Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Ralif_Redhammer Jun 22, 2015 7:39:27	During this last weekend, the adventurers were investigating what they would find out was a summoning circle. I called for an Arcana check. The spellcasters of the group made the check, but for the heck of it so did the party barbarian (who does not have Arcana). He rolled well, but I ruled that there was no way the barbarian could be so well versed with magic to understand the forces at work.   The player was a little grumpy about the matter, but that passed quickly once there was something to fight. But I’m still thinking over the decision. On the one hand, I don’t like ignoring the factor of luck of the dice. On the other hand, it would have made no sense for him to be that familiar with the arcane arts, given the character's background and build (and I felt it unfair to those characters that actually do have Arcana).   Thoughts?
#2 iserith Jun 22, 2015 7:47:35	The DM calls for an ability check when the outcome of a fictional action is uncertain in the eyes of the DM. In this case, the fictional action was "spend time investigating the strange circle on the ground to discern its purpose" (or whatever). For anyone who was involved in doing that, the DM must decide whether the character succeeds in figuring out what it is (no roll), fails to figure out what it is (no roll), or may or may not figure out what it is (roll). Thus, if the DM doesn't think the barbarian has a chance of discerning the purpose of the magic circle, then narrate it as such: "Ragnar, you're unable to figure out what this is." Don't ask for a roll.   Remember, an action is not a check. A check just resolves uncertainty as to the outcome of the action, uncertainty which you, the DM, establish. If you don't think the result is uncertain, just narrate the results.
#3 Macv12 Jun 22, 2015 7:51:02	He blurts out random nonsense that just happens to be correct.   "Ya know, I saw somethin' like this once. 'Cept it wasn't a magic circle. Just a regular one. Actually it was a cage. Chief had these birds. Y'know, you tie stuff to their feet and they fly it around? Well anyway if you banged the cage the birds would fly out. So I bet if we bang this magic thing some magic birds or somethin'll come out."   (Party stares at each other. Laughter ensues. Wizard looks at circle again.)   "...b...by Jove, he's got it! I see it now! It's a summoning circle!"   "Yep." (Barb picks nose.)
#4 BadMeeple Jun 22, 2015 8:18:27	I think the Barbarian being unable to discern the purpose of the summoning circle may be a legitimate call, but you should probably declare that before asking the player for a check. Asking for a check establishes in the player's mind that there is a chance that they can succeed, so I can see why the player might have been a bit upset.
#5 Razintarr Jun 22, 2015 8:30:53	I'm with Isenrith that you can decide the barbarian has no chance to succeed.   But if there was a chance, even though it's a small one, he deserves a result if he makes the check. How it is that he has that knowledge can be tailored to the character. While a wizard might recall seeing a drawing of a circle like this in a book he read, the barbarian might recall a campfire story where an evil wizard used a circle to call a monster to destroy the heros tribe. Or he might remember a childhood game where they'd draw a similar circle, ran around it singing a specific chant, and then the kid in the circle would stand up and declare he was a monster and try to tag the other kids. The wizard then might recognize the chant as something familiar to the verbal component of a summoning spell. And barbarians aren't without their own magic. Tribal shamans might use summoning circles to summon elemental creatures like galeb duhr to ask for advice. All in all plenty of ways to spin it so it doesn't sound weird that the barbarian has this knowledge.   When confronted with a situation where you can't figure out a reason how a character knows something, throw it back to the player. Tell him it's a summoning circle, but it's a bit weird for a barbarian to know that, and ask him how he thinks his character knew that. You'd might be surprised at the creative responses you'll get.
#6 xanral Jun 22, 2015 9:53:55	As long as it is consistent.  So when the 8 strength wizard tries to force open a door the 18 strength barbarian failed opening it auto fails too.   Though generally I'll let rolls like this succeed because it will tend to spawn an interesting in-character discussion afterwards.
#7 Cooperjera Jun 22, 2015 10:29:26	I'm on the same page as Razintarr & Iserith.  It sounds like the barbarian player opted to roll on the open call for an Arcane check.  There may have been an error in communication from you to your players in that you meant something other than what you said.  For example, you meant to say "If you have the arcane skill you may make an Intelligence (Arcane) check with target DC 15.  If you do not have the arcane skill then you may make an Intelligence check with DC 20," but you failed to communicate the details which allowed all players to make a roll at the same DC with some unexpected results.     When these unexpected results come up, it may be a good idea to allow the player to explain why their character came to a solution that would most likely be out of character for what has been established as a history up 'til now.  It allows the player to expand on their character background.  Hopefully, the player takes advantage of the opportunity for good role-play and doesn't respond with " 'cause he does."
#8 Ralif_Redhammer Jun 22, 2015 11:19:31	Thanks for the advice all! I’ll stand by my call at the time, but in the future will ask players to justify their knowledge/experience/ability if they roll successfully on things like this.
