How can I give a Ranger advantage on a check due to Favored Enemy without spoiling the story for the player?
$begingroup$
The Scenario
I am the DM for a group who have just entered a town that was attacked by cloud giants a few days before their arrival. The players and characters don't know this though, so part of the mystery is trying to work out what happened.
One of the characters is a Ranger with giants as their Favored Enemy. The Favored Enemy feature says:
You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
As an example, one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle.
The Problem
Although the Ranger has giants as their favored enemy, it isn't immediately apparent that giants are at fault here (the town has been abandoned so there is no one to ask about what happened). However if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage. This will immediately tip the player off that their Favored Enemy ability is coming into play as for anything else, that check would be made as a straight roll.
Obviously if the player succeeds on the check, it won't be a problem, as they would have learned giants were here. But a failure on the check would provide no in-game knowledge for the character, but still float meta-game knowledge in the air for the players.
The Question
Before a Ranger knows what they're looking at, how do I allow a player to use their Favored Enemy ability without providing spoilers on a failed check?
dnd-5e gm-techniques class-feature ranger metagaming
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Scenario
I am the DM for a group who have just entered a town that was attacked by cloud giants a few days before their arrival. The players and characters don't know this though, so part of the mystery is trying to work out what happened.
One of the characters is a Ranger with giants as their Favored Enemy. The Favored Enemy feature says:
You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
As an example, one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle.
The Problem
Although the Ranger has giants as their favored enemy, it isn't immediately apparent that giants are at fault here (the town has been abandoned so there is no one to ask about what happened). However if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage. This will immediately tip the player off that their Favored Enemy ability is coming into play as for anything else, that check would be made as a straight roll.
Obviously if the player succeeds on the check, it won't be a problem, as they would have learned giants were here. But a failure on the check would provide no in-game knowledge for the character, but still float meta-game knowledge in the air for the players.
The Question
Before a Ranger knows what they're looking at, how do I allow a player to use their Favored Enemy ability without providing spoilers on a failed check?
dnd-5e gm-techniques class-feature ranger metagaming
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Scenario
I am the DM for a group who have just entered a town that was attacked by cloud giants a few days before their arrival. The players and characters don't know this though, so part of the mystery is trying to work out what happened.
One of the characters is a Ranger with giants as their Favored Enemy. The Favored Enemy feature says:
You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
As an example, one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle.
The Problem
Although the Ranger has giants as their favored enemy, it isn't immediately apparent that giants are at fault here (the town has been abandoned so there is no one to ask about what happened). However if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage. This will immediately tip the player off that their Favored Enemy ability is coming into play as for anything else, that check would be made as a straight roll.
Obviously if the player succeeds on the check, it won't be a problem, as they would have learned giants were here. But a failure on the check would provide no in-game knowledge for the character, but still float meta-game knowledge in the air for the players.
The Question
Before a Ranger knows what they're looking at, how do I allow a player to use their Favored Enemy ability without providing spoilers on a failed check?
dnd-5e gm-techniques class-feature ranger metagaming
$endgroup$
The Scenario
I am the DM for a group who have just entered a town that was attacked by cloud giants a few days before their arrival. The players and characters don't know this though, so part of the mystery is trying to work out what happened.
One of the characters is a Ranger with giants as their Favored Enemy. The Favored Enemy feature says:
You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
As an example, one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle.
The Problem
Although the Ranger has giants as their favored enemy, it isn't immediately apparent that giants are at fault here (the town has been abandoned so there is no one to ask about what happened). However if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage. This will immediately tip the player off that their Favored Enemy ability is coming into play as for anything else, that check would be made as a straight roll.
Obviously if the player succeeds on the check, it won't be a problem, as they would have learned giants were here. But a failure on the check would provide no in-game knowledge for the character, but still float meta-game knowledge in the air for the players.
The Question
Before a Ranger knows what they're looking at, how do I allow a player to use their Favored Enemy ability without providing spoilers on a failed check?
dnd-5e gm-techniques class-feature ranger metagaming
dnd-5e gm-techniques class-feature ranger metagaming
edited 12 hours ago
V2Blast
23.2k374146
23.2k374146
asked 14 hours ago
BradenA8BradenA8
1,425526
1,425526
add a comment |
add a comment |
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You make the advantage roll in secret
In situations where I don't want players to know they have advantage/disadvantage for any reason I simply roll a d20 for them myself and work out the results. This usually works out just fine because the players do not know if I am simply rolling an opposed check, for example.
I also make it a habit to roll d20s behind the screen for no reason which also helps with the ruse.
This does require that you either know their modifier or keep an eye on what their d20 result was and calculate it from there.
There is, however, one issue I have found with this method: it messes with abilities that allow players to reroll before knowing the results and things like the Lucky feat so it is not an universally applicable solution.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This is precisely what the passive versions of skills are for
The recommendations for when to use passive checks are:
Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
To calculate the passive check value use this formula:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
Then compare that value to the DC for the check.
There are modifiers for advantage (and disadvantage) as it interacts with their passive perception.
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
When I DM I get the players to fill out a character tent with their ability scores, proficiencies and AC that I can then refer to if I need passive check info.
But isn't not asking for a roll suspicious in and of itself?
Not necessarily. In general you should only be asking for rolls when there is a chance for the characters to succeed.
It's entirely possible that the ranger is the only one that has a chance at succeeding at the check and thus it would be inappropriate to ask other players to roll.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This points to a deeper design issue for your plot
From your description, you have centered part of the mystery on 'what happened' knowing that 'what happened' falls squarely into one of your character's areas of expertise. It's reasonable that such a character should have advantage on the perception check, and will thus ruin the mystery.
The design issue is that you have hinged an important part of your plot on concealing something that can be discovered with a single roll. You are wanting to conceal information from a character whose specialization makes concealing this information very difficult.
It's hard to conceal a brutal raid by giants. For your specific case, you might take a look at why they did it. Was there some deeper motivation behind it? Was there something strange about the Giant's behavior that does not mesh with what the Ranger knows about his favored enemy? It's not the things that fit a character's expertise that make for the best mysteries, it's the things that do not fit.
If you hinge your mystery on things that the characters figure out because of their expertise, rather than on details you hope they don't find despite their expertise, you will make better mysteries and engage the players in those mysteries. Spoilers will not come from a good roll on strong stats, clues will come from it instead, especially clues that fly in the face of what one would expect to find. This way, you are disappointed when they fail to spot something, rather than disappointed when they succeed.
I'm not going to try to suggest specific changes to your plot, so I'll simply answer your question directly, based on what I've suggested above:
Make the plot happen 'because' of his advantage, not despite it.
Give up the idea that you can create a mystery around 'what kind of creature did this?' and up the mystery game with details that only his expertise can reveal. Hinge it not on 'what', which can be answered with a roll of the dice, but on the 'why', 'who' and 'how'. Maybe the giants were accompanied by a Dwarf ally? Maybe there was something weird about one of the giants tracks? Maybe the raid was precise, but the giants are of a chaotic sort? Maybe the raid was exceptionally brutal, but the giants in question usually prefer to get in and out with a minimum of collateral damage? Whatever you decide, it feels more engaging if the player feels that their advantages are advancing the plot rather than feeling like their advantages are frustrating you.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You tell them
"You see scattered boulders that seem to have come from nowhere and large imprints in the ground. Giants have been here!"
Favoured enemy to me is like passive perception, you don't need to ask about something to recognise it.
Once they have been told about the giants they still have to make the tracking check, so they only find out so much.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Roll a second dice behind your screen
If you want the ranger to unknowingly roll with advantage then this is the simplest solution.
When the ranger makes his check, roll a second d20 behind your screen, then take the higher of the two rolls (his roll and your roll on his behalf) and give him information based on that, not necessarily the roll he rolled.
Your players will know something is going on when you roll a check but they won't know exactly what. If this is likely to be problematic at your table then roll a few d20's in advance of the session to use for this purpose and keep a note of the outcomes.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use the rules for a passive check, but with a twist!
As mentioned in this answer when you're using passive ability checks you add or subtract 5 for advantage/disadvantage, but I disagree that a passive check makes sense here.
