How to Adjudicate Ability Checks & Skills in Dungeons and Dragons 5e

[@SoVxRoyale]

I’ve told my players that their descriptions of their character’s actions may reduce the DC if it reasonably would make the check easier. A DC 15 investigation check to find the hidden key becomes a DC 10 because they said they look around the desk. It becomes a 5 when they say they look under the desk and a 0 (no roll) when they say i pull the desk away from the wall.

[@johnsnow9210]

Whos a good DM?!!!! You are!!!

[@0Fyrebrand0]

*Player:* "I search the room." *DM:* ಠ_ಠ

[@Lorkisen]

Nicely done, that forces more roleplay, encourages the players to pay attention to the description of the room and pushes DM towards creativity. Describing a room and them finding a hidden key under a desk doesn't seem like a big thing but I think it is more immersive, in a good way.

[@robinthrush9672]

That sort of forces the check against the player and not the character though. Let's use charisma as an example; a confident and outgoing person who has a good amount of experience attracting the opposite sex is going to have knowledge of how to woo someone while an introverted and awkward, possibly autistic, person may not know what is an acceptable method to compliment someone and what is likely to get them slapped or sound stalker-ish. And I'm totally not speaking as a frequent charisma-based player who falls into the latter example. (⌐_⌐) (¬_¬) (⌐_⌐)

[@ulfbjorn14]

@@robinthrush9672 The player without some specific knowledge or personal skill can still make the less rp playstyle choice and simply request to persuade or search or what have ya. This rewards creativity and precision, it's not neccesarially punishing lack of details.

[@mykediemart]

This is a really good video. Saving Throw is Reactive, Ability check is Proactive -- as an easy guideline, and what you guys said. More DM's need to listen to this video - especially the only role when outcome is uncertain and carries a consequence.

[@DungeonDudes]

Thank you!

[@Battleguild]

Especially for Illusion spells. Illusions simply look like what they are imitating, a save isn't appropriate. A player's passive perception isn't going to spot an illusion for what it is (unless the DM has reason to allow it), though their passive or active investigation might spot the illusion.

[@MafkACE]

@@DungeonDudes I always found dodging a tomato reactive :p

[@mathiasseverin5673]

With your logic, AC should also be a saving throw. Of course, I'm just devil's advocating here. At the end of the day it is all about trying to limit d20 rolls to one offensive OR one defensive.

[@mathiasseverin5673]

@@mykediemart Good talk.

[@BobGrimminger]

"I want to go look at this suit of armor to see if I know anything about it." "There is a plaque that tells you about it's history."

[@agsilverradio2225]

I don't 100% trust what's written on the plaque. I cross reference what's written on the plaque with my own insight, current history knowledge, and cast legend lore, ... also, I plan to later cross reference other sources and opinons, using my resurcher background feature. ... But first, I search for hidden cryptic messages on the plaque, because I am a nerd, who overthinks everthing, and am perfectionistic about making sure I have the whole story: (and not just the abriged version that ussually gets written into history.)

[@Shane-The-Pain]

@@agsilverradio2225 You have succinctly described most players. Self reflecting in the comments section is mostly frowned upon but you gain points from me. ;)

[@Battleguild]

Except the plaque reads, "This is what an explosive rune looks like." Triggering a Glyph of Warding and explodes in their face when they read the plaque.

[@theuberunit6547]

@@Battleguild That made me choke on my food

[@petercarducci9136]

I like the mention of automatically succeeding if you're specific enough. I usually like to write into my quests that something like a secret passage can be found with a DC15 Investigation Check OR if a player checks the wall behind the altar, for example. When players start to catch on, they end up not only using more natural language, but they also pay more attention to room descriptions and ask more questions about the surroundings.

[@johnsnow9210]

There is always a secret passage behind the alter.

[@DukeOfJam7591]

The athletic character has no issue getting over the fence while the wizard has to work a little more. And all I see in my head is the scene from Hot Fuzz where Nicholas leaps and flips over the fences and Danny barrels through one, falling flat, and slowly falls over the next.

[@Arkios64]

And, the way more interesting outcome, the Wizard awkwardly leaps over the fence without issue, while the athletic character tries to show off, but just barely gets caught and faceplants on the other side.

[@alanschaub147]

The most important skill for a DM is to ensure that players feel like their choices matter. This includes all the choices they made while creating their character, including picking skill proficiencies. When a DM does not call for skill checks, or uses them incorrectly, it makes those player choices seem insignificant. ❤️

[@alexandraelizabeth8522]

This is the biggest problem, that there are super skills(Perception, Investigation, Stealth) that come up constantly and other skills that come up so infrequently that they're forgotten about (Animal Handling, Medicine, Performance, Slight of Hand)

[@alanschaub147]

@@alexandraelizabeth8522 If a player chooses a skill such as Animal Handling, there is absolutely no reason that a good DM could not make that skill choice matter. If a DM cannot manage that goal, considering they control everything in the game except the character choices, then they are simply not a good DM.

[@LordTankian0]

@@alanschaub147 they can still be a good dm and make mistakes. They could be fairly new

[@alanschaub147]

@@LordTankian0 Of course! I am only saying that as DMs improve in skill they ensure that players feel like their characters are heroic, and that their choices matter in the game. I have played with DMs who really are telling their own story, and not facilitating group story telling.

[@polvotierno]

Excellent vid... Suggestion, if a player just says, "I make a perception roll." The DM can just say, " you notice the flies buzzing around you because you smell. " The point is that the player should be more specific.

