15 Common D&D Skill Check Mistakes and How to Avoid Them 

Well... this perfectly embodies the nature of the game, the rules and its players.

That's D&D in a nutshell!

The DMG is like the Bible. There is something in there to justify whatever you want.

On that natural 20 issue, I always thought it was a holdover from 3.5e, but looking at the PHB for that, it's actually quite explicitly not the case. I think this just comes down from tradition/house rules. Here is the exact text, though: The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. *Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.* So there it is.

@@AlbinosaurusR3X Yeah I've always been hard against auto-pass 20s for skill checks, having started my gaming by reading the 3.5 books. In the advice for setting DCs, 3.5 preempted some DMs who may want to discern between "impossible" and "nearly impossible" tasks, knowing that characters could and would be encouraged to (like in the Epic Level Handbook to come) become INSANELY powerful. They went on to suggest a "nearly impossible" swim check DC of 90 for swimming up a waterfall. So yeah, suggesting that was theoretically possible, they could not suggest that any random person could do so 5% of the time. Impossible-to-obtain DCs allow for gods to have a chance of failure (the ones that have to roll, anyway), and for superhero powerhouses to succeed at essentially unreal checks.

Yeah I do the same thing, Tho the 5, 10, 15 is a reasonable guideline

Me too

Nothing wrong with that.

I think that's how most people do it. Heck, that's how most modules do it.

I use 13 a lot myself.

Great idea

Thats not how concentration works Personally I'd argue they have to attach rope (spending about 1 minutes to get it right) But at that rate I'd just give them a magical armor to not have disadv.

Oil the armour really well.

Or just cast silence ;)

@@KorvinCoraxsilence only affects a 20-ft sphere in space, not a creature, pass without trace is the spell

That's actually a really good idea. I'm going to keep track of that. Maybe they also throw a small pebble at the same time to sell the idea that it's a small critter/bird/whatever. I like that.

I would posit that to be a deception check, or a stealth check using charisma instead of dex.

Recently played an Oath of the Ancients paladin (10th level or so). We were trying to 'stealth' our way past a critical guardpost. I was actually doing pretty well up to that point, then I rolled a 1. Well damn. Go for it then... I closed with the guard as he raises his whistle and hit him with a thunderous smite... So much for stealth...

Yeah, maybe have the rest of the party that helps the guy out roll with disadvantage to show them DESPERATELY trying to hold the chainmail pieces still

So as much as I like this, I think we all know that _most_ groups would just use group stealth checks as a way to give the Paladin consequence free stealth. Which brings back the video creators point about embracing failure. The idea that the Paladin _can't_ stealth means parties need to come up with creative solutions rather than "we just stealth passed this encounter". That, or they need to start spending resources to give the Paladins stealth.

Toss them in the chest of holding and have them hold their breath. Move quickly. ;)

How dare you say I can't, sir, when I so clearly can lol.

So the Cleopatra treatment then

Throw a rock down a different hall and give everyone advantage on their check. Now the fighter roles regularly instead of at disadvantage

Disadvantage is generally equivalent to a - 5, pass without trace is a +10, mathematically equal to canceling the disadvantage and applying advantage

That’s how I run the checks too. Perception is looking, listening and in some cases smelling while investigation is hands on. Moving things and feeling for hidden switches and the like.

Be careful with asking for perception rolls for sensory checks when you should be using passive perception and "freebie" sensory checks. If the room smells bad, you should be able to tell them that without asking for a successful sniff, rolling high doesnt turn you into a bloodhound. Nor should a roll dictate whether you can hear or see something that is not hidden. There could be cases where a creature is hiding and you roll opposing perception vs stealth, but allowing someone to 'roll to see __' is inviting the chance (if roll is low) to 'occassionally see nothing'/go blind for a round

"When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check." - Player's Handbook

Interesting, I've always done Perception = Physical action, Investigation = Mental action.

i like your take on that.

I'd probably be strict and say that athletics is used for straight climbing. Even if you do like a parkour wall run (which is still pretty athletic), that probably isn't going to let you scale a 30ft wall... At least at low levels.

@@AnaseSkyrider Yeah, I do allow Athletics or Acrobatics for climbing. Hell, the old edition Rogues had wall climbing as a built-in feature, not the Fighter. I like the dexterous parkour, but I do require a plan of attack that uses the environment. Even the regular Athletics climbing should be exceedingly difficult without some kind of grapple.

'have them describe HOW they’re climbing that wall to decide which roll.' this is great advice in general. players should be interacting with the world and describing their actions, not picking options from their character skill list. i prefer when players tell me what their character is trying, rather than just asking 'can i do an acrobatics check'. this also helps because sometimes i may not even ask for a roll for what they are attempting. if the player is creative in interacting with the world and describes how they use the environment to their advantage then this could either ignore a roll entirely or reduce the DC.

As someone who climbs a lot that works, or I would rule it based on what they are climbing. Very smooth wall with few holds? Acrobatics. Long drawn out climb for 60 feet or more? Athletics. The issue is climbing is a mixture of the two :/

@@AnaseSkyrider well climbing is not all athletics. Someone can be incredibly buff and not get up a wall still. I’ve seen it many times.