If you're really worried about telegraphing anything to your players then ask the ranger to roll as normal (not with advantage and not as a passive check) but mentally add 5 to what they say (or lower the DC by 5, same thing)! This way you have in a sense given advantage which is mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe but not telegraphed anything.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fabricate another reason to give an advantage
Advantages don't stack and as a DM you are free to invent circumstances where the ranger would have a different advantage that would apply. Depending on circumstances there could be numerous other valid reasons to give an advantage, for example:
- Crossing country went faster than expected and tracks are very recent.
- The dwarf in the party recognizes that the rocks are not from this area.
- Ranger's animal companion recognizes the smell.
- After asking to describe how exactly they proceed with the search, they "coincidentally happen" to be looking for exactly the right clues.
- The weather today is exceptionally nice.
This approach doesn't reveal the plot twist, while being mechanically identical, as well as makes players feel good because they still gain advantage instead of being suspicious about DM plotting behind their backs.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my mind, the Favored Enemy bonus should be just as useful in ruling out a source as it is in determining it is positively that source. If you're so intimately familiar with something that you automatically have advantage when recognize it, then you should be able to just as readily recognize when something is not that thing too. That is, your ranger should get advantage both to say "This was definitely giants." and to say "This was definitely not giants." The second statement doesn't tell them what it was, but it's still something (and a benefit from their class feature).
Implementing this means establishing a precedent that when the ranger rolls Survival (Wisdom) to determine what made the tracks they always roll twice and report both results. As the DM, you then report information to them like so:
- Both fail DC: They don't know what made the tracks; could be giants, could be something else.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants made the tracks: They know giants made the tracks.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants did not make the tracks: They know giants didn't make the tracks, but don't know what did.
- First roll succeeds: They know what made the tracks.
This does mean more die rolls, but it's only for cases where they need to identify what made the tracks. That is, just the first Survival roll needed in a particular encounter. On subsequent rolls you can cut back the number of rolls based on their determination in the first.
Of course, in order for this to work, you have to apply it consistently, i.e. anytime they come across tracks whose source is unknown initially. As a result, it may be too late to not tip your hand in this case. One thing you might try, though which might still give things away, is to rule on the first die roll normally and if it fails then ask the player for a second die roll "to rule out giants." In this way the second roll is framed as a benefit from their class feature, but because you haven't explicitly drawn the "roll again" = "giants" connection. Players might still make this connection, especially if you've never done it before in similar situations, but if you establish the precedent and carry it forward, they are less likely to draw that conclusion when this situation comes up again.
Another thing to think about in deciding whether or not this will work for you are whether you've actually given wrong information on a (spectacularly) failed check before. If you have, then this first time implementation can be phrased as a correction for that (especially useful if the first roll is 1), thereby reducing the chance of tipping your hand.
Further, there is the possibility of deception. How would an attack faked to look like a giant attack look to this ranger? If that's something that's come up in your game before, this can be framed in terms of that, and again reduce the chance that you'll tip your hand.
Just be ready to keep this going forward, as it is an advantage for the player to be able to rule things out (albeit one I think they deserve) and they will guard it jealously.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may be looking at this wrong if I understand the issue correctly. It doesn't sound like the rangers advantage would really apply to them knowing a giant was here. In your OP you stated: "one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle."
The key part being "As well as footprints that were left behind"
Knowing that at least one giant was "here" sounds like it would be obvious and have nothing to do with the rangers expertise. Every character present would clearly see the huge footprints and know that some form of giant like creature was here. It is determining details of what those footprints reveal, that would make use of the rangers advantage. The real question is can they figure out what happened from those footprints and other clues. (a giant could have lived here or been visiting for trade for all they know)
Meaning: If the ranger decides to try to study the tracks and figure anything out from them, they could realize any given number of things depending on their roll (which would have advantage because its obviously a giant print of some kind). Otherwise they just know that some kind of giant was here at some point, doesn't mean it did this...
Footprints could possibly reveal things such as:
- what kind of giant made the footprints
- was it one giant or many
- how old are the footprints
- add a perception check to notice if the disturbed earth around them is about the same state as the disturbed earth around the boulders? (IE is one dried out while the other fresh, were they disturbed about the same time?)
- they were disturbed about the same time? do these types of giant typically use large boulders to attack
- they do? hmm maybe our visitor(s) weren't here on friendly business... which way did they go when they left?
etc, etc.
Just a thought at least :)
If you want to play it as that it is not obvious that a giant was here, but just that something big was here... you could have them roll with advantage because it looks like a giant print, and if they fail both rolls, simply say "you know giants pretty well and while you are not sure what made these prints, you do not think it was a giant", or something along those lines.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage.
While an argument could be made in favour of this, I don't think it's always true, especially considering that the ranger will not know that it was giants.
In my opinion, the Favoured Enemy feature is not "if you track something and it happes to be your favoured enemy then you get advantage" but "if you explicitly trying to track your favoured enemy, then you have advantage".
E.g. for giants, the ranger knows that they leave big footsteps, how a giant would walk in a certain terrain, what sort of tricks they use when they don't want to leave tracks etc. Similarly with attacking; if it's a giant hiding under a blanket, the ranger wouldn't be able to utilize her knowledge of a giant's weak spots to gain advantage as they don't know it's a giant (See Who should know/inform the Ranger's Favored Enemy?).
Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that a person seeing giant footsteps will not assume that it's a giant, let alone someone who is an expert on them. But perhaps the tracks aren't clear, other creatures could throw boulders etc: that's up to you. It would make sense to allow for a perception check for the ranger to realize it's giants and only afterwards to have advantage for tracking them; but if the whole plot relies on them not immediately realizing it's giants, it doesn't make sense to allow that roll (but as MarkTO said it does sound like a weak point of the plot).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simulate advantage by changing the DC. This way there is now way to know unless they succeed. There is a bit of math to do this correctly, and it won't be exact, but a good rule of thumb for normal checks is to subtract 5. For example a DC 10 check with no bonuses is roughly equivalent to a DC 5 check with advantage. A DC 15 is close to DC 9 with advantage.
If they fail they just think they rolled normally. If they succeed, you can explain why it was different for them.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about you say that he is allowed to roll as if it were advantage, but you will decide, without telling him, whether you take the second roll into account depending on whether his skill applies or not.
Ofcourse, this means that you will have to do this on other occasions as well, to avoid shifting the meta from the problem with advantage rolls on Favoured Enemy, to meta on this "trick".
(Disclaimer: I'm very noob at D&D so I have no idea if there's anything in the rulebook, or some common practice for this.)
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141650%2fhow-can-i-give-a-ranger-advantage-on-a-check-due-to-favored-enemy-without-spoili%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You make the advantage roll in secret
In situations where I don't want players to know they have advantage/disadvantage for any reason I simply roll a d20 for them myself and work out the results. This usually works out just fine because the players do not know if I am simply rolling an opposed check, for example.
I also make it a habit to roll d20s behind the screen for no reason which also helps with the ruse.
This does require that you either know their modifier or keep an eye on what their d20 result was and calculate it from there.
There is, however, one issue I have found with this method: it messes with abilities that allow players to reroll before knowing the results and things like the Lucky feat so it is not an universally applicable solution.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
You make the advantage roll in secret
In situations where I don't want players to know they have advantage/disadvantage for any reason I simply roll a d20 for them myself and work out the results. This usually works out just fine because the players do not know if I am simply rolling an opposed check, for example.
I also make it a habit to roll d20s behind the screen for no reason which also helps with the ruse.
This does require that you either know their modifier or keep an eye on what their d20 result was and calculate it from there.
There is, however, one issue I have found with this method: it messes with abilities that allow players to reroll before knowing the results and things like the Lucky feat so it is not an universally applicable solution.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
You make the advantage roll in secret
In situations where I don't want players to know they have advantage/disadvantage for any reason I simply roll a d20 for them myself and work out the results. This usually works out just fine because the players do not know if I am simply rolling an opposed check, for example.
I also make it a habit to roll d20s behind the screen for no reason which also helps with the ruse.
This does require that you either know their modifier or keep an eye on what their d20 result was and calculate it from there.