[@0Fyrebrand0]

The player should never be declaring that they make any kind of roll, period. They describe what their character is attempting to do, and the DM decides whether to call for a roll, and what type of roll.

[@robinthrush9672]

@@0Fyrebrand0 And then the 20 charisma bard with +11 persuasion is reliant on the 5 charisma player persuading the DM.

[@AllThingsFascinate]

@@robinthrush9672 What? Persuading them to get to make a roll? No. .. no not at all.

[@robinthrush9672]

@@AllThingsFascinate All I can say is that, never asking for a roll or stating outright I wanted to attempt to persuade nearly got me killed a few times and I only got RP skill checks for performance and one for intimidation in a long campaign. As a changeling, having an NPC not believe me when I claim to be someone without a deception roll is really annoying.

[@DoremiFasolatido1979]

That's a terrible idea. That's a form of DM metagaming (yes, DMs can metagame, and it's not always acceptable) that harms players. If a player's Wizard has an 18 INT, it doesn't mean the player is suddenly smart enough to know the things their character should be able to figure out. Part of that is unavoidable. A character built around knowing clever ways to misuse spells to great effect...it's a failure if the player themselves can't come up with those methods...meaning such players cannot ever utilize such a character concept. . But that intrinsic aspect of the game shouldn't be expanded to be used against players who lack particular role-playing skills or such. Someone who's simply not good at speaking, but wants to play a silver-tongued bard (because that's their fantasy...the thing they can't be in real life), shouldn't be denied or punished because they can't say anything cool. It's not really fair to that wizard who can't figure out what spells to cast when needed, but a Charisma check isn't actually dependent on a character knowing what to say. Knowing what spell to cast isn't something you can just roll a check for. You'd be relying on the DM or other players always telling you what to do...which isn't you playing. . It's irrelevant with the physical stats, but the mental stats are really hampered by a player's own limitations. It's impossible to play a character with an IQ of 200 when yours is only 70.

[@Roostallion_]

One of the best D&D channels around, honestly you guys are so helpful to new players/DMs. I can just turn your video on and listen which is soo helpful for someone who works a lot. Keep up the awesome videos!! I know so many people really appreciate them and you guys

[@DungeonDudes]

Thank you!

[@NaDeszczoweDni]

Same here, working and listening, plus my ears are protected from loud machines around me.

[@StoveandGarden]

I’d love to see a video on plots for home brew games. That would be fun.

[@Heavyarmskai2000]

Agreed!

[@DungeonDudes]

Indeed! Would you be interested in a video that was "Here's a bunch of ideas, try them out and feel free to use them" or one that was more "Here's our process for coming up with ideas and finding inspiration"?

[@JEST3R_]

@@DungeonDudes Personally I'd be interested in a bit of both

[@TheLogicMouse]

Both are worthwhile, but I'd lean toward process and inspiration suggestions.

[@Heavyarmskai2000]

@@DungeonDudes a little from A and B.

[@Removedchip82]

I just started playing D&D again with my brother and nephew, and these videos have very helpful. Thanks guys

[@randomizedcontent1177]

the way i run group Perception checks is, i simply ask the players who has the highest perception modifier, and only let that player make the check. I explain this as "if they can't see it, then no one else would be able to," and while it might not work for every game, I've never had a player complain about it. it also gives the group the highest chance of succeeding, which helps them as well as me as it makes it harder to miss clues

[@scook9999]

Player: "I perceive the desk with a roll of 25!" DM: "The desk is about three feet wide and two feet deep, and the base stands 40 inches off the ground. You perceive it is made from black walnut and is lacquered. The lacquer is rather shiny, so you feel this desk is no more than five years old. You would approximate its value between 250 and 300 gold pieces." And this is why I don't DM. I am too much of a smart ass.

[@LeChaosRampant]

How on earth is that too much? That's the exactly appropriate level of smartassery XD

[@fredsuper6792]

That seems like the perfect way to teach people to be specific, and you are incredibly descriptive with it.

[@darienb1127]

I think by that point, the party would go snooping old dungeons for valuable crap like this. They could all be merchants and there is you campaign right there!

[@anthonynorman7545]

I'd love for my DM too do that and I do similar when I DM

[@MichaelLesterClockwork]

@@darienb1127 D&D campaign of travelling merchants looking for wares! Awesome!

[@chadbodine336]

Natural 20s on ability checks doesn't mean automatic success, and a 1 doesn't mean an automatic failure.

[@DungeonDudes]

Indeed. We've discussed this many times, but it doesn't change the fact that *players perceive natural 20s as such*.

[@toribiogubert7729]

@@DungeonDudes if channels like yours keep saying stuff like you said in this video this behavior would keep going on. Not saying you and other ppl can't use that just some warning that this rule is not RAW would be nice

[@brcoutme]

Well I am a believer that a natural 20 on an ability check should get like a bonus, so be like 25 before bonuses or negatives. Weather or not you do this, you generally should be letting your players know if the dc for something is higher than they can achieve given their current bonuses and a natural 20 roll, unless you are doing the wisdom failure thing and consequences being more likely/greater like they mentioned in the video. Like if they want to try to jump to the moon, with a low roll they might hurt themselves, while if they get a natural 20 you can talk about how impressive there jump was, almost unbelievable (although they obviously got nowhere close to the moon and really it was just a few feet higher than they normally could manage).

[@DungeonDudes]

@@toribiogubert7729 We do not say stuff like this -- in our second most popular video, 10 common rules mistakes, we discuss it's a rules mistake and we don't use it in our games. I understand how what we discussed in this video can be misinterpreted as such, and in general, we feel that if your players characters can't succeed on a roll, you probably shouldn't call for a roll at all.

