Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7808039" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I get that your using this of a guideline to discourage unskilled attempts... my question is why? What does this bring to your table that makes this a good guidelines. (not a criticism, just trying to gain insight)Am I correct in saying its a pet peeves of yours that a wizard who has placed resources into intelligence and a skill proficiency rolls and gets a total less than DC15 then a fighter with a -1 rolls and gets a 16+ and achieves the goal takes a spot light from the wizard?My question is a fighter is asking to roll arcana but not proficient in arcana actually rolling arcana even if you allow the roll? An intellect ability check without a proficiency bonus form a skill, is an ability check not a skill check. As such its a different test with a different DC and a different outcome on success. I don't allow a non-proficient player make an skill test or aid a player with advantage on a skill test if they lack that skill. In my opinion, a player calling themselves making a skill check they are not proficient in does not make it a skill check, it just shows intent within common knowledge and ability.Example 1. with your arcana check above, the fighter making an unskilled "arcana" check aka an intellect ability check, even with a natural 20 and an outcome of 19 will basically know about the subject as much as any common person might. Identifying a glyph for example, they would not know that glyph means only that yes it is a magical glyph, some of them hold spell effect they can release. That's it. A proficient character knows arcane symbols and understands what type it is, is it storing a spell, what the trigger is, and possibly the type of spell it has stored.Example 2. with stealth from the original post. Anyone can stand behind a tree, but not everyone know when their toes are sticking out, how to restrain there breathing, when to shift slowly forward to avoid them seeing your butt from a different angle as they pass. As such, you can't help someone if you don't know what they are doing wrong all you can do is pass your test, however someone who understands your not hidden and why could move beside you and push/pull you and cover your mouth, and pull a branch a little lower to help you disappear.... but only because they are proficient. While a player not proficient with stealth can attempt to hide behind a tree, only a character who is proficient with stealth is truly stealthy.Example 3. with slight of hand, you can't for example take and pass an item unnoticed unless the receiver is also able to use slight of hand to keep the act hidden. If your sliding it into your partners bag while they are walking by on que they would be doing dexterity check to move on que in a window for your slight of hand not slight of hand at the same time and that is a very different level of skill in an assistant even if the partner is perfectly on que, they don't have the ability to pull this trick off with someone else.So am curious why all checks needing consequence is your answer to that problem. Though I should note, I am a fan of asking "does this check have consequence?" but my reason is very different and I except the lose of the advantage of success is a sufficient reason because of mine. My reason is to remined me not to boar players with many unnecessary tests if the result will not impact the game. For example, a PC is in bar washout any other PCs because they went to sleep and decides to hit on an NPC character. Do I give them a role? Well If it doesn't mater the result because I can't think of an impact, I hand wave it. If I decide to make the NPC impact the story beyond this roll, for example being offended and kicking the party out of their rooms, hassling them, or embarrassing them in front of the rest of the party for flavor on failure.... or if they might succeed get a discount or lower the parties costs there... sure … lets role. But the question of "does this check have consequence?" serves as guide to keep me creative or move along the story if I am not feeling it. If me and the players want to get to the next chapter I am likely moving it along with a hand wave, but if I needed a story hook to push a the party along or establish a new favorite base of operations for a while... here is chance to do that.What's the value of punishing players out of wanting to be involved in checks out of their niche? There could be one I don't see. I currently take it as a less strict rule to keep me on task so I don't have this problem with your stealth example you do. I am just curious what drives that approach vs the players and if its a better approach then my guideline of "its not a skill check if you don't have the skill".</blockquote>

Verification