There is, however, one issue I have found with this method: it messes with abilities that allow players to reroll before knowing the results and things like the Lucky feat so it is not an universally applicable solution.
$endgroup$
You make the advantage roll in secret
In situations where I don't want players to know they have advantage/disadvantage for any reason I simply roll a d20 for them myself and work out the results. This usually works out just fine because the players do not know if I am simply rolling an opposed check, for example.
I also make it a habit to roll d20s behind the screen for no reason which also helps with the ruse.
This does require that you either know their modifier or keep an eye on what their d20 result was and calculate it from there.
There is, however, one issue I have found with this method: it messes with abilities that allow players to reroll before knowing the results and things like the Lucky feat so it is not an universally applicable solution.
answered 14 hours ago
SdjzSdjz
12.1k458101
12.1k458101
5
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
5
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Or have them roll the dice (I hate it when my DM rolls for me), let them tell you the result, and then announce whether they succeeded. [Which meand that you can add in the advantage all by yourself]
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
13 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would say to combine what @Hobbamok with getting in the habit of randomly have characters roll d20 for no reason.
$endgroup$
– Kevin
12 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Hobbamok I'm not sure I understand the suggestion here. Are you saying that you could ask the player to simply roll 2 d20 and then work it out yourself? Isn't that the same as just telling they have advantage/disadvantage, with the only difference being that they know whether it is advantage or disadvantage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you don't want to be obvious about rolling, you can make the rolls ahead of time and write them down on a sheet of paper, then just cross them off as they are used
$endgroup$
– ContextSwitch
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ContextSwitch That is indeed a good suggestion, already given in this other answer
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
11 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This is precisely what the passive versions of skills are for
The recommendations for when to use passive checks are:
Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
To calculate the passive check value use this formula:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
Then compare that value to the DC for the check.
There are modifiers for advantage (and disadvantage) as it interacts with their passive perception.
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
When I DM I get the players to fill out a character tent with their ability scores, proficiencies and AC that I can then refer to if I need passive check info.
But isn't not asking for a roll suspicious in and of itself?
Not necessarily. In general you should only be asking for rolls when there is a chance for the characters to succeed.
It's entirely possible that the ranger is the only one that has a chance at succeeding at the check and thus it would be inappropriate to ask other players to roll.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is precisely what the passive versions of skills are for
The recommendations for when to use passive checks are:
Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
To calculate the passive check value use this formula:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
Then compare that value to the DC for the check.
There are modifiers for advantage (and disadvantage) as it interacts with their passive perception.
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
When I DM I get the players to fill out a character tent with their ability scores, proficiencies and AC that I can then refer to if I need passive check info.
But isn't not asking for a roll suspicious in and of itself?
Not necessarily. In general you should only be asking for rolls when there is a chance for the characters to succeed.
It's entirely possible that the ranger is the only one that has a chance at succeeding at the check and thus it would be inappropriate to ask other players to roll.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is precisely what the passive versions of skills are for
The recommendations for when to use passive checks are:
Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
To calculate the passive check value use this formula:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
Then compare that value to the DC for the check.
There are modifiers for advantage (and disadvantage) as it interacts with their passive perception.
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
When I DM I get the players to fill out a character tent with their ability scores, proficiencies and AC that I can then refer to if I need passive check info.
But isn't not asking for a roll suspicious in and of itself?
Not necessarily. In general you should only be asking for rolls when there is a chance for the characters to succeed.
It's entirely possible that the ranger is the only one that has a chance at succeeding at the check and thus it would be inappropriate to ask other players to roll.
$endgroup$
This is precisely what the passive versions of skills are for
The recommendations for when to use passive checks are:
Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
To calculate the passive check value use this formula:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
Then compare that value to the DC for the check.
There are modifiers for advantage (and disadvantage) as it interacts with their passive perception.
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
When I DM I get the players to fill out a character tent with their ability scores, proficiencies and AC that I can then refer to if I need passive check info.
But isn't not asking for a roll suspicious in and of itself?
Not necessarily. In general you should only be asking for rolls when there is a chance for the characters to succeed.
It's entirely possible that the ranger is the only one that has a chance at succeeding at the check and thus it would be inappropriate to ask other players to roll.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
illustroillustro
7,23922064
7,23922064
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think this is what passive checks are for. The most applicable thing would be "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice", but the player is likely to want to roll to look into it. It's difficult to not telegraph something is strange if you don't tell them to roll, then it's difficult to act like their super high roll somehow failed or super low roll somehow passed when you're actually using the passive number.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan The DM calls for rolls not the players. In this case the players say "I want to investigate that" and the DM says (knowing the resolution already) "you see X, Y, Z" and to the ranger (if successful) "you see evidence of giant activity". Not all investigations or perceptions require a roll.
$endgroup$
– illustro
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree in principal but not in practice. Yes, the DM is the one who calls for rolls, but players will usually be ready to roll right away. Not in a jumping the gun way necessarily, but in a saving time way. If I ask to check something out like this I am immediately picking up my d20 to be ready to roll. Sometimes it's clear a roll isn't needed ("Do I see anything fishy?" "Yes, a giant, gaping hole in the wall.") but sometimes if the DM doesn't let you roll it can just seem fishy.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sure, but for example, the other characters in the group may not know anything about giants and thus a roll would be inappropriate for them. Sometimes a lack of a roll just means "it's not possible for your character to know this no matter how close you look"
$endgroup$
– illustro
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan added the clarification from the comments to the answer
$endgroup$
– illustro
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This points to a deeper design issue for your plot
From your description, you have centered part of the mystery on 'what happened' knowing that 'what happened' falls squarely into one of your character's areas of expertise. It's reasonable that such a character should have advantage on the perception check, and will thus ruin the mystery.
The design issue is that you have hinged an important part of your plot on concealing something that can be discovered with a single roll. You are wanting to conceal information from a character whose specialization makes concealing this information very difficult.
It's hard to conceal a brutal raid by giants. For your specific case, you might take a look at why they did it. Was there some deeper motivation behind it? Was there something strange about the Giant's behavior that does not mesh with what the Ranger knows about his favored enemy? It's not the things that fit a character's expertise that make for the best mysteries, it's the things that do not fit.
If you hinge your mystery on things that the characters figure out because of their expertise, rather than on details you hope they don't find despite their expertise, you will make better mysteries and engage the players in those mysteries. Spoilers will not come from a good roll on strong stats, clues will come from it instead, especially clues that fly in the face of what one would expect to find. This way, you are disappointed when they fail to spot something, rather than disappointed when they succeed.
I'm not going to try to suggest specific changes to your plot, so I'll simply answer your question directly, based on what I've suggested above:
Make the plot happen 'because' of his advantage, not despite it.
Give up the idea that you can create a mystery around 'what kind of creature did this?' and up the mystery game with details that only his expertise can reveal. Hinge it not on 'what', which can be answered with a roll of the dice, but on the 'why', 'who' and 'how'. Maybe the giants were accompanied by a Dwarf ally? Maybe there was something weird about one of the giants tracks? Maybe the raid was precise, but the giants are of a chaotic sort? Maybe the raid was exceptionally brutal, but the giants in question usually prefer to get in and out with a minimum of collateral damage? Whatever you decide, it feels more engaging if the player feels that their advantages are advancing the plot rather than feeling like their advantages are frustrating you.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This points to a deeper design issue for your plot
From your description, you have centered part of the mystery on 'what happened' knowing that 'what happened' falls squarely into one of your character's areas of expertise. It's reasonable that such a character should have advantage on the perception check, and will thus ruin the mystery.
The design issue is that you have hinged an important part of your plot on concealing something that can be discovered with a single roll. You are wanting to conceal information from a character whose specialization makes concealing this information very difficult.
It's hard to conceal a brutal raid by giants. For your specific case, you might take a look at why they did it. Was there some deeper motivation behind it? Was there something strange about the Giant's behavior that does not mesh with what the Ranger knows about his favored enemy? It's not the things that fit a character's expertise that make for the best mysteries, it's the things that do not fit.