#9 Mazzy Jun 22, 2015 13:13:06	Trained only skill checks went away and for good reason.   1) They keep players disinterrested. Making every player feel like they can contribute, however unlikely, is important. Otherwise, if the barbarians feels he can't contribute, then he will spend those moments starring at his phone bored and no one wins in that scenario.   2) Unlikely success is funny. A wizard failing an arcana check and then the barbarian making it is one of those rare humorous events that players and DMs enjoy and make the game more fun. If everyone always plays to type, you deprive everyone of those moments.   3) It encourages min-maxxing. Barbarians don't have much reason to put points into int, but penalizing one that does by not even letting him make most int checks seems like a bad precedent. (The barbarian you are talking about probably did have an 8 int, I'm just speaking generally.)   4) Its unfair and capricious. When skill trainings for some skills just give +2 but others are needed just to make the check, it makes them less equal. Wizards become amazing because no one else can even try to make knowledge checks.   5) Trained only skill checks don't make sense. Everyone knows odd things about fields out of their typical vocation. I never studdied medicine but I once knew the name of some weird disease that a doctor friend I was talking to had never heard of. I just happened to know about it because it was on a show I watched one time. It happens.
#10 sim-h Jun 22, 2015 14:52:02	I don't see the problem with it. Why would the barbarian not know? He is currently in the situation of being amongst company who can more easily identify the circle (the party of PCs). Does his background mean he has never met, seen, or heard stories of anybody with arcane knowledge in the past? That's a super-hermit.   I'd allow it  - he's heard tales of such circles or witnessed a druid or other wilderness type character identifying something similar in the past.
#11 Psikerlord Jun 22, 2015 15:27:57	As I understand it you call for an Int check. Then if folks have Arcana, they can add that too. If the Barb rolled high, cool, lucky for him - something in his past exposed him to the answer. He can now have some fun explaining how that came to be!
#12 cowleymen Jun 22, 2015 15:40:20	Mazzy wrote:
#13 Weezel Jun 23, 2015 8:09:30	While i agree with Iserith about this kind of situation not nessissarily requiring a roll at all, one alternative if you have players who like to try and roll for everything even if it may not make sense for their character's background, maybe go with a group skill check.  That may help keep all the players involved in the story and can make more sense, with every character pitching in ideas just that the more trained or knowledgable help cover the gaps in the arcane training of the barbarian.
#14 Ralif_Redhammer Jun 23, 2015 8:24:18	That is exactly what I have been contemplating doing, and what I will be doing. My players are really bad at this – whenever I call for a roll, they’ll all try to roll regardless of their ability (which is how this situation came up). From there it’s a matter of odds that they’ll succeed at most anything. So I will give the group the option to either have one person try it, or they all have to roll.   I do agree with Cowleymen, on the matter of the value of training. Part of what bothered me is that the barbarian in question was heavily focused on combat and physical skills. In a moment where some of the spellcasters/more cerebral characters had a moment to shine, he horned in on their moment in the sun.    Weezel wrote:
#15 iserith Jun 23, 2015 8:33:01	Niche protection - which class has X skills or Y class features, for example - is a way the game tries to help the group manage spotlight. With some reasonable overlap, each class is good at its particular thing. As part of managing spotlight, you can just say that the barbarian fails to understand what the magic circle is all about because the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Remember, players don't get to roll unless you tell them to. In this case, you might have had the players cerebral characters roll (or just have the characters succeed) while you told the barbarian's player that his or her character is in the dark when it comes to this sort of thing.
(Reply to #12) Mazzy	cowleymen wrote:
#17 DemoMonkey Jun 24, 2015 6:52:32	If you only want some players to roll, name them when you call for the roll.   If you let everyone roll, you're stuck with it.   Never permit a roll if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of it.
