responds by supplying the action. I guess if you interpret the request for a Medicine check as asking for a second check on the smell action, then it would be redundant. Apparently, there is an understanding at the OP's table that that is not what is meant. (Personally, I'd have asked for clarification from the player about what the PC was doing rather than assuming it was a second check on the smell action or supplying an action myself.)

Anyway, does any of this clarify the thrust of my question?

What I was trying to get across is that yes, when the players say what they're doing sometimes they describe the action, sometimes they specify a skill check. If it's not clear I clarify. In this case I didn't want to just give a second attempt at identifying possible poison from smelling the tea, I wanted to raise the stakes a little bit.

Rae could have also asked to make a medicine check instead of a perception check when she smelled the tea which ... well it didn't happen that way. So I may have told her she'd have to take a sip or maybe just allowed it. Either way I would not have allowed a secondary roll of the same skill.

If she had a large amount of tea, infinite time and tools of some sort (i.e. an alchemist kit) I wouldn't have required a roll at all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

most (good) poisons are odorless in lethal doses.

I prefer Iocaine powder.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Now, Rae might take this to mean that, since there was no check called for, there is nothing wrong with the tea. However, that would be a dangerous assumption, since it is equally possible that there is something wrong with it, but that it can’t be detected by scent.

I'll point out that this is especially true if the player is used to a DM that doesn't ask for rolls when the outcome isn't uncertain. But if the DM typically asks for rolls every time (or usually) when the player declares an action that sounds like a skill, then this would probably be interpreted as "definitely safe".