Sad thing is that it contains a lot of mistakes. You are better off just reading PHB.

@@MrDrakian what mistakes? Not everything has to stick 100% to the rules

@@dominusdane3304 It would be true if this guy didn't both use the rules to prove his points and disregard them when it didn't fit his points. It's great to have personal preferences, but calling anything that doesn't align with them "mistakes" doesn't help.

I mean, i wouldn't call this " a rule getting in the way of player's enjoyment" not saying that your statement overall is wrong, but in this particular example, the halfling feature is a possibility, not a rule. It says you CAN, which means you decide if you do or not. - Its the same with Finesse weapons, you CAN use DEX instead of STR, but you might still use STR. The difference is, only the DM can ignore rules in turn to increase enjoyment, but the players can ignore their features which gives them the possibilty to do something.

The high prescription notes something doesn't add up. The investigation reveals why, if the roll is met. In this case failure might mean more time. Beacuse you KNOW something is different there

Sure, when you declare you want to check for a false bottom, that'd be Investigation. It represents your character playing with the drawer, looking for any way to open it. And if they find nothing, they won't know if they failed or if there was nothing to find. But a general, I search? Not without that specificity. Maybe I'd tell you you realize the space inside the drawer is too small for the size of the drawer

If you're going to use acrobatics for climbing, at least still use strength. You're allowed to switch with the ability score is used. Performance is only for entertainment, singing, storytelling, music etc. Any type of lying or trickery is deception. While listening to the video, I considered allowing performance only for something like trying to pass yourself off as another person, but that's called out as deception in the php. Obviously, the DM can always alter things, but that's the designers intent. While there's a few places where you put your foot down, luke, you seem to be too willing to allow the players to do whatever skill they want. They'll always pick the highest number!

I always ask whether a player is using their hands and being tactile, or just using sight, smell or hearing. Perception = Ranged and often gives less information Investigation = Close and often gives more information

@theravenousrabbit3671 I agree. I'd like to add, though: investigation should take much more time.

Perswation (Int) to destroy them with facts and logic.

I do this too. Bothers me that someone cant use intelligence to read a persons body language and make an intelligence insight check. Its also an optional rule anyway.

Yeah, I hate that a barbarian can't be intimidating because he front loaded strength, con, and dex. Although an effective death machine, your barbarian fails to intimidate anyone because he has no charisma and walks the Path of the Milquetoast

This is strong recommended and widely used in pathfinder 2e 😁

It's not a house rule but a variant rule in the dungeon Master's guide

I would do medicine for this one, depending on what creature it is. It makes more sense to me

@@flaissondasilva5144 nature + medicine dual check. Just because you know that animal doesn't mean you know diseases and anatomy, and vice versa

I like to do sliding scales with knowledge checks. I also account for the character's background. For example, players want to check their knowledge about Smirnam, a figure from dwarf history. If the character is a dwarf from the same region of the world, then I'd say a DC 5 = they've heard of her, DC 10 = they know a few facts about her, DC 15 = they know how she figures in their history (similar to how an average American knows a fair bit about some less recent presidents, like either Roosevelt), etc. If a wood elf with no special dwarf connections makes the same check, the DCs will be higher and the bits they do know are likely to be different. (For example, how the Wright brothers are perceived by Americans compared to how they are perceived by Brazilians and many Europeans.)

@@atk05003 I do knowledge checks like you, and if a check isn't obvious (like lock picking) and they can explain their reasoning, I let my players choose their check. They know that what they get changes depending on what they choose, what they might know, and that the DC may be higher to get something useful. I haven't run into issues yet (my group is really good about that) and I like that it encourages both them and me to think about what and why a character might know something. To identify a magic item, a wizard might use arcana to read the runes, a bard might use history to try to recall a tale about the hero who last held it, a rogue might use investigation to see if they pick out context clues in its aesthetic, and a fighter might make a smithing check for clues in how the item was made.

@@flaissondasilva5144 I mean, I know every mammal has a heart, lungs, stomach, brain and where they are situated, mostly. I know what a leg of several animals look like, so real basic anatomy. But preventing them from bleeding if they got hurt at the wrong location, if they have 1, 2, 3 or 4 stomachs might be a different story. Would Medicine be a general check for humans, or also for animals? As per PHB, Medicine allows you to stabilize characters, and diagone illnesses (they don't even mention diseases). So, yea, I'd argue Nature would be fine for general anatomy.

Correct, RAW a skill cannot autofail one a 1, you add modifiers and have a lower result but it could still end up success against a low DC.

Here's my take on the last point: logically speaking, a Nat 20 in any roll is the best possible roll you can get for that situation, ignoring a bardic inspiration or bless addition. If the DM knows that the player cannot achieve the task with the highest possible roll, they shouldn't let that player roll, period. The task is truly impossible, and the DM shouldn't entertain an exercise in futility. The same with a character who could pass a check with a nat 1. Just let them do it. That's my opinion, but then again there's always the potential for DMs to base degrees of success or failure on the dice roll. For instance, a rogue rolls a nat 1 for a total of 12 on an easy lock. They do a super slipshod job and get in, but it takes longer and everyone hears it. Conversely, player does an impossible jump, but rolls a Nat 20, so they don't make it across but are able to tuck and roll to avoid damage.

@airsoftingpanda5843 There's a tactic I use in some cases that both speeds up the game and rewards the player for investing their precious skill prof. I call it "you do the thing". If a rogue is trying to crack a basic lock? He does the thing. If a barb is trying to intimidate some smol nameless gobbo? She does the thing. If the artificer is using one of their 150 expertised tool sets to find a weakness in old architecture? They do the thing. Not only does it keep the flow moving, but sometimes a player is going for a really interesting tactic and I wanna give them the confidence to cook

It's not true that anyone can attempt any check. e.g. Locks and manacles in the PHB equipment sections require proficiency in thieves' tools to pick.

I would say as a dm "are you looking around or moving around touching things". I'm my mind perception is just looking for something, investigation is like Sherlock touching things to figure out clues. Let's say there a trapdoor under a rug. A perception check would not show that or would be higher, but investigating by moving the rug would be something different. Just my two cents, what do you think?

Obviously I agree with you and gave examples that are similar. I like the way you think

Guys, read the rules, please. PHB explains that Perception is about using your senses to detect something, and Investigation is about using clues and making deductions. Every skill in the game has a passive score. The difference between Perception and Investigation is not whether you are actively using it or passively using it. A smart character can passively deduce (Investigation) that the shape and difference in the dust on the furniture means it's been occupied and in frequent use (maybe even the ways in which it's been used), and a wise character can actively look (Perception) for the key in between the clothing in the drawer.

Humble players who don't feel the need to be good at everything all the time are the absolute most fun to have in a group.

Tell that to my paladin - the second sneakiest guy in our group of six... DEX-based pally, with background/lineage skill in Stealth, wearing studded leather and a shield - AC 17 at lvl 1, prefers rapier and longbow. The rogue *is* sneakier, but that's because he can get through some tighter spaces with his weapons, while I can get stuck.

Or you allow the stealthy ones to scout appropriately and report back. If you need to sneak around something, the group stealth really should be a weakest link scenario. Everyone rolls, and if someone fails, yeah...your group got caught because someone was loud...that's how sneaking around works. Or you have to problem solve. Find another route, or the guys with loud clanky armor have to take it off and stow it in the bag of holding to actually effectively sneak past the guards or monster that they REALLY don't want to wake up. Otherwise why does stealth or lack thereof even exist in the game? It's another problem in the game that requires problem solving. If you don't want it, don't use it, but probably tell that to your rogues who were hoping to have their moments to shine when building their characters

I do a case by case depending on what the PCs wanna do. One time, there were these sleeping wolves guarding something in the cave. The group decided for one character to scout ahead and report back. Another instance, the group managed to sneak up on these bad guys who were playing a gambling game. The rogue rolled successfully and managed to pick the lock and quietly open the door, not alerting the people in the room. The group then tried to sneak past these guys cuz they didn't wanna fight them and I had everyone roll stealth checks. Half the group failed, so the way I explained what happened, the people who succeeded had managed to sneak by, but the ones who failed caught the attention of the bad guys. I didn't know creatures have 360 awareness of their surroundings however those guys were drunk, so we could blame it on the alcohol for that one.

"your entire party is never able to use stealth" - which to me is 'right'. You want to sneak? Send in the sneaky guy(s). You want the whole platoon with the heavy gunners? You ain't sneakin'! Stealth is one that I would never do 'group' check in most cases (been doing this long enough to know not to say "never")

I have that most armour can be made (for a significant cost) more stealthy by lining joints with felt etc. This gets rid of disadvantage but it is still a minus 1 to stealth checks. However if a player is using plate, then there are certain grounds in which it will always be at disadvantage, such as stone flooring (sabatons on stone will not be quiet). I tend also to have it so that players can utilise armours under other armours (AC doesn't stack)so a palladin in full plate may have a gambeson underneath (padded armour does not impart disadvantage in stealth checks in my games (stupid rule)) so if it is really important I will make cast off armour available to players and so the full plate armour that was making noise with every step can be removed quickly or at least turned into half plate.

I have to disagree. I hate that houserule. It makes no sense to me. Playing a character with a 5 Modifier, Proficiency and maybe even being under the influence of Guidance, your Nat 1 might still be a 14, or 19 if you have expertise, but because you roll a 1 you just failed a 10DC, which is pretty much the easiest check you can make. And having the most absurd idea, and the DM, why in the hells he would do that, nobody knows, allows them to make a check, thinking they will fail anyway, but they roll a Nat20. Even if the DC would be a 99, which is literally impossible to beat, you'd just became the new king of the whole continent, because you successfully persuaded the former king to make you his heir and then commit suicide to atone for his evil deeds. Nothing of the above makes sense, so Nat1/20 shouldn't be a thing with skill checks. - However, what you can do is, lower or raise the DC. If you have a DC of 30, and your player rolls a Nat20, you might set the DC down to 25, so even if the Player is not proficient in that skill, he might succeed anyway, but not automatically. Likewise, if you roll a NAT1 on a DC10, that DC might turn into a DC15, so you didn't make the check with your 14. - Yes, that might suck, because you still failed, but you don't fail immensly, and depending on what you were doing. So, maybe you got something in your eye which caused you to jam a lock, or you didn't realise the rock you grabbed for climbing was loose, which causes you to slip down half the way, as opposed to maybe breaking your thieves tools entirely, or falling down all the way of the wall, hurting yourself by the fall. - Or, you have enough boni, and you actually still succeed the DC15 with a 16, so you still make the save, even with a Nat1. This would be way more logical to me.