If you hinge your mystery on things that the characters figure out because of their expertise, rather than on details you hope they don't find despite their expertise, you will make better mysteries and engage the players in those mysteries. Spoilers will not come from a good roll on strong stats, clues will come from it instead, especially clues that fly in the face of what one would expect to find. This way, you are disappointed when they fail to spot something, rather than disappointed when they succeed.
I'm not going to try to suggest specific changes to your plot, so I'll simply answer your question directly, based on what I've suggested above:
Make the plot happen 'because' of his advantage, not despite it.
Give up the idea that you can create a mystery around 'what kind of creature did this?' and up the mystery game with details that only his expertise can reveal. Hinge it not on 'what', which can be answered with a roll of the dice, but on the 'why', 'who' and 'how'. Maybe the giants were accompanied by a Dwarf ally? Maybe there was something weird about one of the giants tracks? Maybe the raid was precise, but the giants are of a chaotic sort? Maybe the raid was exceptionally brutal, but the giants in question usually prefer to get in and out with a minimum of collateral damage? Whatever you decide, it feels more engaging if the player feels that their advantages are advancing the plot rather than feeling like their advantages are frustrating you.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This points to a deeper design issue for your plot
From your description, you have centered part of the mystery on 'what happened' knowing that 'what happened' falls squarely into one of your character's areas of expertise. It's reasonable that such a character should have advantage on the perception check, and will thus ruin the mystery.
The design issue is that you have hinged an important part of your plot on concealing something that can be discovered with a single roll. You are wanting to conceal information from a character whose specialization makes concealing this information very difficult.
It's hard to conceal a brutal raid by giants. For your specific case, you might take a look at why they did it. Was there some deeper motivation behind it? Was there something strange about the Giant's behavior that does not mesh with what the Ranger knows about his favored enemy? It's not the things that fit a character's expertise that make for the best mysteries, it's the things that do not fit.
If you hinge your mystery on things that the characters figure out because of their expertise, rather than on details you hope they don't find despite their expertise, you will make better mysteries and engage the players in those mysteries. Spoilers will not come from a good roll on strong stats, clues will come from it instead, especially clues that fly in the face of what one would expect to find. This way, you are disappointed when they fail to spot something, rather than disappointed when they succeed.
I'm not going to try to suggest specific changes to your plot, so I'll simply answer your question directly, based on what I've suggested above:
Make the plot happen 'because' of his advantage, not despite it.
Give up the idea that you can create a mystery around 'what kind of creature did this?' and up the mystery game with details that only his expertise can reveal. Hinge it not on 'what', which can be answered with a roll of the dice, but on the 'why', 'who' and 'how'. Maybe the giants were accompanied by a Dwarf ally? Maybe there was something weird about one of the giants tracks? Maybe the raid was precise, but the giants are of a chaotic sort? Maybe the raid was exceptionally brutal, but the giants in question usually prefer to get in and out with a minimum of collateral damage? Whatever you decide, it feels more engaging if the player feels that their advantages are advancing the plot rather than feeling like their advantages are frustrating you.
$endgroup$
This points to a deeper design issue for your plot
From your description, you have centered part of the mystery on 'what happened' knowing that 'what happened' falls squarely into one of your character's areas of expertise. It's reasonable that such a character should have advantage on the perception check, and will thus ruin the mystery.
The design issue is that you have hinged an important part of your plot on concealing something that can be discovered with a single roll. You are wanting to conceal information from a character whose specialization makes concealing this information very difficult.
It's hard to conceal a brutal raid by giants. For your specific case, you might take a look at why they did it. Was there some deeper motivation behind it? Was there something strange about the Giant's behavior that does not mesh with what the Ranger knows about his favored enemy? It's not the things that fit a character's expertise that make for the best mysteries, it's the things that do not fit.
If you hinge your mystery on things that the characters figure out because of their expertise, rather than on details you hope they don't find despite their expertise, you will make better mysteries and engage the players in those mysteries. Spoilers will not come from a good roll on strong stats, clues will come from it instead, especially clues that fly in the face of what one would expect to find. This way, you are disappointed when they fail to spot something, rather than disappointed when they succeed.
I'm not going to try to suggest specific changes to your plot, so I'll simply answer your question directly, based on what I've suggested above:
Make the plot happen 'because' of his advantage, not despite it.
Give up the idea that you can create a mystery around 'what kind of creature did this?' and up the mystery game with details that only his expertise can reveal. Hinge it not on 'what', which can be answered with a roll of the dice, but on the 'why', 'who' and 'how'. Maybe the giants were accompanied by a Dwarf ally? Maybe there was something weird about one of the giants tracks? Maybe the raid was precise, but the giants are of a chaotic sort? Maybe the raid was exceptionally brutal, but the giants in question usually prefer to get in and out with a minimum of collateral damage? Whatever you decide, it feels more engaging if the player feels that their advantages are advancing the plot rather than feeling like their advantages are frustrating you.
answered 10 hours ago
MarkTOMarkTO
3,461536
3,461536
1
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I hope that Giants was not a key spoiler (because it sounds like a lot of telltale signs are left), just that the DM wanted to avoid revealing it if the ranger happened to fail. Not that their plot required the ranger to fail. In any case, this is a good answer, and something to keep in mind for future plots in general. But if my interpretation is correct, this is already the case: the DM wants the players to succeed and figure out it's giants partly thanks to the ranger's favoured enemy, but doesn't want to give them that metagame info if they happen to fail.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You tell them
"You see scattered boulders that seem to have come from nowhere and large imprints in the ground. Giants have been here!"
Favoured enemy to me is like passive perception, you don't need to ask about something to recognise it.
Once they have been told about the giants they still have to make the tracking check, so they only find out so much.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You tell them
"You see scattered boulders that seem to have come from nowhere and large imprints in the ground. Giants have been here!"
Favoured enemy to me is like passive perception, you don't need to ask about something to recognise it.
Once they have been told about the giants they still have to make the tracking check, so they only find out so much.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You tell them
"You see scattered boulders that seem to have come from nowhere and large imprints in the ground. Giants have been here!"
Favoured enemy to me is like passive perception, you don't need to ask about something to recognise it.
Once they have been told about the giants they still have to make the tracking check, so they only find out so much.
$endgroup$
You tell them
"You see scattered boulders that seem to have come from nowhere and large imprints in the ground. Giants have been here!"
Favoured enemy to me is like passive perception, you don't need to ask about something to recognise it.
Once they have been told about the giants they still have to make the tracking check, so they only find out so much.
answered 14 hours ago
SeriousBriSeriousBri
6,08821750
6,08821750
1
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The giant aspect is part of the mystery though. Those boulders could have come from siege engines outside the town, or a large winged creature dropping them from above. Telling them outright without a successful check ruins the mood of the situation.
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
14 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 I think this is a case of agreeing to disagree, but I would never hide knowledge from players, if you know giants (Or anything really) well enough you WILL recognise their signs, even if you can't make out the specifics.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BradenA8 Are there known winged creatures in the area that drop boulders? Is there a war going on with siege engines? I would assume that there are at least some giants in the area since a ranger specializes in hunting them. Is it reasonable to assume that giants are the most likely cause?
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CaptainMan These things are possibilities, the characters are new to the area so they may not know either way. I'm happy for the players to muse over the fact it could be giants though if they think it's a possibility. But I try and DM by "Show, don't tell". All the evidence is there to suggest it is giants, but I don't want to say "Giants did this" unless the Ranger makes a successful check. In the meantime or in the event of a failed check, my response would be "This could have been giants".
$endgroup$
– BradenA8
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The in-character reason for the ranger getting advantage on the check is because they have knowledge about the subject; perhaps they recognise the tell-tale fingerprints of giants on these boulders. I feel like if they're going to get the mechanical advantage then they should know something is up.
$endgroup$
– DaveMongoose
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Roll a second dice behind your screen
If you want the ranger to unknowingly roll with advantage then this is the simplest solution.
When the ranger makes his check, roll a second d20 behind your screen, then take the higher of the two rolls (his roll and your roll on his behalf) and give him information based on that, not necessarily the roll he rolled.