[@adamkaris]

Dungeon Dudes around 7:13 you literally say "roll a natural 20 and everyone at the table starts cheering expecting something amazing to happen"

[@luketfer]

Stated this to my players "Rolling a natural 20 on charming a Red Dragon doesn't mean that she'll suddenly be on your side, it means she gives a little chuckle and says "You're funny, I'll eat you last..." So now they're not going to be the obvious focus of the Dragon's ire but she's still going to kill them if they're the last one standing.

[@donkrouskop4753]

No channel has helped me grasp 5e more than this one. You guys are knowledgeable, thorough, articulate, and pragmatic in your approach to both the game and these informational videos, and have really helped demistify the most intimidating elements of 5e for me. Thank you!

[@HowtoRPG]

Part of the reason DM's rolled the D20 in older versions of the game was to avoid meta-gaming. Well explained topic.

[@toddcampbell-crow8615]

I think I'd adjudicate a 20 on "convince king to abdicate" similarly to how you're describing; the king isn't going to give up their kingdom, but the character might have made an interesting point, and the ruler would be interested in keeping an ear open to their wit/philosophy on other occasions. If a player has multiple occasions--four or five attempts, maybe--and particularly if the player has been reflecting world events and in-universe religion, philosophy, folklore, or social norms, that becomes interesting, not destructive. If the player manages to hit a series of high DC checks without fucking it up, hell--the player might just convince the ruler that he needs to worry after his eternal soul in a monastery, that the free life of a minstrel is greater, that the realm should be in the hands of a gifted and respected scion of the previous dynasty. Think about David and Saul, great story there! Sometimes, lean into the silliness of a die roll and find a unique story moment that creates real meaning.

[@nobodysbusinezz]

I really love your stuff. You guys have really delved into the theory of DnD and have really nailed it. I send a lot of your videos to my newer players because you deliver your information in such a digestible manner. Even a video like this that is directed for DMs feels like it is a great lesson for players on how THEY can use their skills (like attempting to help or use passive knowledge). Mad love!

[@LurkerDaBerzerker]

*Relevant and Supportive Comment*

[@LurkerDaBerzerker]

So, what would you have a player do if they wanted to make a armour of brilliance? (Or even a glamoured armour of brilliance, so it isn't as easily noticed?)

[@catoThesphinx]

Just started my second campaign (1 session deep) with a separate group of players from my first campaign (9 sessions deep) and these sorts of videos are the ones that make GMing SO much easier and smoother, especially for a novice like me. Thanks for all the great content!

[@Ramperdos]

Great info in a compact package! My players love to roll so I let them roll on some of the "automatic" checks you mentioned, but the DC is always really low.

[@JoshuaCard]

Same here. I'm DMing for some new players and part of the fun for them is rolling the "clicky clacks". So, I'll have them roll for easy things they want to do because it adds enjoyment for them and I'll just use a DC of, like, 5 or as long as it's not a Nat 1 they succeed and how well they roll can add extra pazaz to the outcome.

[@paulmilam5739]

I could listen to you guys talk about D&D all day. Thanks for the tips on this

[@TengrioftheCrimsonSky]

Unless the gnome is a 20th level barbarian and had enlarge active on them. As always results may vary.

[@roosterema2352]

Please let's not forget how the game designers themselves wanted us to use Skill Checks (something that has remained as an "optional" rule in the DMG, but that was at the core of D&D Next's playtest evolution): Ability Scores and Skills should be something that you combine based on the circumstances and the fiction of the game. Strength + Intimidation to scare off someone, Dexterity + Athletics to throw a boulder at a dragon, Charisma + History to appeal to a person's ancestry in order to persuade them, or Intelligence + Medicine when determining what caused a person's death.

[@JorisVDC]

I really like this because it makes the game feel more like a real story and less about building a character for a game.

[@roosterema2352]

@@JorisVDC it's how it was meant to work from the very beginning of the playtest. They turned it around in the last packet, going back to a 3.5/4e approach, with each skill tied to a specific stat. I still don't get why.

[@dontmisunderstand6041]

That "don't roll if failure has no consequence" thing is exactly what so many people need to hear. I've heard too many people say "you shouldn't roll if there's no chance of success", which is simply nonsensical and takes away character agency. It's the opposite of what you should do. Even if you can't succeed, you can always make things worse. Whereas on the flip side, if failure has no consequence then success is guaranteed, so there's no point in making the party go through the motions and waste your players' time.

[@scottclowe]

For Deception/Insight and Perception/Stealth contests, I consider it that the deceiver/hider is setting the DC for the insight/perception check. This means ties go to the the insighter/perceiver.

[@JorisVDC]

Just like Monty explained, no?

[@scottclowe]

@@JorisVDC That was the way round he said he resolved ties, but I don't think he phrased his rationalisation as the deceiver setting the DC.

[@KatsuhiroHebi]

i let unprocifient help checks slide because ive had idiots talk to me while i was solving a hard problem and their dumb thoughts have lead me to normally unthinkable solutions.

[@JorisVDC]

I would impose a check for them to be able to help. If they fail by 10 or more they impose disadvantage. Having someone fill your head with bullshit ideas is not helpful for solving a difficult problem.

[@robinthrush9672]

I've also found good ideas come just from communicating the problem to another person rather than keeping it to myself. Even if they don't say anything, it can help by putting your mind into a different frame of thought.

