D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Question - Single or Multiple Checks

[jefgorbach]

Generally speaking Guards don't really expect to notice anything out of the ordinary during their shift, so the PC's actions would be a pass/fail roll vs DC10 unless the Guards have already been alerted by something, are in combat, or are otherwise prevented from Taking10 per RAW.

"Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help."

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

On second thought (since, admittedly, Frank is right ), it looks like RAW covers the "many guards" case:

[excerpt from the Listen skill description]

Special
When several characters are listening to the same thing, a single 1d20 roll can be used for all the individuals’ Listen checks.

So each guard gets a separate check, but (at DM's discretion) they all use the same roll; thus guards with more ranks/better Wis/better racial mods/etc are favored. In other words, the group is effectively as good as its best listener.

I'd still apply the same circumstance penalty for noisy conditions to the one roll, but ymmv.

For the case of several PCs sneaking around, I'd definitely have each PC oppose the guards as separate rolls.

 

[frankthedm]

On second thought (since, admittedly, Frank is right )

actually it looks like i am quite wrong thanks to that SRD quote. Serves me right for not double checking the SRD on Listen. Also, I noticed spot does not have the same option.

 

[Water Bob]

Here's a couple more 3.5E questions....


Question about the Heal skill--

How do you guys handle a character with the Heal skill healing himself?

No problem?

Penalty to check?

Don't allow it?

Is there an official rule on this?





Question about Unarmed Strike....

I'm looking at the Brawl Feat, and in the "normal" section it says that a character, without this feat, will deal 1d3 points of non-leathal damage with an unarmed strike.

What about STR bonus?

It's not mentioned, so I'm curious. Is STR bonus allowed if you don't have the Feat? That would mean that everyone, whether your STR was 5 or 19. would strike for the same amount of damage.

Or...is the STR bonus assumed even though it's not written there specifically?

So...the question is: Do you add STR modifier to unarmed strikes if you don't have the Brawl Feat?

The reason I ask is because, in the Feat description, STR modifier is specifically mentioned.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Question about the Heal skill--
,,,
Is there an official rule on this?

As written, he can use it without penalty. Assuming he's conscious.

Question about Unarmed Strike....

Add your Strength. You ALWAYS add your strength to melee weapon attack damage; and unarmed counts as a weapon.

 

[Dross]

Question about the Heal skill--

How do you guys handle a character with the Heal skill healing himself?

No problem?

Penalty to check?

Don't allow it?

Is there an official rule on this?

Long Term Care says: "Giving long-term care counts as light activity for the healer. You cannot give long-term care to yourself."
This implies you can use heal on yourself.

I have a slight aversion to Treat Poison being self administered, but that is a personal bias not a rules based opinion.

I MIGHT have a penalty for someone in heavy armour self treating a caltrop wound. Again a personal bias, not supported by the rules.

Neither of these have come up for us though.

Question about Unarmed Strike....

I'm looking at the Brawl Feat, and in the "normal" section it says that a character, without this feat, will deal 1d3 points of non-leathal damage with an unarmed strike.

What about STR bonus?

It's not mentioned, so I'm curious. Is STR bonus allowed if you don't have the Feat? That would mean that everyone, whether your STR was 5 or 19. would strike for the same amount of damage.

Or...is the STR bonus assumed even though it's not written there specifically?

So...the question is: Do you add STR modifier to unarmed strikes if you don't have the Brawl Feat?

The reason I ask is because, in the Feat description, STR modifier is specifically mentioned.

I've always used the STR mod for Unarmed strike (attack bonus + STR mod + size mod noted in the PHB134, and same page under Damage: "Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures").
I don't think that any weapon description says anything about using a STR mod (some might specifically call out an exception to using a STR mod).

I suspect it is a shorthand/space saving device, and don't take it as an explicit rule.

 

[radmod]

Here's a couple more 3.5E questions....


Question about the Heal skill--

How do you guys handle a character with the Heal skill healing himself?

You can't First Aid yourself because you would be unconscious.
You can't do Long Term Care because " You cannot give long-term care to yourself. " However, I've never seen a DM exclude the healing character when the entire party is under long term care.
You can't Treat Wound because "Another character can remove this penalty by ..."
You can't Treat Poison or Treat Disease because each "means to tend a single character" which implies another character. On these two, though, I don't have a problem with a heal check on yourself.

I'm looking at the Brawl Feat, and in the "normal" section it says that a character, without this feat, will deal 1d3 points of non-leathal damage with an unarmed strike.

What about STR bonus?

It's not mentioned, so I'm curious. Is STR bonus allowed if you don't have the Feat? That would mean that everyone, whether your STR was 5 or 19. would strike for the same amount of damage.

Or...is the STR bonus assumed even though it's not written there specifically?

PH p. 139, on an unarmed strike damage is
"1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal)"

 

[Water Bob]

I suspect it is a shorthand/space saving device, and don't take it as an explicit rule.

The reason I ask is because, in the Feat description, it says it allows the character to roll 1d6 + STR mod for damage. Then, in the "normal" section, where it tells you how things are done without the Feat, it says unarmed strike damage is 1d3.

I wondered why the Feat included the "+ STR mod" in the Feat description but not in the "normal" section.

 

[Water Bob]

PH p. 139, on an unarmed strike damage is
"1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal)"

Thanks for that. I'm not playing D&D, but a d20 OGL game based on 3.5E. Based on your response, I was able to find it in the rule book I'm using. It wasn't in the index--which is where I looked first.

That's one question down!

 

[Uder]

actually it looks like i am quite wrong thanks to that SRD quote. Serves me right for not double checking the SRD on Listen. Also, I noticed spot does not have the same option.

Probably because if they spelled out every game procedure that was subject to DM's discretion, there wouldn't be any room for rules.

But since he brought it up, I do think a distraction penalty is in order. That's a good call. So, I'd give the PC thief a +5 to his Move Silently checks. But, I'd also make the PC make a number of Move Silently checks based on the PC's Speed and the length of the corridor, per the rules.

I've seen some D&D modules (RtToEE in particular) use that exact ruling... essentially inattentive guards "Take 5." IIRC Somewhere else I've even seen the idea of "Taking 0" put forth for people that are sleeping, but that's neither here nor there.

I like the Taking 10 idea, too, but in reading up on it, Taking 10 cannot be done when the character is distracted. If it was a lone guard out there, walking up and down the battlement, I think I'd use the Taking 10 option. But, since the gaggle of guards are standing around, shooting the horse droppings with each other, I think the highest Listen skill with the PC getting the +5 distraction bonus is a better way to handle this particular situation.

Although, I'll admit that sticking to the letter of the rule might not be the best way to go. There is something very appealing about not rolling behind the screen and just looking at the guard with the best Listen modifier, adding that to 10, and using that number as the target the PCs have to beat with their Move Silent checks (they'd get the +5 distraction bonus, too).

I need to think hard on that--that's some damn fine, easy-cheesy, GMing.

I wouldn't consider talking amongst themselves distracting enough to prevent them from taking 10 anyway. Maybe if they were playing dice or something similar. Even though 3.5 never defines "distraction," it's almost always used in context as being along the lines of combat, vigorous motion, surrounded by biting insects, etc.

As a side note, you can take a Concentration check (DC varies, set by DM) to ignore a distraction. IMO, this would allow you to take 10 in many situations that are normally prohibited. Of course, if you fail the Concentration check, the skill check auto-fails, so you might be better off rolling... and by the time you've thought all this through you've lost the main advantage of Taking 10, which is to speed up and simplify mostly mundane rolls.