Sometimes you might have this happen. Some NPC spills his guts dropping off some key information to the party. You get one guy that grabs a D20 and says, ‘I’m gonna see if he’s lying with Insight.’ Nope. Hold on. Back up there, buddy.

See I don’t buy insight acting like a default lie detector, where players wave their hand an automatically read untruthful thoughts. Insight is also about reading social situations. Great insight allows a person to recognize the two people chatting civilly over in the corner really cannot stand each other. Insight allows a player to hear the slight strain in an NPC’s voice saying things are fine, and recognize that subtle shift of their eyes to some burly thugs nearby.

Want to go all out with insight being a BS detector like Christopher Walken in True Romance? I’ll be rolling a bluff check against it. As a DM you should always be rolling bluff checks to counter the ‘insight = truth meter’ that players pull out. If they blow it, I say they believe them. If they beat out the bluff check, I rarely say, ‘You think he is telling the truth.’ I always try to obfuscate the result with, ‘You think he’s holding something back’, or ‘You see him lick his lips and give a smirk.’ I rarely ever give a black and white answer to passed insight checks if they are just seeking a truthful answer.

To me, insight is more about reading the subtle body language of people. I like to frequently give clues to the NPC’s mindset more than if they are simply telling the truth. Does the person have a pleading look in their eye when they beg the group for help? Do the player’s see the Duke slightly roll his eyes when he thanks them for dispatching the orc marauders? Does the group see the inn keeper tense up when they approach?

I use passive insight checks a lot to allow a group to read an NPC’s motivation. Sometimes it is a much more effective hook having a NPC say one thing, but his body posture or mannerisms give a completely different impression. I find it frequently sparks that investigative process where the players slowly poke around an NPC through dialog. It is much more interactive than just having a PC roll a D20 and see if the NPC is BSing.

I also allow insight to get clues on other skill checks. Sure some PC might ace the diplomacy check, but he just successfully made the flunky patrol guard allow them to pass. It’s the seasoned sergeant of the guard that really decides who gets into the king’s court. Insight is the key skill to walk into the room and assess who are the likely people with some authority, seem knowledgeable, or are well respected by others.

When do I have PCs use insight for a yes/no answer? Illusions. Yup, most folks forget insight is the key skill in disbelieving illusions. Since the players have a tool at their disposal to counter illusions, don’t be afraid to pull them out. In a magical fantasy setting, there should be plenty of opportunities to pull out the illusion card. It doesn’t necessarily have to be diabolical either. Maybe a merchant uses a simple illusion to make his wares look plentiful. How about an enchantment to give an elder noblewoman a slightly youthful appearance (think of it as gnome magic botox)?

So the next time a player quickly rolls a D20 for an insight check, don’t just respond with a yes/no to queries for the truth. Tell the player he thinks an NPC is holding something back. State the NPC appears to be sweating profusely as he stumbles over his words. Get away from treating insight as just a lie detector.

There was a general theme I had gotten from the DMG2, don’t take the rules in D&D as gospel. If something doesn’t work in your game, tweak it and have fun. I especially got this impression from the skill challenge section. WotC changed the success/failure ratio (something I think needed to be done to make it a challenge), but made it clear that DMs should feel free to modify skill challenges to make them fun and engaging. At the heart of it, I think WotC finally wanted to get some kind of structure and reward to all those roleplaying and skill aspects of the game, so players didn’t feel like the only way to get XP was from killing monsters.

The recent podcast posted on the D&D experience seminar I think has cemented this idea. Save my game had a seminar that was a great listen. It covered a fair bit on skill challenges. If you are still finding skill challenges a little clunky in your game, or just unsure how to make them more engaging, I highly recommend giving this a listen. Even if you think you’ve gotten a good command of running them, I think it has some helpful tips.

One thing I have had little experience with is running an extended skill challenge. Most of my challenges have been short ones, as I couldn’t quite wrap my head around having one that would go through several rounds of checks. After listening to a few suggestions, I think I’ve definitely gotten some good ideas on how to approach running one. I’m eager to try one for my game and have a good series of scenarios for such a challenge.

They also dole out some good advice on encounter makeup and addressing some tips on handling a game on a time schedule (like for conventions and LFR events). I highly recommend giving this a listen. Some great stuff in this podcast.