[@SeraphineMayumi]

I wish my DM would watch this - they made me roll to find a leaf in a standard medieval setting with a nature-oriented character. A 7 failed. All in all, it took 20 minutes of game time.

[@brianshanken1004]

as a DM i dont have time to waste like that. My players do enough already to slow down the story

[@jordanpickthall0619]

I had a player once who liked to constantly look for woodland creatures to have as a pet. Keep in mind he wasn’t even proficient in animal handling, nor did his character (a pugilist) have any knowledge about how to tame said creatures. It got pretty old pretty fast. Lol

[@ignisshadowflame1027]

@@jordanpickthall0619 Even a ranger or druid without using magic would still take weeks if not months.

[@quinn1044]

the way you two sit shoulder-to-shoulder across the table from the camera has huge “your father and I have something important to discuss with you” energy

[@patsutherland6853]

I like to solve the group roll problem by saying that while they were all so focused on that one thing, something else happens behind them, such as the ambush involving two seperate groups has one group distracting while the other sneaks up behind for a surprise attack. It tends to nudge a group towards not all rolling at once and doesn't break immersion that much.

[@migrn]

The way I see it an ability check is something the player does. While a saving through is something external happening TO the player.

[@DungeonDudes]

We agree!

[@JorisVDC]

I don't agree, DEX saves are when you react to your environment. For example, if you are fighting on a ladder and you are pushed off, I would allow for a DEX save to grab onto the ladder and avoid falling all the way down. Same can be done if you hold a rope without any special knots to avoid it slipping from your grip and someone is tied to the rope climbing up. If that person falls, you need to make a STR save to hold onto the rope or if you have the right technique for holding a rope, to keep your footing and don't fall prone.

[@migrn]

Joris Vander Cammen I don’t thing we’re really disagreeing. I would agree all those would be saving throws, but it’s because the “action” taking place is falling. The character is trying to prevent falling by being quick or strong. It would be the same for dodging a trap. Yes, technically it’s an action the character is performing, but the character is reacting to outside forces instead of making the decision to act.

[@JRDeBo]

I think a good way to prevent the "impossible doers" is to remind players crit successes and fails don't exist on ability checks. This is very important on group checks because players who might be garunteed to fail or succeed (due to expertise or negative modifiers) will still have to roll the dice for appearances sake to not give away the DC if you are trying to build the suspense. Their nat 20 might still be a failure, and that nat 1 could still be a success.

[@sharkjack]

It is a great way to make high level characters feel like a boss when their 1 leads to a success while someone elses 7 or 8 still leads to a fail. This is particularly true for checks or saves that everyone makes. Alternatively, for those who like the critical fail for ability checks, if someone can make the DC even on a 1, they might get a reroll (perhaps with a raised DC or without their AS or proficiency to raise the stakes) on a 1 to see if they can catch themselves before the bad stuff happens. That way no one is guaranteed to succeed, but you can still feel much more badass in your area of expertise. And it leads to much more natural events. Rather than just having the fighter fail a climb check while the wizard succeeds, maybe a rock they grabbed onto was actually a creature in disguise, and being grabbed leads to it shrieking, or jumping on their face. Then the fighter rolls again to determine if they are able to catch themself. A skilled climber is used to having a foothold disappear on them, and will always position them self in such a way that they can retain balance. If they succeed their second roll that is just what happens. And if they fail, well now it doesn't feel like they just sucked at climbing. They had a mini encounter that justifies why they were the one in trouble. Other people just fall on a failed check because they are bad at climbing.

[@jimbell8678]

This gets to the core of being a good DM. You can have all the intricate dungeons, monsters, traps and puzzles and story twists you like, but if you can encourage your players to roleplay their characters naturally with positive encouragement, and cut down on mechanical dice rolling, everyone is going to have more fun.

[@geoffreyperrin4347]

I almost always use a "2 at most" rule when players want to all do the same thing, unless a group check like 5 people stealthing is applicable. Essentially, I say "choose 2 people to make the check, or 1 with advantage", and then explain, after the result, "as the party does this, the best attemp among you results in..." Essentially, the players who didn't role might have still had their characters doing stuff, but only the best result was used as it represents the best the party as a whole could have attempted in that moment.

[@jakeholmes9296]

In regards to everyone wanting to roll in a situation where it’s not a group check I just say that the 1 or 2 players rolling represents the groups best effort.

[@Gundangit1129]

First time DM, this has been so helpful.

[@sk8rdman]

Group checks for the "let me try" problem is a great idea. I don't know why I never thought of it before.

[@mercyvanzyl316]

I have been essentially binge watching your channel the last few weeks... and I am just so enamoured with the way you guys do day time television listening so differently.

[@nitaell]

Thank you for the tomato reference guide😭😭 I have such a hard time nailing down DnD terms!! I helped my daughter similarly with tornados: watches & warnings always confused her; which one means run to the basement😂 she'd ask. So i simplified it for her. Whenever Indiana weather gets wonky i tell her: we have ingredients to make a taco [a "Watch" has been issued, conditions are favorable for a tornado] OR "Delilah, we're eating tacos!" [meaning a "Warning" has been issued, ergo a tornado sighting and/or touch down--runnn for that basement!]. 😊So i love analogies! They clear up a muddy picture so nicely!! THANK YOU❤!

[@brewdaly1873]

This might be one of the most informative videos y'all have put out. I've always had trouble knowing when and how to apply skill checks.

