Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9261154" data-attributes="member: 20323">Discussing pile-on skill checks (that's my word for them) is a great example of table practices that can vary by skill. d20 at least made an effort to codify which skills could be "tried again" even if that particular implementation had issues. Whereas with 5e, like you say, there's no guidance given for that.... well, group checks, let's start there.One of the problems with expecting a GM & Players to consistently use a group check to resolve scenes with multiple contributing PCs is that... the flow of play just doesn't always work that way. You have a player trying to notice something, they have the spotlight and are investing the most energy, and in the flow the GM doesn't always think to pause and ask "who else is trying to notice XYZ" or "who else is trying to convince the Duke." And from the players' perspective they're waiting to see the response to what just happened before chiming in with their idea, as they may change in reaction with how the GM's response goes. In other words, certain situations – I'm calling out Perception to notice/search & Charisma checks to influence a NPC – there is more of a progression of narrative that makes group checks as the primary resolution inconsistent in practice. That's been my experience.OTOH if we're talking about Breaking down the door, that is something where the flow of play speeds up and so even if a group check makes a lot of sense narratively, it's not always a flowing natural thing for the players(GM) to think "we're (they're) doing this as a group." And sometimes the barbarian just wants to enjoy that spotlight of ripping the door off its hinges. In this case, my experience has been there's a specific table practice that improves the verisimilitude & reduces pile-on Strength/Athletics checks – let the roll stand according to each PC's expertise (unless the scene dramatically changes). This means that IF the barbarian PC fails to break down a door, we all agree (and the GM enforces) that the Str 7 gnome illusionist PC cannot possibly break the door down with a Strength/Athletics check... unless the gnome does something clever to make that possible, for example tapping out the hinges with a hammer.Would that table practice – let the roll stand according to each PC's expertise (unless the scene dramatically changes) – be universally effective across ALL skills? I don't know. I suspect there may be skills where's that would not work at all.But that's the sort of question that I'm eager to hear how others are working with creatively at their tables.</blockquote>

Verification