who makes the checks?

[Li Shenron]

Not a one of us is under 25 (and we do try to act our age...most of the time ).

...ehm ehm... apart my druidic girlfriend (24) we are all older than 25 too

The zeal-problem came effectively up the first sessions, that's why I decided to roll secretly. Probably now the players are "mature" enough, but we're fine with this way.

 

[kreynolds]

...ehm ehm... apart my druidic girlfriend (24) we are all older than 25 too

Then I guess I'm just lucky to have the group I've got.

 

[green slime]

First off, as one of my PC stat sheets, i have a "compares to spot" column for the various skills the PC has that i might need him to roll. like say spellcraft. For example, if his spot is a net +7 and his wilderness lore is a net +4, the compares to spot column for Wl is "-3." I include saves in this column as well. This is handy for things like sense motive and bluff as well.

This way, whenever i want a secret die roll, i just ask for a spot check and adjust what they report to me to give me the correct info.

I tend to ask frequently for spot checks, especially on entering the room, to gauge how much info i give "at first glance." As such, my players are not usually that jumpy when i ask for spot checks.

Petrosian, I must say I thought that idea a brilliant one. Consider it snatched!

 

[bret]

I almost always roll these Listen and Spot checks by myself, and I don't tell the players that I was rolling such a check. And usually I roll once for all the party (using their best modifier), unless it is important to know who has succeeded and who not.

Rolling once for the whole party is a problem.

If you've got two people who are good at Spot, your chances of both of them missing something is lower than if only one of them were there. You should roll at least a couple separately or allow the second best to take 10, otherwise you have greatly increased the chances of them missing something.

 

[Li Shenron]

Rolling once for the whole party is a problem.

If you've got two people who are good at Spot, your chances of both of them missing something is lower than if only one of them were there. You should roll at least a couple separately or allow the second best to take 10, otherwise you have greatly increased the chances of them missing something.

With 2 PCs only it's just fine to roll twice, but with a group of 6 like mine, rolling for each means that it is almost sure at least one will hear the sound. OTOH, on a Move Silently / Hide check, with 6 rolls you are almost sure at least 1 is gonna fail, which will spoil the whole party (I'm thinking about all the party sneaking together).
That's why I make collective rolls, with the best modifier (if 1 success means party success) or the worst modifier (if 1 failure means party failure). Note: this does NOT mean I roll collective ALL Move Silently check and so, only when it is irrelevant WHO EXACTLY won/succeeded the check.
You may apply some bonus/penalty (e.g. +/-2) for being a big group.

Notice that with this habit a player may think he doesn't need to spend skill points in Listen/Spot if someone else in the party has an overall better bonus; instead, there are still very important situations (e.g. surprise) when everyone's rolling by himself.

 

[Teleri_mm]

Here is what I do:

The DM makes all the checks that do not immediately affect the players. Like spotting a secret door or checking for traps or listen checks for distant foes.

The players make all check that will directly affect them with in the next 6 seconds. Like if the rogue has snuck up to attack the party (DM rolling these) I would let the PCs make their last roles to see if they are surprised. Also I let them make their disarm traps checks. I like to let them feel like their fait is in their own hands... sometimes I even let them role and add up the damage from a mass damage spells I through at them... they really hate that LOL (15th level clerics casting blade barrier and the like). Oh and I also let them role all the 'miss chance' things like displacement or fortification against criticals, that way when they miss or hit or get hit for lots of damage they know it was for real. I think it works well as a tool to involve the players… if you need that sort of thing in your game.

Teleri_mm

 

[Kershek]

I was just about to write what Teleri_mm said - I also only make the rolls for the characters when it's for something that doesn't immediately affect them.

Otherwise, I have an Excel spreadsheet grid with their skills noted. I hit one button et voila, the grid updates with their skills plus a random d20 roll. If it's a spot check, I just scan the Spot row for a number high enough.

I will always roll a search check for traps, however. I don't want them to have an idea about whether their poor roll was the reason for not seeing a trap. Yes, I know people say they don't metagame that, but it's still in the back of your head. I just like to say "you don't notice any traps" and they have no idea (unless, of course, they take 10). Open locks, however, I let them roll. It is pretty obvious to them if they're fumbling at the lock or if a lock is at the tip of their experience.

I let them roll for move silently checks since that is also pretty obvious if they fail and make loud noises.

 

[dcollins]

When the PCs are in a situation where they would need to make a check to detect something unknown, does the DM tell the players to make the relevant check...?

Note that the DMG p. 17 has a very specific suggestion in this regard. There's a little list of skills it specifically recommends as suitable for DM rolls when the player can't immediately see the result.

 

[Li Shenron]

I let them roll for move silently checks since that is also pretty obvious if they fail and make loud noises.

That's a very good point: sometimes you should be able to notice you're doing something bad.

I thought to let the players notice if for example they fail the check by, let's say 10 points: I stil haven't used this in my game.

 

[Kershek]

That's a very good point: sometimes you should be able to notice you're doing something bad.

Unless, of course, you're Lister with an electric guitar.