[@kingkalamari6689]

Very solid philosophy for calling for ability checks, and one I generally try to apply in my own DMing experiences. One other variant condition for calling for ability checks I sometimes use (Inspired by similar mechanics in other systems) is what I usually call a "Simple Success Check". This is the sort of check I sometimes call for when the characters are attempting a task where there wouldn't be a chance for failure, but how well they are able to perform the task could have consequences to the narrative. An example would be if the party is going through a dungeon that is being regularly patrolled (ala older editions' wandering monster rules) and the Rogue needs to pick a lock. The Rogue isn't under a hard time limit to do so, but how long he takes is potentially going to effect the party's progress - If he takes longer there's more chance a guard patrol is going to stumble across the party. In a case like that I might call for the Rogue to make a roll not to determine whether or not they can pick the lock, but to determine how long it's going to take them. In cases like the above example, I'd probably also give the character the option on whether or not they'd like to follow through with picking the lock after they've made the roll and have an idea as to how long it would take their character to pick said lock ("With an 8 on your roll to pick the lock your character knows that this is a fairly tricky lock that will take them a good hour of finagling to pick, do you want to take that time to pick it or do you guys want to try and find a faster option?").

[@eruditecaptain3117]

9:10 here the Dudes discus the results of a check, sounding like it's always either pass/fail. Personally, I like to set a DC, but account for multiples of 5 above or below that number, as degrees of success or failure. If a player's goal is something quite hard, the DC is high, and all multiples below the DC denote increasingly harsh failure, but if it was simple, the multiples above denote increasingly helpful success. For example, if a player wants to jump across a chasm in an icey cave, I might decide that the DC is 15 if their goal is to land on their feet, but if they describe that they want to land on the ledge and climb up, I might lower the DC to 10. With the DC of 15, a 10 denotes them falling into the gap, but with the DC of 10, a 15 denotes them hitting the ledge with a firm enough grip to grant them a bonus against slipping on the ice as they climb up. I think this system works because it encourages my players to think of the solutions within their reach. After all, it seems to me that in real life, when you aim high and fail, your failure is always worse, you know? Not to be a pessimist...

[@eruditecaptain3117]

BTW, I don't know if I just missed it, but do you guys feel it's best to tell the players the DC's for skill checks before they roll? What about saving throws? Personally, I think it makes sense to tell them the DC for an ability check but not for saving throws.

[@eruditecaptain3117]

Last thought on this topic: I love what the Dudes have to say here about natural language. It's a fantastic concept, and I love having my players describe to me what they want to do. As Monty describes, it's a fantastic feeling for the player when they think of a possible solution to a puzzle and they automatically succeed without a check because of their clever thinking.

[@JorisVDC]

I agree that degrees of success and failure can be relevant in checks. Yet sometimes the steps need to be by 10 instead of 5 because it is that much harder to get more than what you were aiming for.

[@MrPomwarlock]

This list is very helpful! Thanks so much. Always confused me as to setting my own DCs for ability checks. I always set the DC to 10 and then calculated environmental conditions which would help or hinder the roll. -2 for helpful conditions (good weather, plenty of time to succeed) and +4 for hindering conditions (poor lighting, strong wind, being in combat) etc But now I have a base level I can look at and adjust more accurately :)

[@githvaldi]

This video should be mandatory for all new D&D players, DM's alike. Good stuff. It helped me refresh my DM's hat as it's been a long rest since I DM'd last.

[@onyxtay7246]

In the base rules (not using the variant of crit fails and successes on skill checks) a nat 20 on your charisma roll would just be the highest number possible, giving you the best odds of succeeding on the check. This is great, it means that a nat 20 isn't an automatic success on impossible achievements. It also makes players more reliable at things they should be good at. The rogue who rolled a nat 1 on their stealth isn't suddenly an idiot who outs themselves, they just got their modifier plus one, and may still be stealthier than the paladin in plate armor. It also means that saving throws make more sense. If you have the strength of an ox then you shouldn't fail that DC 10 strength save.

[@williamgibson9754]

Thanks so much for this video!! I'm running my first adventure ever tomorrow as a DM. Oh and all my PC and myself have never actually played. This was the biggest worry I had. Knowing when to call and how to set DCs. Thanks again so much for all your work!!

[@stevenporter7065]

My 3 players about to be 5 to 9 loved my first off cuff session. This helps a lot since I've played for less than a year. I love story telling and having fun with friends. So I am excited to let them interact with the world I create and push the plot however they see fit. I've got less than a week before we start rolling for damage. Can't wait to have more fun with my siblings, coworkers, and friends.

[@stevebarrett5110]

As you mentioned about unspecified DCs I was hoping you guys could make a video about about when players decide to destroy inanimate objects. It gets very complex when it comes to natural armour, hitpoints, damage resistances/reduction and thresholds. Was hoping you guys could simplify it

[@SlyRaptor]

Good video, guys! Your channel is my #1 favorite KZbin resources for D&D knowledge. I've learned so much about this game directly from you guys.

[@DungeonDudes]

Thank you :)

[@aliceofspades]

"Noodly" is my new favorite word. :)

[@TheSealMayor]

I like to do checks+ where theres obvious information, but even if they fail they'll get the CORE information needed. But a pass will give them additonal information on the the problem that'll give them an advantage on future checks or combat or puzzles. Also specifics in investigation like "What does it feel like, what direction is the blood splatter, how deep is the wound" will either give an auto pass or a DC reduction.

[@tinaprice4948]

What a great video! Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this in a simple and in depth way.

