New to 4th Edition... Question About Endlessly Re-Rolling Skill Checks - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

New to 4th Edition... Question About Endlessly Re-Rolling Skill Checks

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
earwicker7
Oct 31, 2011 19:49:30 I played 1st Edition back in the day for six years, but I'm fairly new to 4th Edition. So far, I think the system is excellent, as I really like the tactical boardgame element, having "gone off the reservation" to boardgames only for a long time (not Monopoly, but the kinds with 30-page rulebooks).

My only problem with it so far has come up with both Dungeon Masters I've had, one who seemed somewhat new to 4E, and one who seemed to know it like the back of his hand. Whenever someone does a skill check that doesn't have the potential of resulting in a spectacular fail (for example, setting off a trap), and they roll say, for example, a 5, instead of shutting things down right there, someone else in the party rolls, then if they fail, someone else rolls, and if that fails, everyone just starts rolling again until someone eventually gets a high enough roll (I'm assuming, for sake of argument, that it isn't completely out of our range). This seems to make most non-lethal skill checks extremely formulaic and anti-climactic, as they'll eventually succeed.

Is this more of a DM problem, or a rules problem? If it's a DM problem, does anyone have any diplomatic methods of suggesting that there might be a better way to run things?

Thanks!
#2
salla
Oct 31, 2011 20:02:14 If the players are just going to roll and roll and roll until they get 20s, then assume they get 20s. Determine who in the party has the highest skill modifier, and add 20. That's their result.
#3
bone_naga
Oct 31, 2011 20:03:23 If the party has unlimited time and there are no consequences of failure, the DM should just rule that either they automatically succeed or the task is out of their reach and they fail. Basically, anything that you want the PCs to make checks for should have either a consequence for failure or a mechanism to keep them from rerolling.

For knowledge checks, you can easily rule that they can't try again until they gain a level or have access to some new material (like discovering an ancient tome on the subject) to reference. Physical activities might deal damage or sap healing surges on failures (over-exerting yourself or suffering injuries from falling). Social checks might alienate people, making them not want to deal with you anymore (no rerolls, even from other PCs as they associate everyone in the party with the "rude" character). Failed attempts to disarm or circumvent a trap/hazard activate it instead.

Also, some failed checks might carry later consequences. Perhaps you can roll Intimidate against the servants all night long at the ball, but little do you know that the nobles present are taking note of your behavior and you now suffer penalties for any social checks made with them.

And don't forget that if you integrate certain tasks into skill challenges, the party can retry all they want, but each time they fail they bring themselves one step closer to failing the entire challenge (of course don't do this just to create a false penalty for failing, failing the check should have logical story-based consequences that explain why the skill challenge failed).
#4
mboss77
Oct 31, 2011 21:02:50 Another way to look at it is that the single roll represents the character trying repeatedly but failing. For instance, say your fighter wants to see if he can break through a door but fails his athletics check. You could tell the party that he tries repeatedly to muscle the door open but it doesn't budge. As for letting the rest of the party roll, you could say that only those that have a higher athletics skill are allowed to make an attempt since the strongest most athletic character couldn't budge it. You then force them to try something different or find a workaround. For instance, maybe you allow two characters to ram the door and the one with the highest athletics score gets to roll with a +2 bonus from having someone help.
#5
kitsunegami
Oct 31, 2011 21:59:08
I played 1st Edition back in the day for six years, but I'm fairly new to 4th Edition. So far, I think the system is excellent, as I really like the tactical boardgame element, having "gone off the reservation" to boardgames only for a long time (not Monopoly, but the kinds with 30-page rulebooks).

My only problem with it so far has come up with both Dungeon Masters I've had, one who seemed somewhat new to 4E, and one who seemed to know it like the back of his hand. Whenever someone does a skill check that doesn't have the potential of resulting in a spectacular fail (for example, setting off a trap), and they roll say, for example, a 5, instead of shutting things down right there, someone else in the party rolls, then if they fail, someone else rolls, and if that fails, everyone just starts rolling again until someone eventually gets a high enough roll (I'm assuming, for sake of argument, that it isn't completely out of our range). This seems to make most non-lethal skill checks extremely formulaic and anti-climactic, as they'll eventually succeed.

Is this more of a DM problem, or a rules problem? If it's a DM problem, does anyone have any diplomatic methods of suggesting that there might be a better way to run things?

Thanks!

If the game stalls unless the roll is made, then the solution is simple: the PCs can't fail. You simply have every PC who has the required skill roll and whoever rolls best succeeds regardless of whether the roll beats the DC. In fact, I wouldn't ever bother setting a DC in such cases unless there is a time pressure or another issue like in my example below.
That also applies if they have unlimited time to accomplish whatever it is. A failed roll still succeeds eventually; how badly the roll fails simply tells you how long it took.