@@MikaeruDaiTenshi have you never heard about the nat 20 to convince the king to give you his kingdom? Of course he doesn't give you his kingdom but he instead thinks you are a funny little guy and offers you to become the court jester instead of being executed for your insults

@@herman1francis ​ @herman1francis That's my point. Going with the Nat20 rule, it's an automatic success, so you succeed in what you want to do. That's the whole point of this rule. What you describe would be: The Nat20 saved your life, which would be forfeited otherwise, but you still don't get what you want. - This is basically what I described, but yes, I have to agree, that I fail to mention it specifically, and only said "reduce DC".

@@MikaeruDaiTenshi it's an interesting conversation to be had. But remember, as the dm you have ultimate power. Players will feel cheated if they fail with a 20 and will feel infantilized if they succeed with a 1. But as the dm you get the power to Define what success and failure mean. Just because the player rolled a 20 he doesn't get the kingdom, and because he rolled a 1 doesn't fall on his face and die. You get to define what success and failure mean in any situation

@@herman1francis Sure, the DM is the one who decided in the end, but in terms of house-ruling, a rule like this should definitely discussed beforehand, so even if you have dozens of boni and get a 19 or higher with a Nat1, and fail only because of that 1... If the majority of the players agree to play with that rule, I will, but I won't be happy. But if the majority is against it, I hope the DM will agree not to use that rule. - At least that's my opinion. But sure, how the fail and success looks like, is again, up to the DM, but I feel like some DMs take those Nat1/20s too seriously and just go with the best extremes they can find. (well, without immediately killing you, though depending on the situation, this could actually be a possibility)

Thanks for sharing this! 5e only has 3 social states (Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile) in the DMG and I was having difficulty thinking of names for additional social states.

You understand that 5e doesn't have those yet could be homebrewed if you truly desired it? Also skull checks can take longer than 6 seconds.

I don't know about pathfinder but i just cheked for d&d 3.5 and I didn't find anything about the limitation of 2 categories in 24h, but I found a table that set the DC to change the demeanor of a NPC that clearly allow you to change it more than two categories (hostile to friendlyis DC 35, hostile to helpful is 50), also you can use it quicly, for exemple tto make two people stop fighting with a -10 to the check

That was not a rule in 3.5, also you could accept a -20 (or was it -30...) to skill to cut the time down to 1 round, at least if you played with the Epic rules. The DC's were high, but it was technically possible to turn a creature from hostile to helpful in a single turn, and like almost anything in 3.5, if you wanted to, you could optimize the hell out of your Diplomacy skill.

You can't scream "Martha!" and turn an enemy into a friend simply because none of them are Batman with a heavy PTSD. Heh.

I've done the same thing. So far this has only happened in fights where a PC wanted to do something badass but not super realistic. He rolled a nat 20 that ended up being like a 26 or 27 with bonuses and proficiencies so I let him do it cuz it would have been cool.

I agree, I don't like the idea of "Oh, nat 20's don't mean you autosucceed, give me your total and we'll see if it beats the DC" because to me a nat20 means not only did you succeed, it also means that something additionally went in your favor. Guards protecting a keep and the rogue nat 20's on their stealth check? One of the guards is very clearly sleep deprived and beginning to doze off and seeing that, you can capitalize on the opportunity as you help guide the group through this section, giving the guard disadvantage on his perception checks (and therefore a -5 penalty to his passive perception). You manage a nat20 on your check to climb the wall? You find specific points in this section of the wall that make it noticeably easier to climb, whether intentional or not, and you may point them out to your party to lower the DC by X amount for their checks. And vice versa for nat1's, not only did you fail, something is now acting against you. Nat 1 on your stealth check? You can hear the sound of the clattering armor of multiple guards approaching, one of them hears you and you notice them beginning to pick up the pace. Nat 1 on your athletics check to climb a wall? You notice a brick sticking out of the wall that you assume would be a sturdy foothold, but as you put some weight on it, you realize it is weak and eroded, and more importantly it starts to break, make a dexterity saving throw.

I like nat 20 fails. You try to charm the dragon, fail, but a kobold nearby heard your words and now calls you MASTER in a way that disturbs you.

Nat 20 fails are like failing upwards. You failed to pick the lock, slip, and your hand lands on a key. Or a map. You fail, and get a reward that is tangential.

in WotC modules, it always calls for a perception check to find a secret door

@@quonomonna8126 the First sentence of the rules for Investigation says “when you look around for clues”. That must imply look around for traps and secret Doors. Whereas Perception literally says “lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. From that we Can conclude that perception is “what Can you see, hear, smell, or otherwise detect from where you stand by using your 5 senses”, hence it is a wisdom based skill check. Whereas Investigation is “what Can you find from actively looking around, searching for clues, moving things around to find that hidden trap door underneath the closet. Hence, being your Intelligence telling you to look underneath the closet. So I also disagree with Luke on the Perception vs Investigation.

@@quonomonna8126 It doesn't matter. You can logic it anyway you want and use either. You notice a faint quarter arc patch on the floor near the book shelf a little less dusty than the rest of the floor (sight / perception). You find subtle wooden hinges on the bookshelf similar to those gnomish tinkers build into their puzzle boxes. (knowledge / investigation). Both make perfect sense and either can apply to the same situation.

Totally agree on using investigation for hidden objects and doors. I tend to use investigation for stuff that assumes you're walking around a room (or other limited area) while looking for it, while perception is something you would be able to notice from your specific spot at the moment of rolling. There may be some overlap in the two. There's also a (in my opinion) very important reason for doing so. which is : Perception is rolled *all the damn time*. I wouldn't be surprised if perception was rolled as much as all the other skills combined. Not to mention that almost every kind of deduction is also covered already by one of the other skills. Looking for footprints, nature or survival. Anything magic related, arcana. Anything dealing with gods, religion. Dealing with people, insight. The example that Luke gave, using perception to see the pressure plate and holes in the wall, and then requiring investigation to put those 2 pieces together? Who needs investigation for that to begin with? In the end, I just think D&D skills overlap more than their descriptions would suggest. My advice is to make it a habit of having the players ask "Can I use X instead?". And if it sounds at least plausible, allow it. If there's too much doubt as is, consider allowing it but increasing the DC.

@@IkaikaArnado We play by the rules in my game.

True. Even if you don't know how to do something, it's still possible to figure it out by accident.

This is what disadvantage is for. I keep the same DC and just make them roll with disadvantage.

@@darklard Actually, I like this idea better. Thanks for the inspiration!

That's a great idea. 😂

Shit. Just made a huge, lovable, Teddy like Charakter for curse of strahd.

Curse of Sttahd is dumb. We defeated the crazy druids with a fire spitting tank.

@@davidbeppler3032 Yeah I'm not happy about the way things have turned out and what it's done to my character because I made a character that I loved so much I put together a $300 cosplay outfit to get into it with.

@@quonomonna8126 that sounds painful. Sry to hear that but maybe wear the costume to remember your character.

This would work with a spell like Darkness, which can target a point including on an object and travel with it, but silence targets a fixed point in space (unless they only need to move in silence within that 20ft radius haha) In older editions it would stick to objects and could travel, but would probably be too abusable in 5e to make all members of the party masters of stealth with a 2nd level spell though!

@@chrisbowes3241 but it does not say that it is a point in space and it can not be cast on an object. It says "centered on a point you choose" not a point in space. If that point is moveable then it stands to reason the effect will also move with it. No where in the spell description does it say that the point is in space and is unmovable. As far as being abused I ask how? It is only abused if the DM allows it and has no skill or imagination. Think about it. If they are using it to sneak into a dragons lair, do you think the dragon is unaware of their presence? Of course not, the dragon surely can smell them. The same with guard dogs and any other creatures with sent. They may also be seen or set off warning alarms and not even know it, since they themselves can not hear it. I have been DM'ing since 1981 starting with Advanced D&D 1st addition. Silence 15' radius was never abused and seldom used. It is funny that people that played 1st addition assumed that if you cast silence 15' radius on a stone you could then place it in a scroll tube and it would hide the effect as if you turned it off or block it just as if you did the same with the light spell. Why would it have any affect on it? It would not, unless the scroll tube itself were enchanted for that specific purpose. As for me, I will allow it to be cast on a point on an object and be moveable, it is way more fun that way. ;)

@@JohnMiller-wf6cm I believe that it can’t be cast on and follow an object because of how spell targets are explained, silence only targets a point that you choose, this position is the point of origin for the spell and remains this way for its duration. If it could target objects like armour then I believe it would say so (like with Darkness, and even then it has to be something you’re holding and not carried or not worn). Also if all concentration spells that target a point could do this, then things like sickening radiance or other nasty area of effects could be stuck onto anything, including your enemies armour (which would be a death sentence with how long it takes to remove!) “A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect […] Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.” Haha yeah they’re not really gonna become undetectable, but it would go a long way with all the clanking induced disadvantage, I think it would just be too powerful for a 2nd level spell - I would be more concerned about how you could just silence enemy mages by getting your barbarian to chase them down while surrounded in a sphere of of silence (wish I could do that on my barbarian/rogue grappler though!) Ha that’s pretty funny, I know the 5e light cantrip can be covered in that way but I wouldn’t have leapt to the conclusion (though I’ve never played that edition) that a bog-standard tube with a cap could somehow have the incredible ability nullify a spells area of effect like that! (Would make magic a lot less impressive if so) Yeah end of the day the great thing about d&d is that it’s a game and we can do what we want with it to have fun, because that’s why we all play it, so keep doing it your way :) (judging by how angry some people get in the comments you do wonder sometimes if they’re actually playing this to have fun!)

@@chrisbowes3241 Yeah, I can see that. But trust me it would not be to powerful if you could cast it as in the older versions. And yes I have ran games from 1st addition through 3.5 and have had people do that very thing. carry a stone with silence 15' radius and run up on the caster, usually the healer first, and just try to damage them. But in the older additions most spells were not concentration and had a permanent affect. And it was never to powerful for a second level spell then. You just had to look at the spells that did not require a verbal component. There were plenty to choose from. Unfortunately, in 5e it seems they have mostly pussyfied the game. Killed the spells and made most of them concentration then pilled on the hit points and gave every non spell cast massive damage output. In 1st addition a wizard got a die 4 for hit points plus con, if he was lucky enough to have a bonus, and only got a hit die up to level 9, I think, and then got 1 hit point plus con bonus each level after that. So fighters in the early levels could easily kill most wizards, but at higher levels the wizard would most likely win. They had fire balls that were 1d6 per level and spells they could cast on themselves that would make them a formidable fighter with a sword or other martial weapon. Not to mention the shields to increase AC. It was a far more deadly game to the characters back then. A level 20 fighter would be lucky if he were able to get 100 or better hit points. The got a d10 per level plus con up to level 9 then 3 hit points plus con bonus per level after that. An 18 Str in 1e had a +1 to hit and a +2 damage bonus and was the only stat that could go over 18. And it was 18 then a % roll. So the best bonus was an 18/100 which gave a +3 to hit and +6 damage. And only humans males could get an 18/100. All the other races fell in the lower percentile rolls. So it was a very different game but just as fun. And yes, as angry as some get in these replies makes you wonder if they have fun playing. You are right that it is just a game and the DM's are capable and encouraged to make the changes they want. I have not been running 5e very long and am still learning the rules. There are a lot of things I like that they did and a lot of things I don't like. I don't like the up scale of hit points and damage output. Makes no sense to me to keep increasing that. Not sure why they restricted spell like Fireball, lightning bolt and other spells that gave you a die of damage per level. As it is it is near impossible to kill a character in normal battle. Though I do like the death rolls versus the bleeding to death unless you got stabilized from some one or a spell. In the 1e when you hit zero you were down and stable, but you could take damage beyond zero. -1 to -10. Once you hit -10 your character died. If you had 1 hit point left and took 12 points of damage or more you died. It was rough, but it made people think of tactics. In 5e there really is no tactics used any more because odds of them dying are slim. It comes down to who can put out the most damage first. My son and his friends thought healing spells were useless and all you needed were good berries to pop you up so you could hit and most like go right back down. Another good berry and do it all over again. It wasn't until I started playing with them and showed them that if you start healing them as they hit the half way mark they will do much better and a life cleric now had value. I used an Asimov race, whick increases your healing ability with an extra healing ability. So now that is how they play their clerics that heal. I showed them that if they did not go down then a TPK was less likely to happen. And they actually started winning more tough fights. Have fun with your games. :)

i don't think that he meant that type of help when he said "help" using a magic to silence the whole party isn't "helping the paladin", it's using magic helping is somethign purely handmade. of course that would work, and the silence spell would make the paladin quiet, but what he was trying to say is that, differently from helping someone picking a lock by grabbing them tools or holding them picks, >manually< speaking, you can't help someone with a full plate of heavy metal not make noise.

yes but they are two things completely different, perception is looking for something, while investigation is trying to find info about something, so while i think investigation could work for perception, i dont think perception could work as investigation

@@forrest6939 I think this comes down to a difference in DM perspective. You seem to be trying to find or define what each skill can do. I tend to favor, how can this character overcome what's in front of them. Some of my favorite scenes have been party members solving the same obstacle with assorted skill checks.

I myself like asking the player WHAT they are doing and HOW they are doing it. Make a call from there and work with the player. I think players should be negotiating which proficiency they have (if any) support the check they are making. The rules of this game are open ended and vague for a reason. For example with the investigation vs perception arguement. The intelligent character is going to know why the tile that is raised 1/4 of an inch more than the surrounding tiles would even be worth notice, where as the wise character would naturally understand where people would be inclined to trap things and check those locations. Don't forget which ability score is being checked and why characters can accomplish similar tasks in vastly different ways using the abilities they have.

@@user-ce7gj9rw7m gets it.

Wergle Bergle! Wergle bergle. I say!

Its funny that you dropped the words Perception (i use passive perception to deduce it is raining currently) and Common terms (i have proficiency in the language: Common) and i dont think meteorology is inaccurate, just agree with the statement "a prediction is still a prediction, and anyone can make a prediction" i do a bit of weather guessing from time to time myself

Good house rule. As a GM with 35 years of experience, I approve.

I run a variant on 3.5 and Nat 20 are counted as 30 then add modifiers. Nat 1 is a -10 then add modifiers.

I like your rule. It think i will use it

Not a bad compromise. I like it. The craziness that ensures with a 1 or 20 is always memorable, and they're what I live for when it's game time, but this will definitely be implemented when the line is grey.

I like the 'confirm crit' house rule for skill 20s, its not an automatic skill success, but if you pass the DC with what is essentially "optional disadvantage", it becomes an auto/epic success. Similar with critical fumble, even if you are proficient at something, you could get unlucky, reroll a 1 just once more to confirm if its autofail. Expertise in a skill would negate crit fumble chance, unless player wants to RP the Will Wheaton curse

That'a is bit of a tigth rope to walk. I understand that you want your party to think but on the other hand, what if player wants to play well traveled man who knows people, as opposed to their zero social skills and confidence irl.

@@Karak-_- Well that is always the Issue isn't it? trying to Play something you are personally not good at(like, I love making voices for my Characters, but I also like playing Female characters as a Player, but I suck at Female Voices). But I see social skills as an RP situation. And I tell that to my Players in the First session. For me, You have to act out trying to Bribe the local Guards to not arrest you, Persuade the Dragon not to eat you. Only After you Roleplayed the Talk do you get the Roll. Based on what you said it will be an Easier or Harder DC(I do take the Players personal Social Skills into consideration as well, but if you wanna have a Social character, you gotta talk as them in character, I won't let you just roll your way out of it).. the same goes for Insight. You already have Doubts against someone's Behavior or what they are saying if you Roll Insight. My Descriptions tell you the Information anyone would see, but only you seem to notice it. After all, your Character is only seeing the persons Behavior and then has to put 2 and 2 together. Its the same thing as describing someone hearing a Howl in the distance when they make a Perception check but not telling them it is a Wolves(There are dozens of Creatures that actually Howl, not just wolves) I never had a Player that didn't have at least a little Common sense, cause all you need is just Common Sense to know, from my Descriptions, if the person seems to be hiding something or not. If you lack basic Common Sense then you have more problems then just your DM giving Descriptions that Require it.(don't mean it in a rude way) Also, if you are joining a Group of People you don't know to play DnD you better have some confidence.. After all you are meeting Complete strangers to play a game over who knows how many Months or Years that basically require you to do different voices and talk as your character. Whoof.. I went on a little rant there but one last thing to this: Gratification. Your players, both in my Experience as a DM and as a Player, will find it more enjoyable if they get Descriptions that Hint towards what the Person is planning on doing or hint towards them lying and they figure it out themselves rather than you saying "yea, a 20 Insight reveals that he is lying". Obviously you have to know how to describe things to make them be able to figure it out without needing Crazy Knowledge in Body language reading (like, you don't need to know that commonly people look left when they try to construct a Lie or Right when they try to remember something, It's not a 100% reliable method, but It has well over a 60% success rate) which obviously not everyone can do. I personally know a lot about Body language, so I as a DM can make good descriptions on how someone is acting instead of having to just tell them "yea, he is lying." though, If they roll really high compared to the DC I set, or the Counter Deception Roll (like 10+ higher) I sometimes just tell them if they are lying or what they are planning. That is more the exception than the norm though. All in all, My Players like the way I do it and I have not encountered someone who didn't. Even had a Rather shy Player before, that was self conscious and they had the CHA character of the group, the Way I DM the Social Situations helped them come out of their shell and have a Blast doing so. The Key is to do it 'just right' it is very tricky to do, but once you are there it's a great time for all involved.

@@notrebelbuffoon522 Wow, Wall of Text, that's like 5th level spell? Dumb joke aside, I would agree with you that just "roll out of trouble" with no need for thought is boooring, and if your players enjoy something, then there's nothing wrong with it (with some concerning exceptions). And, yea, the key is doing it "just right", which I would specify as "telling enough for players to figure it out (if they roll high enough) without actually telling it".

Cool idea!

If the character knows it, why would you need a check? Isn't that like reverse metagaming, like punishing beginners for not owning all the books?

@@schwarzerritter5724 My guess is that the roll is to determine how well the character remembers something in a given moment that the player may not know OOC. That's how I interpreted what OP said, anyway. For example: you as a person may "know" the quadratic formula, but you may not be able to remember it on command because the knowledge is rarely used. I think that's how Insight checks are being used here.

@@grammarmaid In this example, it is more like making an insight check to remember if the quadratic formula even exists; you still need to make an arcana check to use it.

@@schwarzerritter5724 I think it still checks out. Ask an average adult what the quadratic formula even is and you'll probably get a blank stare. Something that is definitely taught to most, if not all students at some point. Ha ha. Either way, only OP can confirm. I was just guessing.

The rules specifically state that noticing traps and secret doors is a Perception check. You can disagree with it all you want, but the rules are right there on the paper. See pages 103 and 120 of the DMG for explicit confirmation that hidden doors and traps are both found with Perception, not Investigation.

All skills have active and passive scores. If your distinction between Perception and Investigation is whether you are actively using it, you aren't using the skills RAW.

Those two things you described are passive perception and making a perception check. Perceiving your surroundings generally is what passive is for. Actively searching is when you make a roll.

Perception is for looking for/finding things, making a skill check with it is active, otherwise use passive Perception. Investigation is an intelligence skill for making deductions or connecting clues. Think of Perception as finding the candle stick and Investigation as being able to determine it was Colonel Mustard.

I think of 3.5’s spot and search checks. Perception is spotting something from a distance whereas investigation is physically scouring and searching an area.

