Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6671579" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>First off, congrats on finally playing a 5e game at the table <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Sounds like you all had a fun time! Also good that your players embraced the archetypes they choose to play and naturally avoided pile-on checks.</p><p></p><p>The issue of <strong>pile-on checks</strong> is addressed in 2 different ways in the RAW 5e rules:</p><p></p><p>1. The DM can use a <strong>passive skill score</strong> (e.g. passive Perception). Passive knowledge scores could replace active knowledge checks in most situations of "what do I know about ____?" or "what can I recall about ____?" You could reserve active knowledge checks for when a player asks a specific question that shows they are engaged and references the fiction; in other words, for those times that don't represent an average result of a repetitive task. Thus, any times when a player says "Oh, I make a ____ Knowledge check too!" you would simply check their corresponding passive skill score.</p><p></p><p>[SBLOCK=Excerpt on passive skills from Basic D&D]A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.[/SBLOCK]</p><p></p><p>2. The DM can call for a group skill check, representing a situation where the PCs are pooling their minds and going over the lore together, which fits many pile-on knowledge check scenarios. If half or more succeed the DC, then they learn what they wanted. Whereas if less than half succeed, they don't learn what they wanted.</p><p></p><p>2a. An option that requires a bit more DM adjudication is situations where one PC Helps another PC on the knowledge check.</p><p></p><p>So those are your official options under the rules. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> What follows below is house-ruled DM trickery...</p><p></p><p>A trick that I <strong>personally</strong> use to make Knowledge checks more meaningful and pertinent (and curtail pile-on checks) is to include in my answer a bit about how, where, or from whom the PC acquired the knowledge. Low knowledge checks might present uncertain rumors, reiterate knowledge the group already knows, or even present misinformation as truth (on a really bad result); however, low knowledge checks <strong>also</strong> have negative connotation for how that particular PC came by their knowledge.</p><p></p><p>For example, a PC wanted to make an Intelligence (criminal lore) check to recall information on a smuggler that might give the PCs a foot up in a deal. I let the player know in advance that a low roll would have added complications. They rolled really low, IIRC a natural 1. I presented a very succinct synopsis of the NPC, not giving away any secrets, but then I also introduced a twist: that the PC was indebted to the NPC smuggler after losing a card game (I totally ad-libbed this).</p><p></p><p>I've found giving Knowledge checks <strong>consequences</strong> on low rolls (like most other skill checks) is a terrific way to discourage pile-on skill checks, but even more than that it adds an extra layer of depth to the game and improvisation to the game that's all around fun <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 6671579, member: 20323"] First off, congrats on finally playing a 5e game at the table :) Sounds like you all had a fun time! Also good that your players embraced the archetypes they choose to play and naturally avoided pile-on checks. The issue of [B]pile-on checks[/B] is addressed in 2 different ways in the RAW 5e rules: 1. The DM can use a [B]passive skill score[/B] (e.g. passive Perception). Passive knowledge scores could replace active knowledge checks in most situations of "what do I know about ____?" or "what can I recall about ____?" You could reserve active knowledge checks for when a player asks a specific question that shows they are engaged and references the fiction; in other words, for those times that don't represent an average result of a repetitive task. Thus, any times when a player says "Oh, I make a ____ Knowledge check too!" you would simply check their corresponding passive skill score. [SBLOCK=Excerpt on passive skills from Basic D&D]A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.[/SBLOCK] 2. The DM can call for a group skill check, representing a situation where the PCs are pooling their minds and going over the lore together, which fits many pile-on knowledge check scenarios. If half or more succeed the DC, then they learn what they wanted. Whereas if less than half succeed, they don't learn what they wanted. 2a. An option that requires a bit more DM adjudication is situations where one PC Helps another PC on the knowledge check. So those are your official options under the rules. :) What follows below is house-ruled DM trickery... A trick that I [B]personally[/B] use to make Knowledge checks more meaningful and pertinent (and curtail pile-on checks) is to include in my answer a bit about how, where, or from whom the PC acquired the knowledge. Low knowledge checks might present uncertain rumors, reiterate knowledge the group already knows, or even present misinformation as truth (on a really bad result); however, low knowledge checks [B]also[/B] have negative connotation for how that particular PC came by their knowledge. For example, a PC wanted to make an Intelligence (criminal lore) check to recall information on a smuggler that might give the PCs a foot up in a deal. I let the player know in advance that a low roll would have added complications. They rolled really low, IIRC a natural 1. I presented a very succinct synopsis of the NPC, not giving away any secrets, but then I also introduced a twist: that the PC was indebted to the NPC smuggler after losing a card game (I totally ad-libbed this). I've found giving Knowledge checks [B]consequences[/B] on low rolls (like most other skill checks) is a terrific way to discourage pile-on skill checks, but even more than that it adds an extra layer of depth to the game and improvisation to the game that's all around fun :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem
Top