The game I am designing will use those two ideas by default: unopposed rolls can never actually fail. Failure simply means you just barely succeeded; only a fumble actually fails. For instance, a thief trying to escape after a robbery gets the door unlocked right as a guard rounds the corner. He gets the job done but now has to win a chase instead of getting out clean like he'd hoped.
#6
gnull
Oct 31, 2011 22:13:34 You might keep the results of certain rolls secret from the characters. In the real world, no one knows if they did a good job of checking for traps if they find nothing, or how well they are percepting in any particular instance. You might also allow failed rolls to trigger the effect in question- if they fail their perception to find a trap on a door, the trap triggers- which is perfectly reasonable since it's quite hard to inspect something without interacting with it in some way.

Ditto other people's comments on knowledge and social checks- failure always has consequences in social situations, and "remember harder" is not really an approach to recalling information.
#7
macleanbrad
Nov 01, 2011 0:17:37 I never allow a game to hinge on a roll.
If there is a door in the way, you can break it, pick it, spell it and if all else fails the guard will open the door and ask "What the hell are you doing?"

Only people trained in a knowledge can make a knowledge check and only they can roll once. If you encountered a critter and know it, you'll know it for the rest of your life no knowledge check needed from there on for that critter. There are usually specialists in game that you can side track to if you need knowledge. It'll usually cause an encounter or skill challenge.

If you jump and fail you fall, acrobatics and athletics are pass or fail states for the most part. If you can't break something on the first shot, you can try again with assistance. If you fail with assistance then you can't break it.

Anyone can try to Intimidate or use Diplomacy and I will allow rerolls, but fails start stacking and at a certain point with Intimidate Guards will be called or the person will laugh and walk away, I do insist on a conversation, what are you saying and such and might give bonuses for creativity or such.

I prefer to have players make judicious decisions about who will roll and I have seen players decide against having someone roll despite having the highest stat because they rolled crap all day. Dice superstition is always funny.
#8
edwin_su
Nov 01, 2011 2:35:41
If the players are just going to roll and roll and roll until they get 20s, then assume they get 20s. Determine who in the party has the highest skill modifier, and add 20. That's their result.

i alouw this if there is is no time presure on the task.
and there is no conseqence to the size of the sucsess ( so not alouwed to get best result on rituals every time)
i tend to make this taking 20 cost a lot of time time

basing the time taken on the number the caracter would have needed to roll.
if a character needed an 8 to sucseed on a task that would cost 1 minute it now costs 8 minutes when taking 20
if a character would need to roll a 20 on a task taking 10 minutes it would now take him about 3 1/2 hours when taking 20