[@varkesh456]

I loved the way this was broken down, well thought out and put together and helpful for anyone looking to fine tune there process or get to grips with it. The only thing i was not so keen on was the tomato breakdown for stats it does not quite fit some of their roles but for using as a quick judgment on the fly or learning it for the first time i can see it being really useful still. Oh and just so you know my wisdom check told me google could find me at least 1 tomato fruit salad recipe and i found many...lol Still working to catch up on your campaign but enjoy it and all the work you put into the way you will break things down

[@digbyrocket]

Man, you guys jammed a lot into one take there. Impressive.

[@silasrobertshaw8122]

I joined a group where someone always had guidance and the other two DMs would let them use it all the time. When I started running the current game i had to break them of the habit. No, you dont get to give them guidance instantaneous checks, like perception. This caused some consternation until I explained to them that guidance is for when you know someone is going to do something, or attempting to learn/find something. It is not for situations where the player has that split second to notice or remember something.

[@outerpanda2356]

Another fantastic & informative ep, Dudes!

[@TheAurgelmir]

You know a tool that makes group actions smooth well out, and not have the "I wanna do it too", is the concept of a caller: Only one person in the group is allowed to communicate directly with the DM about what the party does, he isn't dictating what happens, just summarizing the information. This does two really neat things: You avoid the most extroverted player from ALWAYS running into a room and taking the treasure, you allow for the team to actually discuss with each other what they want to do, and not with the DM. I have seen in many sessions IRL and online, that players tend to always look at the DM and always play with the DM, not their group. When we introduced the caller we saw the dynamics shift, suddenly we were talking inwards, planning inwards, and communicating with each other. So when we enter a room the loot happy rogue will say, I want to loot the chest! But the DM isn't allowed to react on that until the rest of the group has had a chance to react to it. Then once the plan of action is ready, the caller looks at the DM and says: "Did you catch all that?" or gives a summary of actions: So the rogue will open the chest, the Warlock will examine the statue for clues of it's origins, the Fighter examines the walls for hidden doors, and I the Cleric looks in the bookshelf for anything that can help us. Then the DM executes the actions. And if a combat happens, then the DM either has the location of all the players, OR he can ask the caller to determine where everyone was when the monsters happened. (I got the idea from Angry GM, you can find a long winded grumpy article about it on his blog)

[@stevenmike1878]

i like the idea that a barbarian can do a minor help by holding the light to illuminate the text for the wizard giving him a +2 to dice rolls to help in arcana. but only boosting the natural die to the maximum of a 20 (a dirty +2), not the modifier +2 allowing it to be a max 22. because advantage increases the odds it doesn't raise the the maximum possible score. advantage is basscally a dirty (+5)

[@jlaw131985]

I usually have the scout be a check to see if they have any time for planning/strategy. It’s an individual check if that fails, and they don’t need to roll if their passive is high enough to notice it, in order to avoid being surprised in the first round for each character

[@goliathcleric]

With rolls where theres a difference between rolling a 5 and a 20, even though I might say the same thing, I will have them roll the die behind the dm screen. This is big for perception and checking traps, and discourages everyone from rolling "next" on a low roll because they dont know if there are no traps or if the rogue is just daydreaming.

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

Good information As a DM in 3.5 and still learning 5e this is helpful

[@JanadDareg]

I really wish I'd found yall when I first started DMing. Between this and the common mistakes for camapigns video ive picked up some amazing new ways to run my campaign

[@TheHandgunhero]

Calling on players to make the occasional meaningless saving throw or perception checks is a useful trick one of my old DMs would make to keep us on alert and engaged. Nothing was actually happening, or there wasn’t actually a threat, but it sure made us paranoid and kept us alert and paying attention to detail. Useful trick to fellow DMs I suggest and one I also now use.

[@Valoruchiha]

You guys are in my top three for DND guides, next to Mercer and Colville. Good shit guys keep it up!

[@orcou]

This a huge help for my homebrew campaign. I'm incorporating alot of interaction with the environment and characters.

[@RofICopters]

Kelly really needs to get into voice overs

[@SlyRaptor]

He reminds me of Mike Meyers.

[@WylliamJudd]

I discovered at one point that by default locks have a DC 15 to pick, and I found that really helpful.

[@kelseeframpton5126]

This was extremely helpful! I'm running my first session this weekend and needed some last minute reminders on how to use these checks. Thanks dudes (:

[@JPerridew]

I love when my players decide they want to roll for things that don't particularly need it. I use the roll itself to role play (Maybe it's a roll play at this point?) the outcome. I had a warrior who wanted to go into the library to "learn more about undead", which seemed pretty easy on the island of Chult... but she rolled a 1. So, she found a book for kids that was a lot of drawings that described undead in a child-like way. The cleric wanted to go out into the city and help people and rolled a 1.. instead she was petting cats and a small herd of cats started following her around. In either way I used the 1's to take control and draw attention to something else that was important (yes, the cats were important).

[@jacksond6579]

I've just started as a Dm and your videos have helped me out alot! thanks for the quality content!

[@CorbiniteVids]

6:38 I personally absolutely would request an intelligence check for info no one knows, if the players don't know that no one knows it, because if they don't already know that then just telling them "no one knows" would give them meta information and take some of the mystery and immersion away from the experience. Of course there's always the possibility of the player rolling a nat 20 but my rule for nat 20s is that it'll do something, but not everything. In this case it might give them a hint on where to get the info, even if it takes a long time to pan out

[@robinthrush9672]

Also an excuse to use RAW. Ability checks don't critically succeed or fail.