Your players will know something is going on when you roll a check but they won't know exactly what. If this is likely to be problematic at your table then roll a few d20's in advance of the session to use for this purpose and keep a note of the outcomes.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Roll a second dice behind your screen
If you want the ranger to unknowingly roll with advantage then this is the simplest solution.
When the ranger makes his check, roll a second d20 behind your screen, then take the higher of the two rolls (his roll and your roll on his behalf) and give him information based on that, not necessarily the roll he rolled.
Your players will know something is going on when you roll a check but they won't know exactly what. If this is likely to be problematic at your table then roll a few d20's in advance of the session to use for this purpose and keep a note of the outcomes.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Roll a second dice behind your screen
If you want the ranger to unknowingly roll with advantage then this is the simplest solution.
When the ranger makes his check, roll a second d20 behind your screen, then take the higher of the two rolls (his roll and your roll on his behalf) and give him information based on that, not necessarily the roll he rolled.
Your players will know something is going on when you roll a check but they won't know exactly what. If this is likely to be problematic at your table then roll a few d20's in advance of the session to use for this purpose and keep a note of the outcomes.
$endgroup$
Roll a second dice behind your screen
If you want the ranger to unknowingly roll with advantage then this is the simplest solution.
When the ranger makes his check, roll a second d20 behind your screen, then take the higher of the two rolls (his roll and your roll on his behalf) and give him information based on that, not necessarily the roll he rolled.
Your players will know something is going on when you roll a check but they won't know exactly what. If this is likely to be problematic at your table then roll a few d20's in advance of the session to use for this purpose and keep a note of the outcomes.
edited 12 hours ago
V2Blast
23.2k374146
23.2k374146
answered 14 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
8,88543777
8,88543777
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use the rules for a passive check, but with a twist!
As mentioned in this answer when you're using passive ability checks you add or subtract 5 for advantage/disadvantage, but I disagree that a passive check makes sense here.
If you're really worried about telegraphing anything to your players then ask the ranger to roll as normal (not with advantage and not as a passive check) but mentally add 5 to what they say (or lower the DC by 5, same thing)! This way you have in a sense given advantage which is mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe but not telegraphed anything.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use the rules for a passive check, but with a twist!
As mentioned in this answer when you're using passive ability checks you add or subtract 5 for advantage/disadvantage, but I disagree that a passive check makes sense here.
If you're really worried about telegraphing anything to your players then ask the ranger to roll as normal (not with advantage and not as a passive check) but mentally add 5 to what they say (or lower the DC by 5, same thing)! This way you have in a sense given advantage which is mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe but not telegraphed anything.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use the rules for a passive check, but with a twist!
As mentioned in this answer when you're using passive ability checks you add or subtract 5 for advantage/disadvantage, but I disagree that a passive check makes sense here.
If you're really worried about telegraphing anything to your players then ask the ranger to roll as normal (not with advantage and not as a passive check) but mentally add 5 to what they say (or lower the DC by 5, same thing)! This way you have in a sense given advantage which is mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe but not telegraphed anything.
$endgroup$
Use the rules for a passive check, but with a twist!
As mentioned in this answer when you're using passive ability checks you add or subtract 5 for advantage/disadvantage, but I disagree that a passive check makes sense here.
If you're really worried about telegraphing anything to your players then ask the ranger to roll as normal (not with advantage and not as a passive check) but mentally add 5 to what they say (or lower the DC by 5, same thing)! This way you have in a sense given advantage which is mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe but not telegraphed anything.
answered 12 hours ago
Captain ManCaptain Man
34119
34119
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, depending on the DC/modifiers, (dis)advantage is worth up to +-5 on a d20 roll; that's why the passive perception rules use that. rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html shows the effective bonus as a bar graph vs. required d20 roll. It peaks at +5 for required 8-12. As far as biasing the chance for success/failure, +5 is generous for really hard checks (2 chances to roll a 20 is harder to succeed than 1 chance to roll a 15+), but about right for middle-of-the-road. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/… and
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
TL:DR +5 is statistically accurate for effective-DCs (after modifiers) of 8 to 12, and you might reduce it to +4 or +3 for harder or easier effective-DCs if you really like math and probability. But leaving it at +5 is totally fine. Especially if the roll isn't critical to anyone's survival or fun!
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PeterCordes Thanks for you comment, I have looked into this a little before actually and know +5 wasn't really the best, that is why I actually said "mathematically the same as what the rules for passive checks describe" haha. From last time I looked into it it seemed +4 and -4 were a little closer to the average scenario than +5 and -5 but I am not terribly great at statistics. I thought about mentioning this but wanted to keep the answer a little simpler.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I did notice your careful wording to not claim that it's mathematically equivalent for die rolls. Well played, sir :P
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fabricate another reason to give an advantage
Advantages don't stack and as a DM you are free to invent circumstances where the ranger would have a different advantage that would apply. Depending on circumstances there could be numerous other valid reasons to give an advantage, for example:
- Crossing country went faster than expected and tracks are very recent.
- The dwarf in the party recognizes that the rocks are not from this area.
- Ranger's animal companion recognizes the smell.
- After asking to describe how exactly they proceed with the search, they "coincidentally happen" to be looking for exactly the right clues.
- The weather today is exceptionally nice.
This approach doesn't reveal the plot twist, while being mechanically identical, as well as makes players feel good because they still gain advantage instead of being suspicious about DM plotting behind their backs.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fabricate another reason to give an advantage
Advantages don't stack and as a DM you are free to invent circumstances where the ranger would have a different advantage that would apply. Depending on circumstances there could be numerous other valid reasons to give an advantage, for example:
- Crossing country went faster than expected and tracks are very recent.
- The dwarf in the party recognizes that the rocks are not from this area.
- Ranger's animal companion recognizes the smell.
- After asking to describe how exactly they proceed with the search, they "coincidentally happen" to be looking for exactly the right clues.
- The weather today is exceptionally nice.
This approach doesn't reveal the plot twist, while being mechanically identical, as well as makes players feel good because they still gain advantage instead of being suspicious about DM plotting behind their backs.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fabricate another reason to give an advantage
Advantages don't stack and as a DM you are free to invent circumstances where the ranger would have a different advantage that would apply. Depending on circumstances there could be numerous other valid reasons to give an advantage, for example:
- Crossing country went faster than expected and tracks are very recent.
- The dwarf in the party recognizes that the rocks are not from this area.
- Ranger's animal companion recognizes the smell.
- After asking to describe how exactly they proceed with the search, they "coincidentally happen" to be looking for exactly the right clues.
- The weather today is exceptionally nice.
This approach doesn't reveal the plot twist, while being mechanically identical, as well as makes players feel good because they still gain advantage instead of being suspicious about DM plotting behind their backs.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Fabricate another reason to give an advantage
Advantages don't stack and as a DM you are free to invent circumstances where the ranger would have a different advantage that would apply. Depending on circumstances there could be numerous other valid reasons to give an advantage, for example:
- Crossing country went faster than expected and tracks are very recent.
- The dwarf in the party recognizes that the rocks are not from this area.
- Ranger's animal companion recognizes the smell.
- After asking to describe how exactly they proceed with the search, they "coincidentally happen" to be looking for exactly the right clues.
- The weather today is exceptionally nice.
This approach doesn't reveal the plot twist, while being mechanically identical, as well as makes players feel good because they still gain advantage instead of being suspicious about DM plotting behind their backs.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 10 hours ago
SilentAxeSilentAxe
511
511
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my mind, the Favored Enemy bonus should be just as useful in ruling out a source as it is in determining it is positively that source. If you're so intimately familiar with something that you automatically have advantage when recognize it, then you should be able to just as readily recognize when something is not that thing too. That is, your ranger should get advantage both to say "This was definitely giants." and to say "This was definitely not giants." The second statement doesn't tell them what it was, but it's still something (and a benefit from their class feature).
Implementing this means establishing a precedent that when the ranger rolls Survival (Wisdom) to determine what made the tracks they always roll twice and report both results. As the DM, you then report information to them like so:
- Both fail DC: They don't know what made the tracks; could be giants, could be something else.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants made the tracks: They know giants made the tracks.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants did not make the tracks: They know giants didn't make the tracks, but don't know what did.
- First roll succeeds: They know what made the tracks.
This does mean more die rolls, but it's only for cases where they need to identify what made the tracks. That is, just the first Survival roll needed in a particular encounter. On subsequent rolls you can cut back the number of rolls based on their determination in the first.
Of course, in order for this to work, you have to apply it consistently, i.e. anytime they come across tracks whose source is unknown initially. As a result, it may be too late to not tip your hand in this case. One thing you might try, though which might still give things away, is to rule on the first die roll normally and if it fails then ask the player for a second die roll "to rule out giants." In this way the second roll is framed as a benefit from their class feature, but because you haven't explicitly drawn the "roll again" = "giants" connection. Players might still make this connection, especially if you've never done it before in similar situations, but if you establish the precedent and carry it forward, they are less likely to draw that conclusion when this situation comes up again.
Another thing to think about in deciding whether or not this will work for you are whether you've actually given wrong information on a (spectacularly) failed check before. If you have, then this first time implementation can be phrased as a correction for that (especially useful if the first roll is 1), thereby reducing the chance of tipping your hand.
Further, there is the possibility of deception. How would an attack faked to look like a giant attack look to this ranger? If that's something that's come up in your game before, this can be framed in terms of that, and again reduce the chance that you'll tip your hand.
Just be ready to keep this going forward, as it is an advantage for the player to be able to rule things out (albeit one I think they deserve) and they will guard it jealously.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my mind, the Favored Enemy bonus should be just as useful in ruling out a source as it is in determining it is positively that source. If you're so intimately familiar with something that you automatically have advantage when recognize it, then you should be able to just as readily recognize when something is not that thing too. That is, your ranger should get advantage both to say "This was definitely giants." and to say "This was definitely not giants." The second statement doesn't tell them what it was, but it's still something (and a benefit from their class feature).
Implementing this means establishing a precedent that when the ranger rolls Survival (Wisdom) to determine what made the tracks they always roll twice and report both results. As the DM, you then report information to them like so:
- Both fail DC: They don't know what made the tracks; could be giants, could be something else.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants made the tracks: They know giants made the tracks.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants did not make the tracks: They know giants didn't make the tracks, but don't know what did.
- First roll succeeds: They know what made the tracks.
This does mean more die rolls, but it's only for cases where they need to identify what made the tracks. That is, just the first Survival roll needed in a particular encounter. On subsequent rolls you can cut back the number of rolls based on their determination in the first.
Of course, in order for this to work, you have to apply it consistently, i.e. anytime they come across tracks whose source is unknown initially. As a result, it may be too late to not tip your hand in this case. One thing you might try, though which might still give things away, is to rule on the first die roll normally and if it fails then ask the player for a second die roll "to rule out giants." In this way the second roll is framed as a benefit from their class feature, but because you haven't explicitly drawn the "roll again" = "giants" connection. Players might still make this connection, especially if you've never done it before in similar situations, but if you establish the precedent and carry it forward, they are less likely to draw that conclusion when this situation comes up again.
Another thing to think about in deciding whether or not this will work for you are whether you've actually given wrong information on a (spectacularly) failed check before. If you have, then this first time implementation can be phrased as a correction for that (especially useful if the first roll is 1), thereby reducing the chance of tipping your hand.
Further, there is the possibility of deception. How would an attack faked to look like a giant attack look to this ranger? If that's something that's come up in your game before, this can be framed in terms of that, and again reduce the chance that you'll tip your hand.
Just be ready to keep this going forward, as it is an advantage for the player to be able to rule things out (albeit one I think they deserve) and they will guard it jealously.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my mind, the Favored Enemy bonus should be just as useful in ruling out a source as it is in determining it is positively that source. If you're so intimately familiar with something that you automatically have advantage when recognize it, then you should be able to just as readily recognize when something is not that thing too. That is, your ranger should get advantage both to say "This was definitely giants." and to say "This was definitely not giants." The second statement doesn't tell them what it was, but it's still something (and a benefit from their class feature).
Implementing this means establishing a precedent that when the ranger rolls Survival (Wisdom) to determine what made the tracks they always roll twice and report both results. As the DM, you then report information to them like so:
- Both fail DC: They don't know what made the tracks; could be giants, could be something else.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants made the tracks: They know giants made the tracks.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants did not make the tracks: They know giants didn't make the tracks, but don't know what did.
- First roll succeeds: They know what made the tracks.
This does mean more die rolls, but it's only for cases where they need to identify what made the tracks. That is, just the first Survival roll needed in a particular encounter. On subsequent rolls you can cut back the number of rolls based on their determination in the first.
Of course, in order for this to work, you have to apply it consistently, i.e. anytime they come across tracks whose source is unknown initially. As a result, it may be too late to not tip your hand in this case. One thing you might try, though which might still give things away, is to rule on the first die roll normally and if it fails then ask the player for a second die roll "to rule out giants." In this way the second roll is framed as a benefit from their class feature, but because you haven't explicitly drawn the "roll again" = "giants" connection. Players might still make this connection, especially if you've never done it before in similar situations, but if you establish the precedent and carry it forward, they are less likely to draw that conclusion when this situation comes up again.
Another thing to think about in deciding whether or not this will work for you are whether you've actually given wrong information on a (spectacularly) failed check before. If you have, then this first time implementation can be phrased as a correction for that (especially useful if the first roll is 1), thereby reducing the chance of tipping your hand.
Further, there is the possibility of deception. How would an attack faked to look like a giant attack look to this ranger? If that's something that's come up in your game before, this can be framed in terms of that, and again reduce the chance that you'll tip your hand.
Just be ready to keep this going forward, as it is an advantage for the player to be able to rule things out (albeit one I think they deserve) and they will guard it jealously.
New contributor
$endgroup$
In my mind, the Favored Enemy bonus should be just as useful in ruling out a source as it is in determining it is positively that source. If you're so intimately familiar with something that you automatically have advantage when recognize it, then you should be able to just as readily recognize when something is not that thing too. That is, your ranger should get advantage both to say "This was definitely giants." and to say "This was definitely not giants." The second statement doesn't tell them what it was, but it's still something (and a benefit from their class feature).
Implementing this means establishing a precedent that when the ranger rolls Survival (Wisdom) to determine what made the tracks they always roll twice and report both results. As the DM, you then report information to them like so:
- Both fail DC: They don't know what made the tracks; could be giants, could be something else.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants made the tracks: They know giants made the tracks.
- First roll fails but second succeeds and giants did not make the tracks: They know giants didn't make the tracks, but don't know what did.
- First roll succeeds: They know what made the tracks.
This does mean more die rolls, but it's only for cases where they need to identify what made the tracks. That is, just the first Survival roll needed in a particular encounter. On subsequent rolls you can cut back the number of rolls based on their determination in the first.
Of course, in order for this to work, you have to apply it consistently, i.e. anytime they come across tracks whose source is unknown initially. As a result, it may be too late to not tip your hand in this case. One thing you might try, though which might still give things away, is to rule on the first die roll normally and if it fails then ask the player for a second die roll "to rule out giants." In this way the second roll is framed as a benefit from their class feature, but because you haven't explicitly drawn the "roll again" = "giants" connection. Players might still make this connection, especially if you've never done it before in similar situations, but if you establish the precedent and carry it forward, they are less likely to draw that conclusion when this situation comes up again.
Another thing to think about in deciding whether or not this will work for you are whether you've actually given wrong information on a (spectacularly) failed check before. If you have, then this first time implementation can be phrased as a correction for that (especially useful if the first roll is 1), thereby reducing the chance of tipping your hand.
Further, there is the possibility of deception. How would an attack faked to look like a giant attack look to this ranger? If that's something that's come up in your game before, this can be framed in terms of that, and again reduce the chance that you'll tip your hand.
Just be ready to keep this going forward, as it is an advantage for the player to be able to rule things out (albeit one I think they deserve) and they will guard it jealously.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
rpspringuelrpspringuel
1161
1161
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may be looking at this wrong if I understand the issue correctly. It doesn't sound like the rangers advantage would really apply to them knowing a giant was here. In your OP you stated: "one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle."
