D&D 5E "OK, I try Skill A. Now Skill B. Well, in that case, how about Skill C?"

[delericho]

For the most part, IMC the "knowledge" skills are mostly passive - when they become relevant I'll either call for the appropriate check or, most likely, just give the PCs the relevant information (I like it when characters know stuff about their world). Not that that helps them much - knowing the facts is one thing, knowing how they fit together is something else.

For other skills, I'll go with one of two approaches (sometimes both) - either your first attempt is your best attempt, so no retry is possible; or a failed check has a consequence that moves the plot forward in some other direction. So, sure, after failing to climb across you can instead try jumping, but that first failed attempt made noise that attracted monsters, or hurt you, or... something.

 

[Tonguez]

How about you just call for a Ability check (roll Intelligence) and then let the player declare what skill bonus might apply (okay I rolled 12 vs DC 14, I use my religion skill +2 to recall a legend I was once told)

 

[Li Shenron]

Knowledge rolls are going to be a lot easier to daisy chain

Daisy chaining knowledge checks is new to me.

Normally, if there is a specific clue or key information that a PC wants to recall, and I decide to resolve with a check, it is a single Intelligence check, and one of their proficiency may apply by adding the proficiency bonus, not multiple checks for each knowledge listed in the PHB, also because the PHB list is not necessarily closed (in fact lore is the prime example of skills I have no problem letting players make up their own).

On the other hand, if the party is stuck and needs hints of any kind, it makes sense to just gift them with rolls to help them move on, and why not up to one roll in each knowledge skill a PC is proficient (as long as it is relevant to the situation), to reward the fact that they invested in them at character creation. It is a gift however, not an entitlement.

And the basic principle is always that a check is rolled when the DM is undecided whether the PC actions are good enough to yield a successful outcome. If the DM is not undecided, there is no roll.

 

[billd91]

Although I appreciate everyone telling me not to gate information or adventure progress behind a roll, I promise that's not what I'm doing. (Figuring out how to fix that in pre-written adventures -- extremely good locks in the tombs in Empire of the Ghouls, I'm looking at you -- is one of my recurrent headaches.)

Do none of your players equip their PCs with tools capable of breaking locks? No lock is an impervious gate if you’re willing to make the noise to break it.

 

[Li Shenron]

3) Don't be tempted to take away their agency by making them depend on you for what checks they get to make.

That's exactly what I do.

Their agency is much better expressed by choosing what their PCs do, not by choosing what dice to roll.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Do none of your players equip their PCs with tools capable of breaking locks? No lock is an impervious gate if you’re willing to make the noise to break it.

They do, but the tomb in the first section of Empire of the Ghouls is aggressively designed to require the characters to find their way through hidden secret doors and tunnels, with stone doors and super-strong locks, so as to steer the players into completing the dungeon in the "right" way.

 

[Stormonu]

Using more passive checks may help to ease this, primarily out of combat. If a PC openly declares they want to know more/look for something specific/do a particular action and their passive is over a certain level they can avoid the roll. Only test if their passive isn't high enough. You'll have to closely watch the DC's though and divide stuff so rolls are only being made for the dramatic stuff and the mere act of speaking up and saying "I do this X thing because I'm proficient and being active" is rewarded for thinking of it in the first place.

My gripe is the constant Player A failed, which sparks Player B to try and on failure Player C tries. With aid. And Guidance on everything. I've gotten to where I just let one person do the check, aid only from someone with proficiency and Guidance doesn't work on any task that takes longer than a minute to complete.

 

[iserith]

Don't ask for the "skill check." Those don't exist in D&D 5e anyway.

Ask for the ability check (e.g. "Make an Intelligence check, DC 20."). Then let the player apply whatever skill proficiency they think is relevant, based on what they described prior to you calling for a roll. All other skill proficiencies are therefore irrelevant, and you get the player's buy-in. I mentioned this recently in another thread to some amount of consternation from other posters who also appear to think of things in terms of "skill checks." Focus on the ability check, not the skill. It solves a lot of issues.

Also, progress combined with a setback on a failure. Give them something, but at a cost. Or in the case of a check meant to resolve recalling lore, give them some information, but not exactly what they wanted. They have to work for the rest.

 

[Jer]

Yes, typically with an eye for how it might serve as a (bonus) advantage in some fashion.

"Oh ho, if Fleebox the Great famously drowned, maybe we should summon water to flood his tomb and freak out his ghost!"

To your original question I think giving advantage if they have multiple relevant skills would work fine and not break things. Especially if you're applying this to knowledge checks for "extra" info. Instead of rolling your religion and your arcana and your history and whatever separately you're moving it into one roll and taking it as the totality of their knowledge about this thing, giving a boost if they have multiple relevant areas of knowledge. I like it - it's probably a bit cleaner than what I do.

What works for me is that any time they make a knowledge check where there's something to remember/glean/research they always get something from it unless they roll a 1. A failure on the check gives them minimal information, a success on the knowledge check gives them more information, but they can only roll once as they're fishing for clues like that. And to make it work I have to be able to be flexible with giving info out - I can't sit there and think "well they're using History for this check, but some of this is about Wizard stuff so that stuff should really be Arcana so they shouldn't learn anything" - because then I'm just encouraging them to try to play "guess the skill the DM wants me to use" with their knowledge checks. The deal is that succeed or fail it's all they're going to get on their end and on my end I always have to give them something meaningful whether they succeed or fail (unless they roll a 1). I limit the skill they use, usually by giving them a few options and letting them decide which way they want to approach it.

You use the help action for multiple people wanting to do the same kinds of checks, and that's a good idea. What I will do instead is have everyone who wants to make the check for knowledge tell me what they're trying to accomplish (to determine the skill they're using) and then roll at the same time but only the highest roll matters for determining what info they get. If they're all researching for the same kind of advantage in different areas, they can all use different skills to do it, but the roll happens once, they learn everything they're going to learn from any knowledge checks, and then they move on. If multiple people succeed I can throw more out there if I'm improvising, or I can use who succeeded and what skills they were using to color the info I'm giving out if multiple succeed, but the knowledge they get is all they're going to get.

IME these two things together cut down on a lot of "well what do I know from my studies of history? (roll and fail) How about my arcane training? (roll and fail) What about my comprehensive knowledge of religions - any cult activity here? etc." types of scenarios which I think is what you're describing. But I think advantage if you have multiple skill proficiencies would work well. I think the key for me is to communicate with the players that they get ONE knowledge roll and that's it - that represents everything they're going to know about whatever it is they're trying to research and then move on to something else (and then the obligation on me is to make sure that I live up to that on my end).

 

[pukunui]

My gripe is the constant Player A failed, which sparks Player B to try and on failure Player C tries. With aid. And Guidance on everything. I've gotten to where I just let one person do the check, aid only from someone with proficiency and Guidance doesn't work on any task that takes longer than a minute to complete.

Yeah, this is one of my gripes as well. I sometimes let them each try. In other cases, I just say, "OK, it looks like you're all working together. The person who rolled first can have advantage* on their check." Sometimes I might make it a group check instead. Depends on the circumstances.


*Or rather 'reroll, keep the better roll', which is generally how I use Inspiration in my games as well.