[@prcuer]

So one thing I will often use checks for, besides pass/fail, is how long something takes. So if they search a room, it’s not a matter of *if* they find the note, but how long it takes to find it. In their example of climbing over a fence- the dexterous characters can easily hop over it as part of their move, but because the wizard rolled a 7, it’s not that he can’t do it, it’s just going to take him a full round where he has to use his action to climb over. This might have combat consequences, but usually it’s just a fun way to let the characters feel like their character sheets actually matter in telling the story.

[@battlehymn6389]

In my games the only thing a nat 20 is an automatic success for is combat, for skill/ability checks and saves it's just a number. I do like the idea that if someone insists on making a check which is impossible that the nat 20 just means they may not have to suffer the consequences.

[@JorisVDC]

I also like the house rule for nat crit or fail on initiative rolls. Crit gives advantage on attack roles first round and fail disadvantage.

[@JarlSeamus]

Thanks for yet another great walk through. As a DM switching to 5e from 1e after a LONG break, the DC concept was bugging me. Now I think I have a good grip on it. Also the table Monty put together of examples is fab. Thanks for that as well. GG guys.

[@johnsnow9210]

Group check just changed my brain. Will watch your longer vids from now on.

[@daveshif2514]

one of the best dnd videos on yt

[@Nexils]

I really appreciate the tips on the 'impossible' things. I have a goliath in my party who wanted to climb a wind mill with walls that were actually too high and smooth to climb. But the player told me that the D20 decided, so me - an inexperienced DM - let him do it. Later on he wanted to jump over a pit full of rats. A pit that was actually kinda big. He made the jump because his D20 said so. After watching your videos, I want them to ask if something is possible before I let them roll.

[@farrex0]

I know you asked a year ago. But a stupid choice is an stupid choice, and an impossible choice is an impossible choice. Your player, is not spiderman, climbing that wall even with a D20 should be impossible. It would be the same, as someone saying they can fly by sheer power of will, because they rolled a D20. If the character, decides to make the decision of climbing, despite you telling them it might not be possible due to the smooth walls. They are rolling not to see if they are going to succeed, they are rolling to see if they are not going to get hurt. But they are going to fail anyways. A D20 is supposed to mean the player was really lucky, not that they can do the impossible or bend all laws of logic. If someone tells you they are going to persuade a locked door to open for them. No matter how big of a roll the person lands, it shouldn't be possible. In that case, you might make the person roll, not to see if he succeeds. But to see if he succeeds at not making a fool of himself for making such an stupid decision. At the end of the day you make the rules, but remember that rolling a D20 doesn't have to mean that the player succeeds at what they are trying to do, specially if it is impossible.

[@Nexils]

@@farrex0 Your reply is still very appreciated, so thank you. That player has stopped in the meantime and the campaign is still going, so any tip is welcome. I like the idea that, if a player really wants to do something, they should be allowed to try, but getting hurt or simply falling would be the result if they rolled badly.

[@elricengquist9989]

I have found that it can keep things interesting, and players on their toes if you ask for ability checks sometimes when you don't have one needed. Like if you hit a dead spot of action an interesting events happening, and call for a player to make a roll can get the group on edge. i also like to have where a group check is called late, or the players see a perception check is done an failed/rolled low they jump in, that each rolls on their turn initiative. I do this is the perception check only reveals the ambushers that would come in after that player's turn (even saying that the higher their roll is the more of the ambushers they notice). Now with the dreaded "perception check isue" that comes up in meta gaming. i normally do not have the bonus given by such things be static. What I mean being proficient does not give you a static boost to your action, but merely means you have some degree of kill in it. So than i ask the player "okay what are you doing to do, and based on that I will give you a bonus to your roll." This makes the players actually rp what they are doing, feel that it has merit to actually do that. using the desk example if one player said they would run their fingers over the different areas of the desk that might get them a 1-2, while a player atually saying they are looking for seams or latches that denotes a hidden compartment would get a +5-10.

[@christopherrocco56]

I have 40 years dungeon mastering but I really resisted 5e for a long time so a lot of this is very useful information. For my table if I have one person scouting ahead and I asked them to make a perception check and in that scenario where Heroes poorly and everybody else says they want to roll if they noticed something to Iowa to allow it have a slightly higher DC and or give them disadvantage on the roll that's my two cents

[@natemetcalf2661]

I love videos like these. Not as sexy as a "top ten best ____" list, but as a new DM its gold. I'd love more in this vein

[@laschicvalisca2481]

A rule that I've seen used to break tied rolls is who has the greater ability score (not the modifier because for example both 12 and 13 give a +1 bonus.) Having said that, I totally agree with the person doing the insight or perception check is the one trying to meet or beat the roll, but with one exception. I think if the deceiver or hidden person has advantage on their roll should succeed once, but be warned that an individual is suspicious. That would mean the player should either back away from the situation they are lying in, or if they continue, that person who tied could make a new roll against them with the possibility of having a bonus against them. A sneaking player in a case like this would realize there's someone who may be about to investigate their position, or the lookout might get on edge, giving them a second chance to detect the player should enough time pass or if they continue trying to sneak past them.

[@HeavensOfMetal]

I’ve never liked the tomato metaphor, because Wisdom in 5E is to do with sensing your environment physically & spiritually, it’s not a flip-side to intelligence like some people think.

[@darienb1127]

It's both. Considering there are skills like Insight. It honeslty feels like could have split Wisdom into 2 different ability scores.

[@HunterHerne]

@@darienb1127 One of my favourite tabletop RPGs, Shadowrun, has 8 "ability scores", Strength, Body(Constitution), Reflexes, Agility, Charisma, Logic, Intuition, and Willpower. Reflexes and Agility are basically D&D Dexterity, and Intuition and Willpower are essentially Wisdom. Interestingly, for most characters, Agility and Intuition are the most important stats, as the system is much more punishing in combat, and those stats govern ability to notice things(Intuition), stealth (Agility), ability to hit (Agility) and initiative order (Reflexes and Intuition).

[@darienb1127]

@@HunterHerne ah neat. Ill keep this in mind.

[@angusargabrite2776]

@@darienb1127 insight is about noticing body language I think? nothing to do with being wise

[@darienb1127]

@@angusargabrite2776 well, Insight is a wisdom skill. I don't make the rules chief.

[@syrupchugger421]

I love this natura language tip and will use this from here on. Also, I'm using "noodly" as a common term now. Thanks again

[@N3kr0n15]

One thing that i have picked up on monty doing: when a roll for perception is done and they fail, he doesnt say "you don't see anything" instead, he describes what they see. The phrase "you dont see anything" might lead the players to believe there is something there (whether it is or not)

[@velhovelho]

Great Video! I like and use group checks but I don't love to do it for investigation and stealth. I mean, a sneaky halfling can't necessarily help the dwarf in heavy armor to be quieter, and it _should_ be more dificult to sneak in groups, thats why you have a sneaky guy c'mon! And for the investigation I just put higher DCs for the traps and hidden stuff so the person that rolled really well can shine! Cheers

[@andydamato6364]

Hey guys! Love the video series and it has been very helpful in navigating the DM waters. I struggle with coming up with a DC on the fly and always second guess myself (Was that DC 15 too hard? Too easy? etc). I found what really helps me is using the help action to get each player to describe what they are doing, then I'll use the highest roll of the players involved and give them advantage. This seems to involve my entire party without them all wanting to roll separately.

[@MrWarlord396]

Great tips. It occurs to me that if there's any single check that should be additive or cooperative more than any others, it should be Strength. After all, another pair of eyes searching a room can be helpful (enough to justify the advantage granted by RAW on the Help action) but another pair of hands lifting that crate is worth at least twice your current efforts, once you factor in the leverage and awkwardness. if you guys plan on going back to build tips and guides at any point, you thinking about doing something for dual-wielders? I'm getting the rare opportunity to be a player in someone else's game soon, and I was thinking my barbarian should evoke that classic image of a frenzied savage with an axe in each hand. I'm not super concerned with min-maxing and I know it probably won't match up with great weapon builds, but I'd at least like to be able to meaningfully contribute beyond being an undying Zealot meatshield

[@JorisVDC]

There is the two weapon fighting style which is handy from a Fighter dip and the feature that let's you dual wield non light weapons and draw two weapons during one attack action instead of one. Apart from those, I don't remember anything specific that supports a dual wielding build. Zealot is great for increasing the damage and staying power of your Barbarian and it stimulates sticking to Barbarian class of course. You just need to come up with a gear background story.

[@Necrow_Productions]

Once again, your videos are masterfully presented with many new intriguing ideas of how to look at the game and how to DM! I would recommend this video to even players to better understand what can be done in terms of ability check! Well done!

[@ice9ify]

I personally also use ability checks, where players should always succeed, but the height of the roll determines how quickly they perform the task.

[@chesterstevenson]

Hey guys. I've recently sparked an interest in this game and I purchased the Starter Set. I've watched a few of your videos and you're doing excellent work. Something that I would love to see in a future video is if you could put a few players on the table in these situations and actually role play, showing the character sheets as you go. Being new I get confused about which line I should look at when figuring out an ability role, stealth, surprise attack, perception checks, etc. Great explanations - but it would really help me out if you could then demonstrate. Thanks for your consideration.

[@DungeonDudes]

You can watch us play in our campaign Dungeons of Drakkenheim! The first season is all here on KZbin -- although we don't "pause to explain" we do play pretty tight with the rules overall.

[@Roak199]

Maybe it's just because I love spreadsheets, but that's massively useful. Thanks a ton

[@dakdur1126]

Please cover what ability check is best to place in disadvantage when using the spell Hex from the warlock class

[@FluffyAkuma]

For stealth ties I usually make the perception based character startled and give the stealth guy a chance to make an immediate action. It may not be what they wanted to do, but it doesnt feel like a full failure. For deception I'll give each character an rp based check to determine what degree they dont do well. Like if it's a shell game and they try to move the ball and get caught and they give a laugh and let the player win and try to play it off as being impressed. They fail in that they lose the game, but the other guy might not call them out to other potential targets

[@SeanLaMontagne]

Yes THIS is the video I need as a first time DM.

[@thecollapse604]

No matter the topic of dnd, the dudes are on it. You two are boss 👍

[@Standaardnaam]

The rule for ties in contested checks is that the status quo is maintained. So for stealth, if the character is currently is undetected, then they will stay undetected on a tie. It's in the PHB.

[@ryanmeakins2993]

this was a great vid :) made me feel a bit better about how im doing with ability checks at the moment and some ways to improve my play style and also better prepare for when i next dm

[@leeloj]

this was incredibly helpful as a new DM!!

[@bankasai3120]

On the point of contested checks, I think of the player who initiated a check(such as a thief sneaking or a bard trying to lie) is simply creating the DC for their opponent to pass. If you reach the DC set by a sneaking rogue, you are able to find them in the shadows.

[@AvenueStudios]

Great breakdown video thank you guys! I def have some players that constantly roll without asking and it's a delicate conversation everyone to remind them:/ ~Dan