The next time you are trying to add some flavor to an encounter, consider toying with the area lighting. Certain PCs may have difficulty discerning targets off in the distance under dim light conditions (PHB 262), granting those monsters a slight advantage (-2 penalty for attack rolls). Having the complete absence of light can really make an encounter difficult as the penalty for total concealment bumps up to -5 (PHB 281). Keep in mind though that area of effect and close attacks don’t grant a penalty under these conditions.

Counter this with monsters that have darkvision. There are a surprising number of those that do, even at the heroic tier such as undead-types. If you throw in some manner of an environmental hazard that simply reduces (or removes) the player’s light source against some creatures with darkvision, you suddenly have a very challenging encounter.

Having a fight in an open underground chasm, with a constant wind reducing open torches to dim light can make things interesting. Consider having magical effects also. A zone-like effect that nullifies light to utter blackness might make a fight against undead a memorable one.

I’d use something like this sparingly, as it might make certain players upset about being unfairly put at a disadvantage. At the same time however, it might make a few players shine by employing non-combat oriented skills and abilities (say the wizard casting a simple light cantrip).

Don’t limit passive skill checks to just perception and insight, remember that passive skill checks can also apply to other skills (PHB pg 179). I always get a list of passive skill check values for Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, and Religion from my players. That is a long list, but having the passive skill check values for all of those skills helps in tons with running my game.

Knowing what my characters can pick up subtlety allows me to quickly dispense out information and clues. Having my players roll for each check can slow down the flow. Plus it telegraphs information and hints through metagaming.

As an example, players want to use religion to determine information about an unremarkable artifact. If they blow a roll, they know there might be some importance, but they just messed up on the attempt. If they roll exceedingly high, and I comment there is nothing noteworthy about the artifact, players know that my statement is true (and not that their skill is so low, they have no idea of its importance).

Passive checks bypass that. Also, I can cue players that something jogs their memory and they know fact X due to a passive check. Typically they will want to make an active check then and see if they can gain more information. To me that is a great way to utilize knowledge checks. If they are trained in the skill, they will pick up on something leading to them try and get more information with an active check. Even if they fail, their trained ability helped them at least gleam some info from the current situation.

Don’t forget the listed DC values for knowledge checks were changed in an errata. Common knowledge is now a DC 10 (down from 15), with paragon tier knowledge at a +5, and epic tier knowledge a +10. Being trained in a skill, with some moderate bonuses due to ability scores (don’t forget the 1/2 level bonus), you now have characters that can pick up on a lot of subtle clues through passive skill checks.

Quickly assessing monsters they encounter is also another way to use passive skill checks. Having the player roll becomes a crap shoot typically, where having them use passive checks can guarantee they have some moderate success. A high ability score, combined with trained knowledge and a few levels, means most players can pass a DC 20 check discerning a lot of knowledge about creatures in a fight.

So be sure to whip up a list of knowledge-based skills from your players. Use passive checks based on those skills more. You can speed up your game, and reward players for dipping into various skills. Anybody else doing something similar?

I always loved wands in the previous editions. They are toned down a lot in 4E, but still pretty useful. In the PHB, rules are given to allow players can make their own wands, but I’m always hesitant approving that (pg. 242). However, I do think the suggestion of the DM designing their own wands great, especially as treasure in 4E is much more custom made for the group.

The rules are a good base, but what about the wizard that opted for another implement to specialize in? If they didn’t take wands, they are sort of missing out on all the versatility wands can give with an extra daily encounter or utility spell. A quick work around is to simply replace the wand with another implement keyword, and just run with it. So you can easily replace a lvl 8 power wand with the same properties, but make it a rod, staff, orb, or even a tome. They all grant the same +2 enhancement, and the player can finally get a nifty item that fits their implement mastery.

Don’t stop at arcane implements though. Take any basic magical item and use the rules for powered wands to grant it a spell effect. Increase the level of the listed item by 2 (notice a basic +1 wand is lvl 1, a +1 powered wand is lvl 3). To figure out the gold cost, use the base cost listed and multiply it by 1.88888, rounding up to the nearest 10, 100, or 1,000 (or 10,000 if needed). So a +3 magic robe could be imbued with a daily power to cast dimension door, and would now cost 17,000 gp.

Simple stuff, and now you can create all sorts of nifty magical gear without making completely game-breaking items.