Contests - I don't like

[Chris_Nightwing]

I would use contests only when there is an active battle between two characters' abilities or skills. I would use 10+modifier, or passive, when only one (or neither) participant is actively trying to do something.

For instance, if the 8 kobolds are on watch, and they have no reason to believe that someone is trying to sneak up on them (ie: they are just generically standing around waiting for trouble) then use their passive score - no one kobold is going to be more alert than the others.

If instead the 8 kobolds have reason to believe someone is sneaking up on them - an alarm trap was set off further up the corridor - then use a contest. All of them are actively suspicious that something is up, they're trying their best to find you and in this scenario, the more people looking the better.

It sounds so.. videogamey.. but guards with either passive or active alertness states make stealth a much easier subsystem to run - though I've no idea how it ought to be done in combat!

 

[jadrax]

I am not a huge fan of opposed rolls and try to remove them from my games.

For example, picking pockets as an opposed roll gives far to high a fail rate. How I would handle it is you attempt to pick the pocket, if you succeed it works, if you fail you don't get anything and then the target gets a perception test.

A lot of people don't like this, because it means even if you have a high Perception your still going to have your pocket picked, but frankly that is how it works in real life.

 

[Campbell]

The way I see it checks and contests are both tools for a DM's toolbox that can be used at appropriate times. If a rogue is trying to slip past a group of say 6-8 goblins I can always use the guidelines for setting DCs and say its an advanced task with a DC of 18. At the same time if the same rogue is trying to sneak up on a particular NPC that I've defined in more detail I might use a stealth vs. perception contest.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think the whole point of contests was to achieve something other than "roll vs DC". Because we're all aware of the numerous times in past editions where you just looked at the DC and then didn't bother to roll, because you KNEW you couldn't win(or conversely, knew they couldn't win).

While I don't think contests are perfect, I like the idea of opposed rolls. You AND the Orc are both simultaneously trying to wrestle each other. From either perspective, you are rolling against each other.

The concept of contests is cool, though not perfect. I'd hate to see it dumbed-down into just another roll vs dc.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I decided years ago to just assume that the monster or NPC rolled a 10 for any opposed rolls in my games. My players tend to have bad enough luck with the dice - I didn't like seeing them roll a 16 only to have it negated because I rolled a 20.

In the halfling example, sneaking past the kobolds would be a difficulty of 10 + the kobolds' Wisdom modifier. If they're actively searching, then maybe the difficulty would go up or the halfling would have disadvantage, but I don't think I would roll 8 times for 8 monsters.

 

[KesselZero]

I've come to dislike passive skills. I think they can work for monsters and NPCs as in the situation the OP describes, acting essentially as a DC for the rogue's Stealth check to beat, but I hate them on PCs because I constantly get my players saying "18 Passive Perception, are there secret doors?" or "21 Passive Insight, is he lying?" I think players (mine at least) tend to see them as the "I deserve things for free" rule. In addition, especially if you start allowing Passive Perception to spot traps/other secrets, you get a weird game where you as the DM have to either set the Perception DCs so low that everything automatically gets found by your highest-Perception PC, or so high that only that PC stands a chance of finding things. I'd rather be able to set DCs such that every player has some chance of succeeding and some chance of failing, and the best PCs just have a better chance. And in fact, that's what the randomness of Contests allows for-- the player with the highest Perception, Stealth, etc. won't necessarily be the one who succeeds every time, and the other PCs won't always fail.

 

[Oni]

Examples:
Eight kobolds hiding on the cliff face, each kobold gets a perception roll to detect the halfling as he sneaks into the cave entrance opposed each time by the halfling. Instead the halfling rolls to sneak into the entrance by rolling his sneak skill vs the kobold's 10 + wisdom modifier + perception bonuses/penalties. Much smoother and faster gameplay.

Having them all roll seems silly to me. If they are on guard together I would treat them as assisting each other if they're actually doing what they're supposed to do. One check with advantage, since advantage can't stack they essentially get two checks and done. However if all the guards are chatting it up and gambling and generally distracting one check with disadvantage. Makes perfect sense to me and seems completely in the realm of the rules as presented so far.

A character tries to wrestle free from a orc's grapple. Rather than opposed strength roll, the player makes a strength roll against 10 + the strength of the orc. He fails. the orc then tries to flip the character on the ground to bash him for some damage. Orc roll strength against the character's strength +10.

This streamlines the rolling so much and makes the acting player in control of if he succeeds or fails rather than if the defending creature (rolls a 20 or worse a 1). Thoughts?

Two rolls yeild up more information to play with IMHO, did you win by overpowering the orc's strong defenses (both roll well), or did you slip through because he moved the wrong way (both roll poor), et c.

 

[Sadras]

Apparently I have to spread XP [MENTION=380]Oni[/MENTION], but yeah I agree with your assessment.

 

[Rhenny]

Like many of you, when I run my NPCs and monsters, I generally tell the PCs what they need to beat when they roll their ability checks. Most of the time, I just 10+ bonus it.

If it were an actual contest of player vs. player (which I rarely ever have in my games) then I'd see contest as the way to go.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The Versus tests definitely reduces the effect of skills. In a flatter world, that probably means we should use a uncontested 11+mod as DC.

Option 1: DC = 11 + mod (attacker wins ties)
Option 2: DC = d20 + mod (defender wins ties)

Here are the relative probabilities of success based on an assumed net mod advantage of the "attacker"

+0 50% 48%
+2 60% 57%
+4 70% 66%
+6 80% 74%
+8 90% 81%
+10 100% 86%