D&D 5E How do you handle this? - DM edition

[Blue]

A couple of quick question how various DMs handle a few mechanical situations. If there is a definitive rule that I've just missed, please point it out in the book. But I think these are more open to interpretation.

1. Based on the description of what a player is doing, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency are integral in what they describe they are doing, and both applicable. Do you pick one, have them clarify whihc is primary, add both/grant advantage to one, do something else? Especially when the bonuses are not the same like only one proficient, or cases like expertise/magic tools/etc.

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

3. A character makes truthful statements in ways that are deceiving. Like "you can have all the gold I'm carrying if you let them go" when they have little on them. They see it as persuasion because the character is truthful they will gladly give you all they have, but since the player intent is to get off cheap, it's like they are attempting to deceive to imply they have more.

Feel free to add your own "how do you handle it" questions as well.

 

[Blue]

I hope this isn't too forward, but I'd like to summon @iserith because while we run different styles, he's shown that's he's put a lot of thought and practice into these type of issues.

 

[Salthorae]

1. I use the Xanathar's rules on tool/skill interactions. Usually, it's advantage.
2. I shrug at this one. It depends on if there is a reason not to let them. Usually, I'll allow it.
3. Deception check. They are being deceptive because the character also knows they don't have much money and the implication of that statement is to deceive someone into something.

 

[iserith]

I hope this isn't too forward, but I'd like to summon @iserith because while we run different styles, he's shown that's he's put a lot of thought and practice into these type of issues.

Sure, happy to take a look!

1. Based on the description of what a player is doing, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency are integral in what they describe they are doing, and both applicable. Do you pick one, have them clarify whihc is primary, add both/grant advantage to one, do something else? Especially when the bonuses are not the same like only one proficient, or cases like expertise/magic tools/etc.

How I call for ability checks sidesteps this issue and lets the player decide which skill proficiency applies to the ability check I call for. I just call for one of the six ability checks, then they add whatever bonus they think applies based on their description. We work under the assumption that they are doing so in good faith and we've never been shown to be wrong.

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

In order for there to be a check, there would have to be a meaningful consequence for failure. Reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "meaningful" and only the context of playing the game will really tell. But in this example, the players don't seem to think there is a consequence for failing this action (since it's no bigs to just pile on), so maybe there shouldn't have been a roll to begin with - they just succeed or fail outright. If there is a consequence and they're willing to keep incurring it, then fair enough, that's on them.

3. A character makes truthful statements in ways that are deceiving. Like "you can have all the gold I'm carrying if you let them go" when they have little on them. They see it as persuasion because the character is truthful they will gladly give you all they have, but since the player intent is to get off cheap, it's like they are attempting to deceive to imply they have more.

Same answer as #1 above.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

If the PCs have all the time they want, they are bound to succeed. There is no longer a "take 20" explicit rules in 5e, but the DMG makes it clear that if there is no penalty for failure, retrying is perfectly OK, the only difference being the time for the task to be completed. So basically, there is no problem : if they want to thoroughly search an area and devote a lot of time to it, they'll find everything there is to find. But can they spend an hour looking into every room? That's the consequence for failing : not finding the answer before <something happen>.

 

[BlivetWidget]

I mostly agree with Salthorae.

1. See XGE 78. Pick the higher value, give advantage if both apply. Tool proficiencies do not get a lot of use, this helps.
2. It only feels silly if it's something like an Arcana or Religion check, etc. that a player has built their character around, in which case I try to keep it in the relevant player's wheelhouse by requiring proficiency to attempt it (assuming anyone has proficiency). For most of the other checks, why not? Everyone can try to lift a rock sequentially, or look at a thing sequentially.
3. Personally I'd allow it. Telling a misleading truth is a clever approach and one that is used (for good or ill) to profound effect in actual courts of law.

 

[Ashrym]

1. XGtE has some ideas.
2. group check
3. insight for what the pc's aren't sharing vs deception

 

[cmad1977]

1: Maybe just call it an auto success. If the player chose those things to be really good at a specific thing I see no reason to gate successes behind anything lower than a 15.

2: I try to only ask for a roll when something’s on the line. I also usually answer ‘no’ to the ‘can I roll too?’ Question.

3:I think I’d use deception by default but I wouldn’t be against anything the player thought appropriate. The difference between the two scores is unlikely to be that great.

 

[Quickleaf]

1. Highly situationally dependent.

2. I've posted about the topic of pile-on checks quite a bit, most recently over here: design theory about stakes, actual play example, and some follow-up explanation.

3. Deception. Skills are not magical lie-detectors like zone of truth. The PC's linguistic cunning would be invaluable to fool a zone of truth, but the intent in telling is to mislead. However, I'm not convinced your example would even necessitate a check. In the case of a NPC/monster of average Intelligence (10), I'd have them immediately followup with "Yeah? And how much gold are we talking here? Exactly?" Whereas a low Intelligence NPC/monster (7 or less) I'd probably just have them agree to the deal – no roll necessary – if it suited the NPC/monster's personality.

 

[5ekyu]

A couple of quick question how various DMs handle a few mechanical situations. If there is a definitive rule that I've just missed, please point it out in the book. But I think these are more open to interpretation.

1. Based on the description of what a player is doing, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency are integral in what they describe they are doing, and both applicable. Do you pick one, have them clarify whihc is primary, add both/grant advantage to one, do something else? Especially when the bonuses are not the same like only one proficient, or cases like expertise/magic tools/etc.

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

3. A character makes truthful statements in ways that are deceiving. Like "you can have all the gold I'm carrying if you let them go" when they have little on them. They see it as persuasion because the character is truthful they will gladly give you all they have, but since the player intent is to get off cheap, it's like they are attempting to deceive to imply they have more.

Feel free to add your own "how do you handle it" questions as well.

1 I let them use the highest bonus unless there is a compelling reason not to.

2 A failure on an ability check can produce some result of progress eith setback. I frequently have the setback include complications that make latter checks more difficult or impossible. So perhaps the investigation finds dome of the clue/reward but destroys the rest in the process. Some progress eith setback tends to rein in the pile-on rolls.

3 Its the intent not the facts that insight will pick up on. So, if they are using truth in misleading ways, they need a deception check to appear honest. However, to convince someone to do something that requires a persuasion check. So, we are dealing with deception to conceal the intent and then persuasion to persuade the target. They are likely against different DCs. ..