(Reply to #17) Weezel	DemoMonkey wrote:
#19 iserith Jun 24, 2015 7:22:35	Weezel wrote:
(Reply to #19) Weezel	iserith wrote:
#21 Ralif_Redhammer Jun 24, 2015 7:48:18	Also not a bad idea. In retrospect, I could've easily said: "Spellcasters, make an Arcana roll."    I sent an email out to my gaming group apologizing for the call, and explaining that if a PC wants to make a roll like this in the future, the onus will be on them to explain how they would know that, and that if I call for a check, either a single person rolls or if they’re all going to roll, we’ll be treating it as a group check, unless individual success makes a difference.   DemoMonkey wrote:
#22 Eck Jun 24, 2015 12:00:42	Take a look at Iserith's awesome writeup on adjudicating actions: http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4208036   - Eck
#23 iserith Jun 24, 2015 13:28:39	Eck wrote:
#24 cowleymen Jun 24, 2015 21:56:06	Mazzy wrote:
#25 Hebitsuikaza Jun 27, 2015 11:38:33	When is the last time you said "Make a perception check" and when someone passed, you ruled that they could not possibly perceive anything because they don't have training in that skill.   Or "To jump across the gap, please make an athletics check" and then when the Wizard rolls a 20, you turn and say "actually, you aren't trained in athletics so you automatically fail and fall."   Or when did you last ask someone to make a diplomacy check and when someone passes, you shake your head and say "sorry, but you didn't take the diplomacy skill, you don't know how to talk to people."   "Sorry, they automatically see through your lies because you have no bluff skill." "You automatically die in the wilderness because you don't have the Survival skill." "He just laughs at your critical success because you don't have the Intimidate skill and are incapable of scaring anyone." "You can't ride an animal! You don't have the Handle Animal skill."   Seriously, where does it end?   I imagine that in fact you give all characters automatic training in virtually every single skill available to a Fighter and most of those available to Rogues, you just put special limitations on the skills of the people who already exclusively get to do the miraculous things. Which means that the skill of the non-special classes are crap because everyone automatically gets them while they are barred from taking part in more and more aspects of the game.   But everyone in the game are denizens of this world. And just because they don't have any special training in magic or religion doesn't mean they couldn't have heard of it or perhaps just look at the situation and more or less intuitively guess at what is going on based on other things they have heard. Maybe they just look at the shapes of the runes and figure out that the shapes kind of fit together like a puzzle-- or that they take a look at the symbol of the God and just from looking at the symbol they can kind of get an idea of its specialty and the race it is a patron of based on what is carved there.   I mean, if I were the Barbarian, after what you did in this situation I would come to understand that I was basically forbidden from participation in anything but combat and would just zone out or even just get up and leave asking to be called back when my character would actually be allowed to participate in the game and not be a silent observer and tool for use of the people who actually get to play.
#26 iserith Jun 27, 2015 12:36:46	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#27 Hebitsuikaza Jun 27, 2015 13:07:18	iserith wrote:
#28 Thoughts_My_Aim Jun 27, 2015 15:09:41	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#29 Orethalion Jun 27, 2015 19:16:45	Mazzy wrote:
#30 Coredump00 Jun 27, 2015 22:53:52	I am a firm believer that some actions require training, or equivalent.  That doesn't mean that *everything* requires training. Heck, it doesn't even mean that any particular skill must always require training.  I look at it on a more case by case basis.  I will raise/lower or adv/disadv the DC if I think training is more important than 'normal'.    I also avoid letting 'everyone roll'.  At that point just give them the info.  I mean, even an average of +3 makes a 5 person party get a 20 almost 70% of the time.  Either make it a group check, let only one person roll, maybe one person with advantage.... something.
#31 Enevhar_Aldarion Jun 28, 2015 16:47:33	The rules already have a mechanic in them that you can use: advantage and disadvantage.   Two players want to try the same skill or knowledge check? Fine, but the one whose area of expertise fits the check rolls at advantage and the one who should know little or nothing about the check rolls at disadvantage.  If that player still succeeds, then cool, they can invent some tidbit of background info at that moment to eplain the success, giving their character more depth.
#32 Orethalion Jun 28, 2015 17:17:27	Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
#33 iserith Jun 28, 2015 19:12:22	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#34 BW0222 Jun 28, 2015 21:40:20	Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
#35 BRJN Jul 01, 2015 19:14:11	How can a Barbarian know what a summoning circle is?  Short easy answer: some time before he became a PC, the character had a run-in with somebody who was using a summoning circle.  The Barb doesn't have to know how it works or how to operate it himself, just be able to identify it for what it is. IRL example: people who have never held a stick of dynamite in their life but have seen people on TV / movies use them, know that it goes BOOM, and running electricity through it is a bad idea.  (They also know NOT to cut the red wire.)  But ask them to explain the chemistry that makes it work, or to build an working explosive charge with it - get a mystified look.   A Smart Barbarian is so anti-cliche that I would allow him a shot at it every couple of sessions, just for the fun factor.
#36 OrwellianHaggis Jul 03, 2015 3:42:23	I would have allowed the roll.   After his success, I'd have asked how the character knew the information. I'd have been happy with the above explanations, or "our shaman told us tales to warn us against dark magic", or "I once killed a woods witch for trying to summon demons, and her magic looked a lot like this", and so on.
#37 Lanliss Jul 04, 2015 11:14:26	Sorry if this was said already, as I did not read everything, but why not just say that the barbarian dealt with this thing before? Some upstart cultist tried encroaching on his tribes' land once, years ago, and thought that the puny circle would help him conquer the barbarians. The fool.
#38 Saeviomagy Jul 06, 2015 0:40:06	The argument that the barbarian has never come across such a circle before is ridiculous. After all, such circles are common enough that he has stumbled across one NOW, and he is in the company of multiple individuals who work with such things.   It's like saying that unless you're a trained mechanic you have zero chance of fixing a car engine.