Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7758479" data-attributes="member: 97077">Again, if the ability check follows an action declaration, I'm fine with it though I would say your example has some issues.First, searching for hidden objects calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check in D&amp;D 5e (which is the edition I'm referencing) if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Second, after the trap is found, additional details can be revealed when the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actons or when he or she loops back around to describe the environment. No check is required. The DM might say, for example, &quot;There is a discharged trap here with dwarvish runes inscribed upon it.&quot; The player can then try to have the character read the runes or enlist the help of an ally who speaks dwarvish. Subsequent examination by the characters (after they have declared it!) of the discharged trap and/or any attempt at deducing clues or recalling lore about the information revealed might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) or Intelligence (History) check, again, only if the DM finds there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started. This is not a good approach in my view. Simply following the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the rules resolves these issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7758479, member: 97077"] Again, if the ability check follows an action declaration, I'm fine with it though I would say your example has some issues. First, searching for hidden objects calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check in D&D 5e (which is the edition I'm referencing) if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Second, after the trap is found, additional details can be revealed when the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actons or when he or she loops back around to describe the environment. No check is required. The DM might say, for example, "There is a discharged trap here with dwarvish runes inscribed upon it." The player can then try to have the character read the runes or enlist the help of an ally who speaks dwarvish. Subsequent examination by the characters ([I]after [/I]they have declared it!) of the discharged trap and/or any attempt at deducing clues or recalling lore about the information revealed might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) or Intelligence (History) check, again, only if the DM finds there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started. This is not a good approach in my view. Simply following the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the rules resolves these issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification