Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chiyo 01-19-06, 03:56 PM	I kinda wanted to see how other DMs do it for action points of skill checks done by the DM. Say, a player really wants/needs to succeed on her hide check, how do you handle that since the DM is the one rolling it anyway. DM cannot ask for use of action point or not completely blindly (done that and thought it wasn't fair on hopeless rolls or super-higher results). I thought about making it a fudged roll if player uses an action point (i.e. it succeeds no matter what just for heroic effect) but it's something players can catch on quickly and it removes uncertainty on some skill checks. I thought about just having players roll it and call AP normally but that goes against the very reason to do those checks behind DM screen to not let the players know right away if they succeeded or not. I'm thinking of implementing something but I don't know if it'd be too much overhead, unfair and/or doable. Basically, I'd roll the skill check normally and check vs DC. If skill check result is within 6 points of the DC (both above or below), I ask the player whether they want to use an action point, and if so I roll the action point normally. I'd ask even if check is above the DC by a little just to mimic what happens now and then when you "waste" an action point on a save or check you would have made anyway just because you wanted to be sure. There are also the case of checks that seems like you could make them with an action point, then roll a 6 and find out that you still failed. So should range when I ask be greater than 6 slightly to reflect that. Maybe up to 8 below and 4 above instead? How does this method sound? What are other DMs doing in these situations? As players, what would you consider fair? Thanks.
sh0 01-19-06, 04:24 PM	A player in my group has two choices. First, they can declare the use of an action point before a roll is made, be it done by me or the player. Second, after a roll is made but before I indicate success or failure. So, if its a roll the DM makes, if he or she wants an action point spent, they have to let me know up front or before I say they failed.
igotsmeakabob!! 01-19-06, 04:40 PM	I'm a new DM, but I let my players roll all of their stuff.. I just don't let them see what I roll thanks to a DM screen. So they may roll low on their hide but they don't know how well the spotter rolled.
Chiyo 01-19-06, 05:49 PM	I let my players do most of their rolls but for some, I don't think it's good. Even for non-opposed checks, there is potential for metagaming and bad roleplay group dynamics from some of them. Say, the main search monkey of the group does her own search checks. She rolls a 2. Despite her +12 to check, most at the game table know that she won't find anything but the obvious. So now everyone makes a search check hoping to break the common DCs of 15 or 20. I think that's not good dynamics in some specific cases. Anyway, I was using the same method as sh0 uses. I just thought that in many cases it was a bit unfair compared to if they had seen their roll and depending on it decide to use AP or not before I tell them success or failure (which I can't tell them when it's DM rolling). But maybe that can't be helped. Thanks for the comments guys.
DBlizzard 01-19-06, 07:58 PM	Say, a player really wants/needs to succeed on her hide check, how do you handle that since the DM is the one rolling it anyway. DM cannot ask for use of action point or not completely blindly (done that and thought it wasn't fair on hopeless rolls or super-higher results). One of the recent Mark of Heroes adventures recommended having the players roll a bunch of rolls at the beginning of the game session for you to note down (there were a lot of hidden rolls to make, Sense Motive, etc). The player could spend an action point on the roll then, but it was gone at that point (personally, I would only charge them the Action Point if I ended up using the roll).
Nom 01-19-06, 10:17 PM	For rolls you know the DM is making, you could legitimately say up-front "I will spend an action point if the raw roll is between X and Y". Mechanically, it is identical to seeing the roll and then deciding, even if it feels very different pyschologically. For "automatic" rolls, like spot checks, you could provide the same directive in the form "if I need to make a spot check and I roll ...". Not saying this is a stylistically good option, but it preserves the rules and the hidden roll mechanic.
DarkWarriorKarg 01-20-06, 12:48 AM	I'm a new DM, but I let my players roll all of their stuff.. I just don't let them see what I roll thanks to a DM screen. So they may roll low on their hide but they don't know how well the spotter rolled. This is the best suggestion. Why are you making the hide check anyway? It's opposed by a spot or search check.
The Necromancer King 01-20-06, 04:33 AM	I let my players roll everything. I just never let them know DCs, and I never use standard DCs. If they roll low, they can use an Action Point to pump it up before I declare success or failure. To make a non-standard DC, take one of the Standard DCs of that level, and roll 1d8; add or subtract the number rolled to the DC. Mostly, I make up numbers on the spot without the use of pre-determined DCs, but I'm a pretty arbitrary GM...
Sereno 01-20-06, 09:05 AM	There's no reason not to let the players roll their own checks, especially in Eberron with Action Points. You don't need to reveal the DC, of course, but I believe the players should have a good idea about how well they did. For example, a low-level rogue picking a lock rolls a 16 adds their ranks (say 5) and an action point (result 3) and gets a 24. The DM just says, sorry you aren't able to pick that lock. The player (and the character) will know that they made a decent roll and still failed therefore the lock must be really good. This sounds like something a rogue *should* be able to determine ... I did my best on that one, and still couldn't get it ... "who's making locks this good, and what are they trying to keep us away from!?"
Chiyo 01-20-06, 09:44 AM	This is the best suggestion. Why are you making the hide check anyway? It's opposed by a spot or search check. For me, hide is something subjective. You do your best to hide and usually think you're pretty stealthy. How do you know if you're doing a good job or not? You can tell if you're hiding well that time compared to any other time? I don't think so personally. It's one of those checks where you always "think" you're hiding well enough. Same for move silently. Let's take another example if hide seems wrong. Bluff vs sense motive. PCs try to weasel their way into a guarded area. Guard seems to believe them. PC bluffing the guard rolled extremely poorly -> PCs suspect that the guard may be faking it and are ready for a trap. PC bluffing the guard rolled extremely high -> PCs are sure the guard didn't see thru their bluff and are confident. In contrast, if the PCs don't have a clue how good the bluff check was, they won't know and be on their toes. For me, the last situation is more believable than the previous two with respect to roleplaying which is why I roll the bluff check. (I let people roll their aid another checks but that's it). Another example, search. How do you know how good your search was after trying it? Trap monkey searches for traps on a door. Rolls super low and thus decides to retry. Get a very high score and then doesn't retry any more, now certain that they'll find a trap if there is one or that they won't because there is none. If they had no clue on result of first check, they probably wouldn't retry or they'd retry by default all the time or take 10 or take 20. Either way, not knowing the result of a subjective dice roll, leads to a different and IMO truer to roleplaying behavior from players. To take a real life comparison, say you have that knowledge (programming) skill and are trying to write some program using that skill. Until you test your finished program how do you know how buggy it'll be? When I was writing my own, I'd always give it my best shot and think that it was pretty good, then some worked out ok and some were full of bugs. Either way, I "thought" I did a good job despite in one case, "rolling high" on my knowledge (programming) skill and in another case, "rolling low". The list goes on for situation where a DM may prefer to do player's skill check behind the screen. Say survival to determine if players are still heading in the right direction. Usually players will pick the one with best survival skill to lead. If they all see a bad roll for that player's survival check, they'll suddenly decide to assist or even declare that their character tries to do it themselves. Even if they don't they'll know they're lost before their characters find out. I'm not rolling this one behind the screen because I don't mind much if players know their characters are lost before the characters do but I could see where a DM might prefer to roll it themselves. It's a matter of preference. Anyway, that's my DMing style. I understand and respect if other DMs don't do the same. It's just my preference to roll some checks on which I don't want dice result to influence players' decisions when they have little way of knowing how good they were at their skill. If you don't do that yourself as DM, consider the question as if it was phrased: "IF you wanted to roll skill checks of players yourself as DM, how would you handle the use of action points?"
Actionhank57 01-20-06, 11:38 AM	I let the players make all their rolls, but to keep the suspense its all in the timing. For example, if the rogue is sneaking down the corridor, I don't have him make his hide check until I need to make a spot check. And when someone searches a door for traps, I ask who is going to open the door before they roll a search check, so they can't metagame if they roll low.
Chiyo 01-20-06, 01:43 PM	I let the players make all their rolls, but to keep the suspense its all in the timing. For example, if the rogue is sneaking down the corridor, I don't have him make his hide check until I need to make a spot check. And when someone searches a door for traps, I ask who is going to open the door before they roll a search check, so they can't metagame if they roll low. That's a good idea. Could ask for the exact course of action without allowing changes once the dice start rolling. Guess I could give that a try but I'd have to think carefully to prepare which situations I want to put that in application. Still, that's a good suggestion to get around the issue.