I view perception as a single action event (ie scan the room) while investigation takes some time. You will never find items thats not in view with perception

You are confusing 'epic gameplay' with 'high magic' setting. Low magic means you don't frequently find magical things about/it is rare. That is completely unrelated to barbarian strength, which is non-magical. A high magic setting doesnt mean the heroes are superheroes, it means your dungeons are lit up with magical runes, your doors are magically locked, and there is an animated broom tidying up the place so the dust doesn't pile up

If you don't want a barbarian breaking down a door then describe the door better, have it so that is of a heavy wood and has sturdy looking hinges and lock plate. Hell have it so that the door only opens outwards (a sturdy door will not be kicked down or shouldered if it opens towards you). It is however important to be mindful that poor dwellings will not likely have very sturdy doors and not all doors need to be sturdy (the door to the lavatory for instance) and in ruins, doors maybe will have been weakened due to the elements or animal life (termites or Wood-worms).

Quite. Stealth in D&D isn't all that realistic in the first place and it only takes one failed roll to doom a stealth mission.

It's possible to have both. Create more expensive armours that have felt lining in between the joints, this removing the disadvantage. Make magic armour available. Your solution takes away benefits from other classes when there are plenty of choices the DM or even the player can make to resolve an issue regarding stealth. You do you but I personally think the idea of a paladin in plate armour stealthily walking across flagstones in sabatons ludicrous but then again so do my players and they would make adjustments or seek out solution to address the stealth problem.

I've often found that the issue there isn't actually with realism, it's with inconsistency. If a D&D setting states that plate mail grants disadvantage on Stealth checks, then plate mail grants disadvantage on Stealth checks. That is a rule of that setting. It would therefore not be arbitrary for a character in plate mail to spoil a group check, because according to the rules, their plate mail is granting them disadvantage, making it more likely to roll poorly. The issue arises when the rule is shirked or enforced inconsistently by the DM, rather than decided upon once during Session 0 or 1 then maintained as such for the rest of the campaign with only specific exceptions, realistic or not (e.g. a set of plate mail that has lining specifically designed to mitigate the Stealth disadvantage). If the DM consistently asks for the plate mail wearer to roll Stealth with disadvantage when they have done nothing to mitigate the disadvantage, then there isn't a problem. So, my idea to make group Stealth checks fairer without changing anything about the game is to warn the plate mail wearer well in advance that they will impact the check due to their disadvantage. That way, the group can prepare for the check appropriately. There are effects that mitigate penalties and disadvantages already baked into the rules; that's what _pass without trace_ and the Trickery Domain cleric's Blessing of the Trickster feature are for.

We do this. We also added Special Effects to combat with Effects like TRIP, STUN, ENTANGLE, DISARM, SLASH, and IMPALE possible (we took the Effects from FANTASY AGE and MYTHRAS). They are activated when you roll 5 or more over the To Hit needed.

There is an optional rule in the DMG for missing the DC by 1 or 2 as being a mixed or partial success. There is also the rule in the PHB (page 174) that failing to meet the DC can mean either no progress is made (failure) or progress is made with a setback.

Awesome thank you so much! I'm so very happy to be able to help.

Literally my rogue player right now, even 51 sessions later. She gave up on hiding, because she "needs" to Dash. Gotta go fast, I guess?

In our game, a Nat 20 gives advantage on your next roll; Nat 1 gives disadvantage. You might still succeed (on a skill) with the Nat 1; you might still fail with a Nat 20.

I used to do that until the players started to think that if they roll, they have a chance to succeed. If I tell them no roll and they auto fail, it removes a bit of suspense because they know early to not even try

I always give players "the attempt roll" because maybe that person is getting bored/hasn't rolled d20 in a while/wants to feel like they are participating. But if its impossible i will announce result "you failed" somewhere between the die roll and right before they announce the result (your math doesnt matter) Like sure, if you want to roleplay that your character is attempting to high jump 20ft, then go for it, it will look silly, of course they will fail, but i am not going to say they can't attempt/remove agency

I would disagree there. It also goes back to the point about using degrees of success and failure, so the Nat 20 may significantly reduce the consequences of the failure

Was it in the middle of a snowstorm and did they have Mask of The Wild? Because it states with that ability that you can hide even when lightly obscured. I believe it's a wood elf ability

@@BrianWalker93 no to both. He attacked one from like 20ft away in daylight and just hide in the open field and is wearing all black against the white snow. Wasn't even a surprise round or anything lol.

@@PapiCito Yeahhhhh... I can agree wholeheartedly then with that call. Because that was uh... special.

Exactly! I never have it that bard fails a performance (unless intoxicated) but the performance check is for how well it affected the crowd/viewers. I will also decide for NPCs how likely they are to be swayed by say a musical performance and what preferences they have in say music (dancing tune, ballad, classical or a bawdy tune) or just make them a grump with very little interest in most entertainments but will give them a different interest (say gambling or drinking instead).

Along the same lines of "you can't Hide if the enemy can see you" there should be a "you can't _not_ _see_ something if you roll bad for looking" You either see it or you don't. Your vision isn't a variable thing that improves with high dice rolls

"Are you f***ing it? Roll Constitution."