#9
Chimpadin
Nov 01, 2011 3:36:36 This is a tricky one I still struggle with. As a DM I generally say the players can try once only, and if they fail it means they just can't do it how ever many times they try. This is because I feel there has to be some challenge and consequences.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 earwicker7 Oct 31, 2011 19:49:30	I played 1st Edition back in the day for six years, but I'm fairly new to 4th Edition. So far, I think the system is excellent, as I really like the tactical boardgame element, having "gone off the reservation" to boardgames only for a long time (not Monopoly, but the kinds with 30-page rulebooks). My only problem with it so far has come up with both Dungeon Masters I've had, one who seemed somewhat new to 4E, and one who seemed to know it like the back of his hand. Whenever someone does a skill check that doesn't have the potential of resulting in a spectacular fail (for example, setting off a trap), and they roll say, for example, a 5, instead of shutting things down right there, someone else in the party rolls, then if they fail, someone else rolls, and if that fails, everyone just starts rolling again until someone eventually gets a high enough roll (I'm assuming, for sake of argument, that it isn't completely out of our range). This seems to make most non-lethal skill checks extremely formulaic and anti-climactic, as they'll eventually succeed. Is this more of a DM problem, or a rules problem? If it's a DM problem, does anyone have any diplomatic methods of suggesting that there might be a better way to run things? Thanks!
#2 salla Oct 31, 2011 20:02:14	If the players are just going to roll and roll and roll until they get 20s, then assume they get 20s. Determine who in the party has the highest skill modifier, and add 20. That's their result.
#3 bone_naga Oct 31, 2011 20:03:23	If the party has unlimited time and there are no consequences of failure, the DM should just rule that either they automatically succeed or the task is out of their reach and they fail. Basically, anything that you want the PCs to make checks for should have either a consequence for failure or a mechanism to keep them from rerolling. For knowledge checks, you can easily rule that they can't try again until they gain a level or have access to some new material (like discovering an ancient tome on the subject) to reference. Physical activities might deal damage or sap healing surges on failures (over-exerting yourself or suffering injuries from falling). Social checks might alienate people, making them not want to deal with you anymore (no rerolls, even from other PCs as they associate everyone in the party with the "rude" character). Failed attempts to disarm or circumvent a trap/hazard activate it instead. Also, some failed checks might carry later consequences. Perhaps you can roll Intimidate against the servants all night long at the ball, but little do you know that the nobles present are taking note of your behavior and you now suffer penalties for any social checks made with them. And don't forget that if you integrate certain tasks into skill challenges, the party can retry all they want, but each time they fail they bring themselves one step closer to failing the entire challenge (of course don't do this just to create a false penalty for failing, failing the check should have logical story-based consequences that explain why the skill challenge failed).
#4 mboss77 Oct 31, 2011 21:02:50	Another way to look at it is that the single roll represents the character trying repeatedly but failing. For instance, say your fighter wants to see if he can break through a door but fails his athletics check. You could tell the party that he tries repeatedly to muscle the door open but it doesn't budge. As for letting the rest of the party roll, you could say that only those that have a higher athletics skill are allowed to make an attempt since the strongest most athletic character couldn't budge it. You then force them to try something different or find a workaround. For instance, maybe you allow two characters to ram the door and the one with the highest athletics score gets to roll with a +2 bonus from having someone help.
#5 kitsunegami Oct 31, 2011 21:59:08	I played 1st Edition back in the day for six years, but I'm fairly new to 4th Edition. So far, I think the system is excellent, as I really like the tactical boardgame element, having "gone off the reservation" to boardgames only for a long time (not Monopoly, but the kinds with 30-page rulebooks). My only problem with it so far has come up with both Dungeon Masters I've had, one who seemed somewhat new to 4E, and one who seemed to know it like the back of his hand. Whenever someone does a skill check that doesn't have the potential of resulting in a spectacular fail (for example, setting off a trap), and they roll say, for example, a 5, instead of shutting things down right there, someone else in the party rolls, then if they fail, someone else rolls, and if that fails, everyone just starts rolling again until someone eventually gets a high enough roll (I'm assuming, for sake of argument, that it isn't completely out of our range). This seems to make most non-lethal skill checks extremely formulaic and anti-climactic, as they'll eventually succeed. Is this more of a DM problem, or a rules problem? If it's a DM problem, does anyone have any diplomatic methods of suggesting that there might be a better way to run things? Thanks! If the game stalls unless the roll is made, then the solution is simple: the PCs can't fail. You simply have every PC who has the required skill roll and whoever rolls best succeeds regardless of whether the roll beats the DC. In fact, I wouldn't ever bother setting a DC in such cases unless there is a time pressure or another issue like in my example below. That also applies if they have unlimited time to accomplish whatever it is. A failed roll still succeeds eventually; how badly the roll fails simply tells you how long it took. The game I am designing will use those two ideas by default: unopposed rolls can never actually fail. Failure simply means you just barely succeeded; only a fumble actually fails. For instance, a thief trying to escape after a robbery gets the door unlocked right as a guard rounds the corner. He gets the job done but now has to win a chase instead of getting out clean like he'd hoped.
#6 gnull Oct 31, 2011 22:13:34	You might keep the results of certain rolls secret from the characters. In the real world, no one knows if they did a good job of checking for traps if they find nothing, or how well they are percepting in any particular instance. You might also allow failed rolls to trigger the effect in question- if they fail their perception to find a trap on a door, the trap triggers- which is perfectly reasonable since it's quite hard to inspect something without interacting with it in some way. Ditto other people's comments on knowledge and social checks- failure always has consequences in social situations, and "remember harder" is not really an approach to recalling information.
#7 macleanbrad Nov 01, 2011 0:17:37	I never allow a game to hinge on a roll. If there is a door in the way, you can break it, pick it, spell it and if all else fails the guard will open the door and ask "What the hell are you doing?" Only people trained in a knowledge can make a knowledge check and only they can roll once. If you encountered a critter and know it, you'll know it for the rest of your life no knowledge check needed from there on for that critter. There are usually specialists in game that you can side track to if you need knowledge. It'll usually cause an encounter or skill challenge. If you jump and fail you fall, acrobatics and athletics are pass or fail states for the most part. If you can't break something on the first shot, you can try again with assistance. If you fail with assistance then you can't break it. Anyone can try to Intimidate or use Diplomacy and I will allow rerolls, but fails start stacking and at a certain point with Intimidate Guards will be called or the person will laugh and walk away, I do insist on a conversation, what are you saying and such and might give bonuses for creativity or such. I prefer to have players make judicious decisions about who will roll and I have seen players decide against having someone roll despite having the highest stat because they rolled crap all day. Dice superstition is always funny.
#8 edwin_su Nov 01, 2011 2:35:41	If the players are just going to roll and roll and roll until they get 20s, then assume they get 20s. Determine who in the party has the highest skill modifier, and add 20. That's their result. i alouw this if there is is no time presure on the task. and there is no conseqence to the size of the sucsess ( so not alouwed to get best result on rituals every time) i tend to make this taking 20 cost a lot of time time basing the time taken on the number the caracter would have needed to roll. if a character needed an 8 to sucseed on a task that would cost 1 minute it now costs 8 minutes when taking 20 if a character would need to roll a 20 on a task taking 10 minutes it would now take him about 3 1/2 hours when taking 20
#9 Chimpadin Nov 01, 2011 3:36:36	This is a tricky one I still struggle with. As a DM I generally say the players can try once only, and if they fail it means they just can't do it how ever many times they try. This is because I feel there has to be some challenge and consequences.