Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6671547" data-attributes="member: 1465">Finally, we got to play the real 5e game also on tabletop (before last week it has been only PbP or tabletop with playtest packets). I was the DM and we had both experienced and beginners players at the table.With relation to skill proficiencies, I made sure everybody knew that in 5e you don't need to be proficient in order to do or use something. Rather, it is convenient for you to use/do what you're proficient at, instead of using/doing things you are not. The simplest obvious example is with weapons: with an emergency or a specific circumstance you might pick up and swing a weapon you're unproficient, but on the long term (i.e. normally) you'd better use weapons you are proficient.So far so good... but not with skills!The players spontaneously gravitated towards using skills they were proficient at. The Rogue had Stealth and Thieves' Tools so naturally she went scouting and searching for traps, while the others waited and watched. This felt just right!But the players also spontaneously did the same for Knowledge skills, and here is the crux of the matter... I was very happy that they did this on their own volition, but I dread what would have happened if they exploited the system. Because in theory, all of them could have rolled knowledge checks each time it was potentially useful.So what they did was simply, the Cleric (and only he) rolled Religion & History checks, while the Wizard (and only she) rolled Arcana checks. Whenever they needed a clue, players asked "is it worth rolling an X knowledge check here?" and they everybody looked with hope at the player rolling the check. In other words, (s)he got the spotlight, and it felt great when succeeded, and hilarious when failed (I admit that was in part thanks to me making up ridiculous results on a failure instead of just saying "you don't know").What would have happened if the players decided to claim their rights to all try a roll of any knowledge each time?1) With four characters, they would have succeeded almost always. Unless I artificially increased the DC.2) The proficient character would only marginally succeed more often than the others, at least at low level when the proficiency bonus is only +2.3) Some unproficient PC (the Rogue) had a much higher Int than the Cleric. So the Cleric player would be actually penalized by choosing the Religion skill, rather than just stick to Wis-based skills.4) Not much spotlight effect. Probably more common for multiple characters to succeed rather than one.5) Game slowed down a little bit.---Once again, I am very happy that my players did not reason in terms of what is more convenient numerically but immediately got the idea of what was more convenient in terms of fun (for our tastes, obviously!).Nevertheless I wanted to share this, because IMHO it is something to be aware about.I also want to point out that this is a problem only with skills that benefit the party as a whole + have no penalty for failure + have no better effects if more PC do the same. Knowledge skills are the main case, but also Thieves' Tools and Investigation are others, and some charisma skills might also be (but it depends how you adjudicate a simultaneous success by someone and failure by someone else).</blockquote>

Verification