The key part being "As well as footprints that were left behind"
Knowing that at least one giant was "here" sounds like it would be obvious and have nothing to do with the rangers expertise. Every character present would clearly see the huge footprints and know that some form of giant like creature was here. It is determining details of what those footprints reveal, that would make use of the rangers advantage. The real question is can they figure out what happened from those footprints and other clues. (a giant could have lived here or been visiting for trade for all they know)
Meaning: If the ranger decides to try to study the tracks and figure anything out from them, they could realize any given number of things depending on their roll (which would have advantage because its obviously a giant print of some kind). Otherwise they just know that some kind of giant was here at some point, doesn't mean it did this...
Footprints could possibly reveal things such as:
- what kind of giant made the footprints
- was it one giant or many
- how old are the footprints
- add a perception check to notice if the disturbed earth around them is about the same state as the disturbed earth around the boulders? (IE is one dried out while the other fresh, were they disturbed about the same time?)
- they were disturbed about the same time? do these types of giant typically use large boulders to attack
- they do? hmm maybe our visitor(s) weren't here on friendly business... which way did they go when they left?
etc, etc.
Just a thought at least :)
If you want to play it as that it is not obvious that a giant was here, but just that something big was here... you could have them roll with advantage because it looks like a giant print, and if they fail both rolls, simply say "you know giants pretty well and while you are not sure what made these prints, you do not think it was a giant", or something along those lines.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may be looking at this wrong if I understand the issue correctly. It doesn't sound like the rangers advantage would really apply to them knowing a giant was here. In your OP you stated: "one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle."
The key part being "As well as footprints that were left behind"
Knowing that at least one giant was "here" sounds like it would be obvious and have nothing to do with the rangers expertise. Every character present would clearly see the huge footprints and know that some form of giant like creature was here. It is determining details of what those footprints reveal, that would make use of the rangers advantage. The real question is can they figure out what happened from those footprints and other clues. (a giant could have lived here or been visiting for trade for all they know)
Meaning: If the ranger decides to try to study the tracks and figure anything out from them, they could realize any given number of things depending on their roll (which would have advantage because its obviously a giant print of some kind). Otherwise they just know that some kind of giant was here at some point, doesn't mean it did this...
Footprints could possibly reveal things such as:
- what kind of giant made the footprints
- was it one giant or many
- how old are the footprints
- add a perception check to notice if the disturbed earth around them is about the same state as the disturbed earth around the boulders? (IE is one dried out while the other fresh, were they disturbed about the same time?)
- they were disturbed about the same time? do these types of giant typically use large boulders to attack
- they do? hmm maybe our visitor(s) weren't here on friendly business... which way did they go when they left?
etc, etc.
Just a thought at least :)
If you want to play it as that it is not obvious that a giant was here, but just that something big was here... you could have them roll with advantage because it looks like a giant print, and if they fail both rolls, simply say "you know giants pretty well and while you are not sure what made these prints, you do not think it was a giant", or something along those lines.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may be looking at this wrong if I understand the issue correctly. It doesn't sound like the rangers advantage would really apply to them knowing a giant was here. In your OP you stated: "one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle."
The key part being "As well as footprints that were left behind"
Knowing that at least one giant was "here" sounds like it would be obvious and have nothing to do with the rangers expertise. Every character present would clearly see the huge footprints and know that some form of giant like creature was here. It is determining details of what those footprints reveal, that would make use of the rangers advantage. The real question is can they figure out what happened from those footprints and other clues. (a giant could have lived here or been visiting for trade for all they know)
Meaning: If the ranger decides to try to study the tracks and figure anything out from them, they could realize any given number of things depending on their roll (which would have advantage because its obviously a giant print of some kind). Otherwise they just know that some kind of giant was here at some point, doesn't mean it did this...
Footprints could possibly reveal things such as:
- what kind of giant made the footprints
- was it one giant or many
- how old are the footprints
- add a perception check to notice if the disturbed earth around them is about the same state as the disturbed earth around the boulders? (IE is one dried out while the other fresh, were they disturbed about the same time?)
- they were disturbed about the same time? do these types of giant typically use large boulders to attack
- they do? hmm maybe our visitor(s) weren't here on friendly business... which way did they go when they left?
etc, etc.
Just a thought at least :)
If you want to play it as that it is not obvious that a giant was here, but just that something big was here... you could have them roll with advantage because it looks like a giant print, and if they fail both rolls, simply say "you know giants pretty well and while you are not sure what made these prints, you do not think it was a giant", or something along those lines.
New contributor
$endgroup$
I think you may be looking at this wrong if I understand the issue correctly. It doesn't sound like the rangers advantage would really apply to them knowing a giant was here. In your OP you stated: "one of the major clues is the fact there are dozens of boulders scattered around the town that were dropped from a cloud giant castle from a great height. As well as footprints that were left behind when they eventually descended from said castle."
The key part being "As well as footprints that were left behind"
Knowing that at least one giant was "here" sounds like it would be obvious and have nothing to do with the rangers expertise. Every character present would clearly see the huge footprints and know that some form of giant like creature was here. It is determining details of what those footprints reveal, that would make use of the rangers advantage. The real question is can they figure out what happened from those footprints and other clues. (a giant could have lived here or been visiting for trade for all they know)
Meaning: If the ranger decides to try to study the tracks and figure anything out from them, they could realize any given number of things depending on their roll (which would have advantage because its obviously a giant print of some kind). Otherwise they just know that some kind of giant was here at some point, doesn't mean it did this...
Footprints could possibly reveal things such as:
- what kind of giant made the footprints
- was it one giant or many
- how old are the footprints
- add a perception check to notice if the disturbed earth around them is about the same state as the disturbed earth around the boulders? (IE is one dried out while the other fresh, were they disturbed about the same time?)
- they were disturbed about the same time? do these types of giant typically use large boulders to attack
- they do? hmm maybe our visitor(s) weren't here on friendly business... which way did they go when they left?
etc, etc.
Just a thought at least :)
If you want to play it as that it is not obvious that a giant was here, but just that something big was here... you could have them roll with advantage because it looks like a giant print, and if they fail both rolls, simply say "you know giants pretty well and while you are not sure what made these prints, you do not think it was a giant", or something along those lines.
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
V2Blast
23.2k374146
23.2k374146
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
iZtrahd DWiZtrahd DW
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Relevant meta: Don't signal your edits in text.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage.
While an argument could be made in favour of this, I don't think it's always true, especially considering that the ranger will not know that it was giants.
In my opinion, the Favoured Enemy feature is not "if you track something and it happes to be your favoured enemy then you get advantage" but "if you explicitly trying to track your favoured enemy, then you have advantage".
E.g. for giants, the ranger knows that they leave big footsteps, how a giant would walk in a certain terrain, what sort of tricks they use when they don't want to leave tracks etc. Similarly with attacking; if it's a giant hiding under a blanket, the ranger wouldn't be able to utilize her knowledge of a giant's weak spots to gain advantage as they don't know it's a giant (See Who should know/inform the Ranger's Favored Enemy?).
Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that a person seeing giant footsteps will not assume that it's a giant, let alone someone who is an expert on them. But perhaps the tracks aren't clear, other creatures could throw boulders etc: that's up to you. It would make sense to allow for a perception check for the ranger to realize it's giants and only afterwards to have advantage for tracking them; but if the whole plot relies on them not immediately realizing it's giants, it doesn't make sense to allow that roll (but as MarkTO said it does sound like a weak point of the plot).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage.
While an argument could be made in favour of this, I don't think it's always true, especially considering that the ranger will not know that it was giants.
In my opinion, the Favoured Enemy feature is not "if you track something and it happes to be your favoured enemy then you get advantage" but "if you explicitly trying to track your favoured enemy, then you have advantage".
E.g. for giants, the ranger knows that they leave big footsteps, how a giant would walk in a certain terrain, what sort of tricks they use when they don't want to leave tracks etc. Similarly with attacking; if it's a giant hiding under a blanket, the ranger wouldn't be able to utilize her knowledge of a giant's weak spots to gain advantage as they don't know it's a giant (See Who should know/inform the Ranger's Favored Enemy?).
Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that a person seeing giant footsteps will not assume that it's a giant, let alone someone who is an expert on them. But perhaps the tracks aren't clear, other creatures could throw boulders etc: that's up to you. It would make sense to allow for a perception check for the ranger to realize it's giants and only afterwards to have advantage for tracking them; but if the whole plot relies on them not immediately realizing it's giants, it doesn't make sense to allow that roll (but as MarkTO said it does sound like a weak point of the plot).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage.
While an argument could be made in favour of this, I don't think it's always true, especially considering that the ranger will not know that it was giants.
In my opinion, the Favoured Enemy feature is not "if you track something and it happes to be your favoured enemy then you get advantage" but "if you explicitly trying to track your favoured enemy, then you have advantage".
E.g. for giants, the ranger knows that they leave big footsteps, how a giant would walk in a certain terrain, what sort of tricks they use when they don't want to leave tracks etc. Similarly with attacking; if it's a giant hiding under a blanket, the ranger wouldn't be able to utilize her knowledge of a giant's weak spots to gain advantage as they don't know it's a giant (See Who should know/inform the Ranger's Favored Enemy?).
Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that a person seeing giant footsteps will not assume that it's a giant, let alone someone who is an expert on them. But perhaps the tracks aren't clear, other creatures could throw boulders etc: that's up to you. It would make sense to allow for a perception check for the ranger to realize it's giants and only afterwards to have advantage for tracking them; but if the whole plot relies on them not immediately realizing it's giants, it doesn't make sense to allow that roll (but as MarkTO said it does sound like a weak point of the plot).
$endgroup$
if the player asks to take a look at the boulders or tracks left behind, I would have to ask them to roll the check with advantage.
While an argument could be made in favour of this, I don't think it's always true, especially considering that the ranger will not know that it was giants.
In my opinion, the Favoured Enemy feature is not "if you track something and it happes to be your favoured enemy then you get advantage" but "if you explicitly trying to track your favoured enemy, then you have advantage".
E.g. for giants, the ranger knows that they leave big footsteps, how a giant would walk in a certain terrain, what sort of tricks they use when they don't want to leave tracks etc. Similarly with attacking; if it's a giant hiding under a blanket, the ranger wouldn't be able to utilize her knowledge of a giant's weak spots to gain advantage as they don't know it's a giant (See Who should know/inform the Ranger's Favored Enemy?).
Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that a person seeing giant footsteps will not assume that it's a giant, let alone someone who is an expert on them. But perhaps the tracks aren't clear, other creatures could throw boulders etc: that's up to you. It would make sense to allow for a perception check for the ranger to realize it's giants and only afterwards to have advantage for tracking them; but if the whole plot relies on them not immediately realizing it's giants, it doesn't make sense to allow that roll (but as MarkTO said it does sound like a weak point of the plot).
answered 2 hours ago
falsedotfalsedot
1,225616
1,225616
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simulate advantage by changing the DC. This way there is now way to know unless they succeed. There is a bit of math to do this correctly, and it won't be exact, but a good rule of thumb for normal checks is to subtract 5. For example a DC 10 check with no bonuses is roughly equivalent to a DC 5 check with advantage. A DC 15 is close to DC 9 with advantage.
If they fail they just think they rolled normally. If they succeed, you can explain why it was different for them.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simulate advantage by changing the DC. This way there is now way to know unless they succeed. There is a bit of math to do this correctly, and it won't be exact, but a good rule of thumb for normal checks is to subtract 5. For example a DC 10 check with no bonuses is roughly equivalent to a DC 5 check with advantage. A DC 15 is close to DC 9 with advantage.
If they fail they just think they rolled normally. If they succeed, you can explain why it was different for them.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simulate advantage by changing the DC. This way there is now way to know unless they succeed. There is a bit of math to do this correctly, and it won't be exact, but a good rule of thumb for normal checks is to subtract 5. For example a DC 10 check with no bonuses is roughly equivalent to a DC 5 check with advantage. A DC 15 is close to DC 9 with advantage.
If they fail they just think they rolled normally. If they succeed, you can explain why it was different for them.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Simulate advantage by changing the DC. This way there is now way to know unless they succeed. There is a bit of math to do this correctly, and it won't be exact, but a good rule of thumb for normal checks is to subtract 5. For example a DC 10 check with no bonuses is roughly equivalent to a DC 5 check with advantage. A DC 15 is close to DC 9 with advantage.
If they fail they just think they rolled normally. If they succeed, you can explain why it was different for them.
New contributor
edited 27 mins ago
V2Blast
23.2k374146
23.2k374146
New contributor
answered 32 mins ago
rtpaxrtpax
101
101
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. By "A DC 15 is close to DC 9", did you mean DC 15 is close to DC 10? Since you said a good rule of thumb was to subtract 5.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast No, doing the exact calculation got me 8.75, which I rounded.
$endgroup$
– rtpax
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
$begingroup$
Ah. That's not totally clear in your answer, as you give a rule of thumb, then give an example that doesn't abide by that rule of thumb. You might want to clarify that in your answer.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about you say that he is allowed to roll as if it were advantage, but you will decide, without telling him, whether you take the second roll into account depending on whether his skill applies or not.
Ofcourse, this means that you will have to do this on other occasions as well, to avoid shifting the meta from the problem with advantage rolls on Favoured Enemy, to meta on this "trick".
(Disclaimer: I'm very noob at D&D so I have no idea if there's anything in the rulebook, or some common practice for this.)
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about you say that he is allowed to roll as if it were advantage, but you will decide, without telling him, whether you take the second roll into account depending on whether his skill applies or not.
Ofcourse, this means that you will have to do this on other occasions as well, to avoid shifting the meta from the problem with advantage rolls on Favoured Enemy, to meta on this "trick".
(Disclaimer: I'm very noob at D&D so I have no idea if there's anything in the rulebook, or some common practice for this.)
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about you say that he is allowed to roll as if it were advantage, but you will decide, without telling him, whether you take the second roll into account depending on whether his skill applies or not.
Ofcourse, this means that you will have to do this on other occasions as well, to avoid shifting the meta from the problem with advantage rolls on Favoured Enemy, to meta on this "trick".
(Disclaimer: I'm very noob at D&D so I have no idea if there's anything in the rulebook, or some common practice for this.)
New contributor
$endgroup$
How about you say that he is allowed to roll as if it were advantage, but you will decide, without telling him, whether you take the second roll into account depending on whether his skill applies or not.
Ofcourse, this means that you will have to do this on other occasions as well, to avoid shifting the meta from the problem with advantage rolls on Favoured Enemy, to meta on this "trick".
(Disclaimer: I'm very noob at D&D so I have no idea if there's anything in the rulebook, or some common practice for this.)
New contributor
New contributor
answered 14 hours ago
OpifexOpifex
27
27
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.
$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This isn't a bad idea for some games I expect, but with the volume of dice rolling in D&D this would unfortunately end up slowing the game too much.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
SeriousBri: What if you only do it occasionaly? That way it does not give away meta-game, because it can be one of those random moments you can do a double roll that might be advantage, and you won't slow down the game too much because most of the rolls will be regular rolls.
$endgroup$
– Opifex
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a player I would find that pretty distracting (And as a DM would never remember lol). There are a few other problems as well; Advantage or disadvantage is a mechanical way of telling the player that their character is really good at something, or in a difficult situation, and being random with this also removes that connection. For example if I didn't have advantage I might prefer to manipulate the situation until I did - this also removes that choice - but then so do the answers about rolling in secret.
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. As a solution unique to Roll20 and possibly other virtual tabletops, you can set him to roll always at advantage; then, you can actually take the higher roll on those instances when he does have advantage. With physical dice, this would definitely be tedious, but it's much easier when playing online.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
12 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,
14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a small note, if you're playing online on Roll20 then this is already done for you. Every check gives two results, e.g.,
14 | 17
. You take the higher for advantage, the lower for disadvantage, or the left when you have neither.$endgroup$
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141650%2fhow-can-i-give-a-ranger-advantage-on-a-check-due-to-favored-enemy-without-spoili%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown