D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Micah Sweet]

I think 'roll to see if you know something' is itself poor design.

'Everyone has at least a 5% chance to know anything' is also bad design. Every player rolling just in hope of getting a 20 (but probably nothing happens) is bad design. Players not knowing what their characters have knowledge of is bad design. The barbarian randomly knowing a point about the history of magic that neither the wizard or the bard knew is bad design.

Stuff like that should IMO be proficiency-gated.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Stuff like that should IMO be proficiency-gated.

This is a major thread digression (or will be if y'all take the bait) but I don't believe in gating knowledge/information behind any kind of skill check. I don't think that ever makes the game better in any way.

Most of the time I just give them information if they ask, usually picking the character most likely to know. ("Can I tell what the runes say?")

And sometimes they have to work for it, in the same sorts of ways they'd have to work to recover a treasure, with more valuable information/treasure requiring more work (and danger).

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a major thread digression (or will be if y'all take the bait) but I don't believe in gating knowledge/information behind any kind of skill check. I don't think that ever makes the game better in any way.

Most of the time I just give them information if they ask, usually picking the character most likely to know. ("Can I tell what the runes say?")

And sometimes they have to work for it, in the same sorts of ways they'd have to work to recover a treasure, with more valuable information/treasure requiring more work (and danger).

IMO it makes the game better by having things make more logical sense. If there's reasonable way for a player's PC to know something because they have no relevant knowledge skills (by however the game or setting measures such), then there's no chance they can know it.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, exactly this. Terrible game design. If there's no risk, there shouldn't be a roll.

The "risk" lies in not knowing, which may have negative ramifications later.

I think 'roll to see if you know something' is itself poor design.

'Everyone has at least a 5% chance to know anything' is also bad design. Every player rolling just in hope of getting a 20 (but probably nothing happens) is bad design. Players not knowing what their characters have knowledge of is bad design. The barbarian randomly knowing a point about the history of magic that neither the wizard or the bard knew is bad design.

As it would be impossible to tell the players every single thing their character(s) know about the setting, never mind impossible for them to remember it all if we did, the best way to abstract this is with a "do you happen to know this snippet of info" roll. It's either that or they know nothing, take yer pick.

It's like in real life if you ask 100 people who won the 1949 FA cup you might, if you're really lucky, get one right answer from someone's memory (as opposed to their going online and looking it up somewhere). But if you ask long enough, someone's gonna get it.

Everyone having a 5% chance to know everything is too generous, I agree. That's why I sometimes put it as "If you roll a 20 I'll think about it". That said, though it might not be anywhere near as high as 5% the odds of someone knowing any given thing are rarely if ever outright zero, and I want to account for that somehow.

Every player rolling even if it might be pointless is great design as IME players love any excuse to roll dice!

And maybe - just maybe - the Barbarian overheard someone in the pub last night talking about whatever it is the Wizard and Bard don't know right now.

Never say never.

 

[AnotherGuy]

This is a major thread digression (or will be if y'all take the bait) but I don't believe in gating knowledge/information behind any kind of skill check. I don't think that ever makes the game better in any way.

Most of the time I just give them information if they ask, usually picking the character most likely to know. ("Can I tell what the runes say?")

And sometimes they have to work for it, in the same sorts of ways they'd have to work to recover a treasure, with more valuable information/treasure requiring more work (and danger).

There are a couple factors that come into play for me...

• The customisation of one's character, should matter - so your knowledge roll should matter in the same way your combat roll does.
• In-game fiction should be considered whether the PC would know the information without a roll or if with a roll what the DC would be.
• Is the knowledge/lore a sticking point in the adventure and if yes, it would perhaps shift the binary (success/failure) result to a more varied one (success, success at a cost/complication, fail forward...etc)

 

[Bill Zebub]

The "risk" lies in not knowing, which may have negative ramifications later.

False. Making the roll, and failing, doesn't leave the character worse off than not "trying". Zero risk to trying.

(In quotes because what action did the character actually attempt? Did they rub their temples and mutter, "I'm thinking...I'm thinking..."?)

 

[TheSword]

Being able to roll gives people an incentive to invest in and get better at that particular talent. Developing ability scores, choosing skills, racial abilities, expertise, Feats, spells etc.

It also also allows the vagueries of chance and fate to change things. Chaos can be good when it leads to interesting outcomes. I love it when someone climbing or jumping or persuading or intimidating rolls a 1 or 2… drama!

Lastly you can learn from failed rolls - how difficult or obscure something is that brings its own weight to the table. If I am asked to make an Arcana check to recall something about runes, roll an 18 and fail and know that lore is really obscure. Failing forward can be a thing.

 

[soviet]

The "risk" lies in not knowing, which may have negative ramifications later.

As it would be impossible to tell the players every single thing their character(s) know about the setting, never mind impossible for them to remember it all if we did, the best way to abstract this is with a "do you happen to know this snippet of info" roll. It's either that or they know nothing, take yer pick.

It's like in real life if you ask 100 people who won the 1949 FA cup you might, if you're really lucky, get one right answer from someone's memory (as opposed to their going online and looking it up somewhere). But if you ask long enough, someone's gonna get it.

Everyone having a 5% chance to know everything is too generous, I agree. That's why I sometimes put it as "If you roll a 20 I'll think about it". That said, though it might not be anywhere near as high as 5% the odds of someone knowing any given thing are rarely if ever outright zero, and I want to account for that somehow.

Every player rolling even if it might be pointless is great design as IME players love any excuse to roll dice!

And maybe - just maybe - the Barbarian overheard someone in the pub last night talking about whatever it is the Wizard and Bard don't know right now.

Never say never.

Isn't this exactly the kind of ex post facto thinking that gets criticised in other contexts? 'Oh you rolled a 20, uhhh a whole encounter you had last night with some previously unmentioned NPCs now pops into existence'. This is quantum ogres all the way down. As a player I don't know for sure what my character did last night or what topics they have knowledge of until the dice tell me that an event or explanation of understanding must now be created in retrospect. Awful game design.

 

[TwoSix]

This is a major thread digression (or will be if y'all take the bait) but I don't believe in gating knowledge/information behind any kind of skill check. I don't think that ever makes the game better in any way.

Most of the time I just give them information if they ask, usually picking the character most likely to know. ("Can I tell what the runes say?")

And sometimes they have to work for it, in the same sorts of ways they'd have to work to recover a treasure, with more valuable information/treasure requiring more work (and danger).

I've noticed that one of the more difficult transitions for groups going from trad/neotrad skill-check based play to a more OSR type system is dealing with the absence of skill checks to gate knowledge and perception, and moving into a "just the tell the player the info (unless it's actively hidden), so they can make decisions" mindset.

Once you're aware of it, it's crazy how prevalent the "Roll Perception or equivalent to notice X" checks are in a standard modern D&D game.

 

[TwoSix]

Isn't this exactly the kind of ex post facto thinking that gets criticised in other contexts? 'Oh you rolled a 20, uhhh a whole encounter you had last night with some previously unmentioned NPCs now pops into existence'. This is quantum ogres all the way down. As a player I don't know for sure what my character did last night or what topics they have knowledge of until the dice tell me that an event or explanation of understanding must now be created in retrospect. Awful game design.

As a complete tangent, I kind of want to make a statblock for "quantum ogres".