Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Scalz Mar 12, 2015 23:48:07	Hey all.   Just started my first ever adventure as a DM, and it went well, though I made some mistakes for sure.  I was wondering about how to handle Charisma checks in the game.   The party captured a goblin and wanted to ask it questions.  All the players made indimidation checks to try to get the information.  My question is does all the players get to do that check?  It seems with 5 players all making the check, 1 of them is bound to pass it most likely.  Should I only have 1 do the check?    Also, how many times can they perform the check?  If they fail, can they keep trying till they pass?  Doesen't seem right to me, but I can't find anything helping me about the answer.   Thanks
#2 DM_HEEGZ Mar 13, 2015 0:00:00	I would allow any character to roll a check. Usually though, the pattern is to have the player dictate their actions, then you decide whether a check is required. I would play up the roleplay and have the player state what they are attempting to say or do. This would include speaking in character hopefully, as they describe what their PC is going to do.   For the checks themselves, only allow one check per PC per encounter. You set the DC, default to 15 and adjust down to 10 for something easier or 20 for something hard. If they miss the check, you consider letting them succeed at a cost. For example, the DC is 15, and they roll a 12. They could succeed in the goblin answering questions, but maybe it lies or misleads them somehow.   There are alot of ways to handle this sort of thing, and preferences will vary alot from player to player and DM to DM. Good luck and cool to see you stepping up to DM! I made a lot of mistakes starting out as well, but just focus on the core game mechanics and having fun. The details will sort themselves out over time.
#3 Mephi1234 Mar 13, 2015 5:40:21	What I usually do is assign a primary actor (well, let the players choose a character as the primary), with the others giving a Help action to support them primary actor (giving them Advantage on the roll).  This way, there's one roll with advantage.    Allowing multiple rolls from everyone, or even subsequent attempts from the same people, is basically just a numbers game - someone's gonna get it, and it takes the thrill out of it.        Now, we don't really have rules for what to use as an opposed rolls or DCs for Intimidate or Persasion.   I prefer going with a Charisma saving throw, but asssigning an arbritary DC based on the situation (shouldn't be too hard) isn't bad either.   I'd say DC 10 at the most for a lone goblin.
#4 Kayal Mar 13, 2015 6:12:00	I would allow the character with highest intimidation to take the "lead" while getting assistance (i.e. advantage) from the other characters. Obviously, though, the lead can really only benefit from one assistant, so the remaing characters would be better off to support the attempt in another way (with insight, for example).   Re-rolls are situational. With an interrogation (or most other intimidation attempts), I usually rule that re-tries are not possible. If the character tries to be intimidating and fails, then the victim simply doesn't find them intimidating. Of course, if some new factor were to change the situation, I would allow a new attempt. (Example, Player says "tell me what I want to know, or else!" Unphased, the goblin stares back all steely-eyed. Then, the player cuts off the goblin's finger and says "I'm only going to ask you nine more times." Well, I might allow a re-roll in that case).
#5 Noctaem Mar 13, 2015 6:36:06	Scalz wrote:
#6 Coredump00 Mar 13, 2015 8:13:08	If you WANT to give the party information, there is no need to allow everyone to roll. There is no need to make one of them roll. They tell you they threaten the kobold, and you just adjudicate that the kobold folds and tells them whatever you wanted them to know if the first place. Same is if you WANT the door to get opened, no need to have the rogue roll, if you WANT the fighter to get to the top, no need for a climb check.   (In fact, this is a mistake I see DMs make all the time, they WANT the PC to succeed for a plot reason, so they assign a faily easy DC, then the PC manages to fail the roll, and the DM needs to scramble to find some excuse to count it as a success anyway.)   But if these things are meant as obstacles, then you are correct, allowing every PC to roll can make even a hard task fairly trivial.   But remember the basic premise of the game.   The PCs describe what they are doing The DM adjudicates what happens, this may include calling for a Skill/attribute check with whatever modifiers the DM feels is appropriate.   So in this case:  (btw, this also assumes that someone can communicate with the Kobold somehow...)   It is reasonable to adjudicate that the kobold is easily intimidated, and thus make success automatic or assign advantage/disadvantage as you deem appropriate. (Or not) In any case, if the attempt is unsuccessful, and another PC attempts it, you are free to adjudicate that the situation has changed. Perhaps the first attempt made the kobold feel the PCs were all bluffing, or whatever.  So maybe the kobold gets advantage (or the intimidator gets disadvantage)  Or perhaps the second PC describes an entirely different approach**, which scares the kobold, so the task gets easier. At some point, you may feel that no further attempts are going to change anything, and just adjudicate that each attempt automatically fails.     **Remember, the PC shouldn't just say "I intimidate him", but rather what he actually does, what he says, what threats he uses, etc.  This doesn't have to be word for word like in a play.... but enough of a description for you to adjudicate what happens.
#7 Kayal Mar 13, 2015 8:33:08	Noctaem wrote:
#8 Barky Mar 13, 2015 19:26:48	This is a really good thread.        I'm beginning to think about throwing away Charisma checks. It's a cheat to get around role-playing. Is there really any point in allowing a die-roll determine whether or not you give the players information you want to give them? Or whether or not an NPC will want to lie to them? Wouldn't it be better to just roll-play it out? If they insult the Baron, then they fail, regardless of the dice roll.   Anyone got a good reason to even do these sort of checks?
#9 EmpactWB Mar 13, 2015 22:22:20	If you have a player who isn't as comfortable with roleplaying, or one who is playing a character that is significantly more (or less) charismatic than they are, you should certainly allow them to have the check to assist.
#10 Kayal Mar 14, 2015 5:14:00	Barky wrote:
(Reply to #8) Coredump00	Barky wrote:
#12 iserith Mar 14, 2015 8:46:28	Scalz wrote:
#13 iserith Mar 14, 2015 8:55:41	Barky wrote:
#14 Psikerlord Mar 14, 2015 16:06:21	To answer the OP - if the whole party are trying to intimidate him, I would just ask one person to make the check, with adv. Or just one person try at a time.   I dont think it's a "group check" scenario, as that makes it harder (at least half the group has to succeed or they all fail).
#15 Gnarl Mar 14, 2015 20:47:39	Scalz wrote: