GM creates Artificial DCs on the spot.

[HWalsh]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Also how are the PCs ever going to know if the enemy didn't get away or not. Maybe the NPC has a magical item that gives him a higher bonus?

I should get a spellcraft check to see if I can identify such an item, for one.

Only if you see it in use and if you want to stop in the middle of combat, to try to use detect magic, then identify, you totally can.

Quote:

I should get to try and cast dispel magic on the item. Even if not identified I should get to guess and be right if I actually guess an actual item correctly.

If you want to ask if the character has any magical items, and try to dispel, you are totally allowed to.

Quote:

I should get the chance to cast immediate action spells like bouyancy to force concentration if something like dimension door.

Of course you can. They could also pass the concentration.

Quote:

If I'm an arcanist, I should get to use my immediate counterspell response if I have that exploit.

And you can.

Quote:

Other things besides getting away can be restricted to you as options if I know you're an annoying GM who changes stories. For example, if at some point in the fight I channel positive energy, and the BBEG heals from it, then he cannot later turn out to be a simulacrum.

Of course you can, and this is required. If a GM is going to alter a story than the story still needs to make sense. Making a change that literally cannot be, that is bad form. If you break verisimilitude then you break verisimilitude.

If you, for example, did this in the above situation. Maybe it wasn't a clone. Maybe you DID kill a bad guy. Maybe though that there was someone more powerful pulling the bad guy's strings. All kinds of options.

Quote:

If I get a surprise lucky kill on a BBEG I can immediately cast "Blood Biography" from a handy scroll to force you to commit to certain facts right now.

Of course you can. The facts will be given. Unless of course he has something on him that is blocking divination. Then you could, of course, try to dispel that. That may, or may not succeed. There are tons of ways to obscure when a story goes bad.

Quote:

If the BBEG is just unconscious or whatnot, and I'm high enough level, I can flesh to stone him so that he is not dead and cannot clone or resurrect, then soften earth and stone, dissolve it in water, and dribble the clay slip into a river over days and days.

Sure. There is always a way if you know what you are doing. You always reward players for being creative though. That you do. You don't let it shatter your game though.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Their characters interact with the world and they enjoy it.

That's the opposite of what you said you were doing, though: when you say "Bad guy ran away, period the end, you get to do nothing", the characters AREN'T being allowed to interact with the world.

That's the one and only reason it is sketchy in the first place.

If they are in fact given a chance to intervene at any point, then the whole complaint is a misunderstanding and everyone is on the same page.

[ErichAD]

Generally speaking, a DM should be asking themselves "what happens now" rather than "how do I make this be what I wanted to happen in the first place". It's great that you want to tell your story and have a captive audience, but generally I find that the cooperative play aspect of table top gaming is a bit more welcomed by equals.

If someone kills the big bad, he died, that's what happened in the story. Now move on to what happens after he dies in this spectacularly unlikely manner. Doing otherwise means, balance wise, slapping a lich template on all your big bads to keep them alive beyond what the player is expecting.

However, that all comes down to DM style like you say. I could never get away with running a game in my group of GMs running games in turn, they all know the rules aren't too thick to spot false odds and generally develop characters with their own personality and goals. Not everyone runs with the same group though, so that's not really the point.

This thread is more skewed toward a DM who is throwing out the rules and pegging success chance to 25%. You don't really need a book for that.

[RDM42]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Their characters interact with the world and they enjoy it.

That's the opposite of what you said you were doing, though: when you say "Bad guy ran away, period the end, you get to do nothing", the characters AREN'T being allowed to interact with the world.

That's the one and only reason it is sketchy in the first place.

If they are in fact given a chance to intervene at any point, then the whole complaint is a misunderstanding and everyone is on the same page.

Not true. There are myriad interactions with the world at that point. Just catching the bad guy at that point isn't one of those options. Not having all options is not the same as having no options. Not by a long shot.

[thejeff]

There's also a tendency for people to grab onto the one example of something a GM does and assume the entire game is nothing but that.
Bend the rules once to keep a BBG alive and obviously the entire game is nothing but the GM reading a story to you.

I've played with GMs who've done similar things on occasion and still let the players drive the plot off in entirely different directions. I've also played with GMs who'd never dream of fudging any rules or combat results and still road you right down the rails to their planned end.

I can tell you which I had more fun with.

[alexd1976]

Snallygaster wrote:

I make up DCs all the time. Right on the spot. I generally write my games from scratch, and if it isn't something I thought of in my notes, obviously I have to make up the DC when the player wants to do it. I generally do 10 for something simple, 15 for a fairly average act of prowess, 20 for somewhat tough things, and so on. The game basically demands this on occasion.

However, I don't artificially inflate the DC of a task that a player should be able to accomplish on a certain roll just to synthesize drama that should come from good encounter design and compelling narrative elements.

That's bad, son. That's real bad.

Your approach is perfect, I agree 100%.

What the OP talked about sounds like a bag of sucky fail.

I would talk to the GM about it, if only the roll matters then there would really be no point in even showing up to play...

[memorax]

No one saying never ever alter DCs or occasionally make it harder for the players far from it. It's when it's done all the time. Unless the group is really new to rpgs. Trust us we know it. For the most part players are understanding. If it happens consistently and constantly chances are the players are going to leave. Or not even bother chasing down the BBEG. If skill ranks or dice rolls don't matter to a DM because he or she wants to tell her story. No matter what were not going to make a wasted effort.

As for what it says in the books on what Dms can do it can say to the ends of time that the DM is god. Some players dare I say most are not going to put up with a DM who abuses his right as a DM. Reference every edition of D&D along with any other rpg. If the players are not having fun and feel frustrated at the table pointing to some "holy text" in the DMG is not going to make us suddenly feel like were having more fun . I think some in the hobby forget or ignore that it's supposed to be advice and not the gospel truth on being a DM.

[thejeff]

memorax wrote:

No one saying never ever alter DCs or occasionally make it harder for the players far from it. It's when it's done all the time. Unless the group is really new to rpgs. Trust us we know it. For the most part players are understanding. If it happens consistently and constantly chances are the players are going to leave. Or not even bother chasing down the BBEG. If skill ranks or dice rolls don't matter to a DM because he or she wants to tell her story. No matter what were not going to make a wasted effort.

As for what it says in the books on what Dms can do it can say to the ends of time that the DM is god. Some players dare I say most are not going to put up with a DM who abuses his right as a DM. Reference every edition of D&D along with any other rpg. If the players are not having fun and feel frustrated at the table pointing to some "holy text" in the DMG is not going to make us suddenly feel like were having more fun . I think some in the hobby forget or ignore that it's supposed to be advice and not the gospel truth on being a DM.

Players aren't going to put up with a lousy GM, if they have any choice.

Whether that GM is fudging dice rolls, changing DCs, or playing everything strictly by the books. I've had good and bad GMs who did both.

[memorax]

True. Yet IMO it's easier to accept as a player when the DM is upfront about it. I'm not a fan of Dms who increase DCs yet I can respect and even play in a game with such a DM. One who does the DM version of rules lawyering is sure to get in my bad side. If it's obvious the players are not having fun and it's the DM style of running a game. Pointing to a section in a book where the DM is God is certainly not going to make me have fun or respect the DM. Let alone keep playing in the game.

[alexd1976]

I've got NO issue with a GM increasing DC on stuff... but a GM that asks for the result of the die roll... that's just... ick.

I decide on DC of challenges before rolls are made, and if the players make it, they make it.

I have unlimited resources as GM, I can always send in more monsters. :D

It's funny actually, in my games, I have a couple of players who always just tell me the result of the die roll, not the total of the roll plus their characters modifiers.

It happens so much and I have told them so many times "Is that your total or just what you got on the die?" that I have pretty much stopped asking them.

If I ask for a perception check, and someone tells me they rolled a 16 (and they mean the die has a 16 on it)-I take 16 as their total. I've stopped trying to correct them, it's been MONTHS.

[Otherwhere]

alexd1976 wrote:

I've got NO issue with a GM increasing DC on stuff... but a GM that asks for the result of the die roll... that's just... ick.

I decide on DC of challenges before rolls are made, and if the players make it, they make it.

I have unlimited resources as GM, I can always send in more monsters. :D

It's funny actually, in my games, I have a couple of players who always just tell me the result of the die roll, not the total of the roll plus their characters modifiers.

It happens so much and I have told them so many times "Is that your total or just what you got on the die?" that I have pretty much stopped asking them.

If I ask for a perception check, and someone tells me they rolled a 16 (and they mean the die has a 16 on it)-I take 16 as their total. I've stopped trying to correct them, it's been MONTHS.

Oh, thank God! I thought this was only my experience. I get the feeling it's all the math. Some players just don't want to figure out what their total should be, so they simply give me what is on the die. Then I have to wait until they do add in all their bonuses (&/or penalties) so that I can give them an accurate response. Ugh!

[LuxuriantOak]

Otherwhere wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

It's funny actually, in my games, I have a couple of players who always just tell me the result of the die roll, not the total of the roll plus their characters modifiers.

It happens so much and I have told them so many times "Is that your total or just what you got on the die?" that I have pretty much stopped asking them.

If I ask for a perception check, and someone tells me they rolled a 16 (and they mean the die has a 16 on it)-I take 16 as their total. I've stopped trying to correct them, it's been MONTHS.

Oh, thank God! I thought this was only my experience. I get the feeling it's all the math. Some players just don't want to figure out what their total should be, so they simply give me what is on the die. Then I have to wait until they do add in all their bonuses (&/or penalties) so that I can give them an accurate response. Ugh!

This. So Much.

:)

[alexd1976]

I've told them time and time again that I don't even WANT to know what they are rolling on (not all the time, it's their damn character). I occasionally do between session reviews of characters to make sure they are rules compliant (most common error-addition errors, they are short-changing themselves most of the time).

If you tell me you rolled a 16 on perception, as a level 12 rogue who specialized in Perception... I just assume you rolled poorly on the die, and will apply the 16 as your result.

Jeez. ;)

[HWalsh]

Oh indeed.

When I tell a Player to roll I want the roll plus all the bonuses. I only care about the base number on the die in terms of critical hits and natural 1's in combat.

[HWalsh]

Also, to remember, while yes, I'm very much: "The GM is God." (Even when playing.) A good GM is also a good God and does what they do to make the game better for the players.

You don't fiat so the bad guy escapes because you are mad that the players beat him any more than you stop a critical on a Player so you can lord it over them afterwards.

You do it to make the game more enjoyable. If the BBEG gets whacked before he becomes the BBEG then there is no drama there, or sense of accomplishment.

If you have to fudge things so he escapes once? Meh. It's fine. It is kind of a staple of the genre.

(The Eagles are afraid to fly to Mordor for fear of being shot by arrows... Until it becomes convenient to take the PCs there for a needlessly climactic showdown.)

[knightnday]

Communication. The GM should talk with the players beforehand and let them know that they plan to be a GM God (also known as Benevolent Dictator) sort of GM and that they consider fudging part and participle of that.

There are players -- you can see it right here on our boards -- that do not appreciate that style of play and should have the ability to say no thank you and step away from the table before being put in the position of dealing with it in the middle of the game.

[knightnday]

On a separate note and post in case we draw down the wrath of the mods, I will say that the length of time that anyone has played means as much -- or as little -- as you make of it. It doesn't grant infallibility, nor should people use it as a point of derision and insult someone over it.

Many of the books over the years suggest certain styles of play. That doesn't mean that they are always right, or right for today. As we discussed in a separate thread (Old School Gaming) styles of play have changed and expectations are different today than they might have been in the past.

This is why you chat as a table as to what you want out of the game. Otherwise people get upset about floating DCs or bad guys escaping seemingly impossible deaths and the like.

[thejeff]

But "I've been GMing a long time and people keep asking me to run" is a valid response to "If you GM like that all your players will leave". Big difference between that and "I'm a grognard so I'm right".

More generally, I'm all in favor of communication about playstyle, most of the time. Fudging, I'm less clear about. While I see the point, fudging, whether of dice or anything else, works much better when it's not visible to the players.
If it's going to provide a better game at all, it's going to do so when the players don't know it's happening. Once you see behind the curtain, it's much less effective. Nor do I think that done subtly and rarely it's nearly as obvious as some claim.

[knightnday]

thejeff wrote:

But "I've been GMing a long time and people keep asking me to run" is a valid response to "If you GM like that all your players will leave". Big difference between that and "I'm a grognard so I'm right".

More generally, I'm all in favor of communication about playstyle, most of the time. Fudging, I'm less clear about. While I see the point, fudging, whether of dice or anything else, works much better when it's not visible to the players.
If it's going to provide a better game at all, it's going to do so when the players don't know it's happening. Once you see behind the curtain, it's much less effective. Nor do I think that done subtly and rarely it's nearly as obvious as some claim.

I agree on the gming time and being right.

As for fudging, the danger I've run across is that the players start being trained to expect it. They expect to be saved no matter how foolish a choice they make; the nice GM will always find a way to save them.

The same goes for fighting the Big Bad. After a while, you stop trying as hard because you know that if the bad takes damage or is in a tight spot, they'll somehow get away or get fully healed via fiat.

Like anything, it should be used sparingly.

[thejeff]

knightnday wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But "I've been GMing a long time and people keep asking me to run" is a valid response to "If you GM like that all your players will leave". Big difference between that and "I'm a grognard so I'm right".

More generally, I'm all in favor of communication about playstyle, most of the time. Fudging, I'm less clear about. While I see the point, fudging, whether of dice or anything else, works much better when it's not visible to the players.
If it's going to provide a better game at all, it's going to do so when the players don't know it's happening. Once you see behind the curtain, it's much less effective. Nor do I think that done subtly and rarely it's nearly as obvious as some claim.

I agree on the gming time and being right.

As for fudging, the danger I've run across is that the players start being trained to expect it. They expect to be saved no matter how foolish a choice they make; the nice GM will always find a way to save them.

The same goes for fighting the Big Bad. After a while, you stop trying as hard because you know that if the bad takes damage or is in a tight spot, they'll somehow get away or get fully healed via fiat.

Like anything, it should be used sparingly.

Definitely sparingly.

The thing is, I like having interaction with enemies before the final confrontation. It humanizes them, makes things more personal. It's usually best if it can be done socially without the party realizing they were talking to the BBG until later on, but having him rant at them a bit and leave them to his minions is also a trope for a reason. I'm willing to put up with a little handwaving to make that work.
Again and again in a real fight with the baddie? No.

[Charon's Little Helper]

knightnday wrote:

The same goes for fighting the Big Bad. After a while, you stop trying as hard because you know that if the bad takes damage or is in a tight spot, they'll somehow get away or get fully healed via fiat.

That is one of the most annoying things ever. That's as bad as the GM setting you up to inherently fail in a fight only to be saved by their pet NPC at the last second. (Potentially okay REALLY early in a campaign which is based upon training you up - but should be used VERY sparingly, and probably require you to last X # of rounds before the NPC savior shows up, not just until you're almost dead.)

I've had big bads of arcs which I expected to get away in order to be a recurring villain, but the players were cleverer than I expected and defeated them completely. Guess that's one villain who won't be recurring. Move on.

[HWalsh]

There needs to be a final confrontation with the BBEG. You shouldn't have to handwave a BBEG escape often. I generally keep it to a minimum, I will do it, if I have to.

Then again the BBEG usually doesn't show up to fight the PCs.

If you handwave the escape, do it with a lieutenant and usually when he didn't fight the PCs.

The PCs smashed through the enemy keep, as the PCs kick in the door to the villain's chambers they see him stepping through a portal.

Maybe stopping to say, "You may have won this battle heroes but the war continues!" On his way out.

[Matthew Downie]

I find fudging is a useful tool for weak GMs (whether underprepared, lacking in improvisation skills, or lacking in system mastery). Does the death of this NPC fatally derail your plot? Fudge it so they survive. Did you accidentally create an encounter that guarantees a TPK? Fudge it so the PCs can survive. Did you allow a player to create a PC who can trivialize all opposition? Fudge in some resistant enemies.

The better you get, the less you need it. Once you have enough confidence in your abilities, get rid of the GM screen and roll the dice openly.

[thejeff]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I find fudging is a useful tool for weak GMs (whether underprepared, lacking in improvisation skills, or lacking in system mastery). Does the death of this NPC fatally derail your plot? Fudge it so they survive. Did you accidentally create an encounter that guarantees a TPK? Fudge it so the PCs can survive. Did you allow a player to create a PC who can trivialize all opposition? Fudge in some resistant enemies.

The better you get, the less you need it. Once you have enough confidence in your abilities, get rid of the GM screen and roll the dice openly.

Yeah. Once you've more confidence in your abilities, it's easy enough to fudge without changing die rolls. :)

[Richard McGuffin]

Thank you all for the responses. I haven't had a chance to check in on the thread since the posting. You have all given me alot to think about and I appreciate the various points of view.

It sounds like the best thing to do is have frank discussion with the GM and with the other players. If things remain the same I'll likely use retraining rules to shift build choices in favor getting additional re-rolls rather than static bonuses. I still enjoy the group and enjoy playing with them most of the time.

As stated in the OP I'm not sure how many other players are bothered by this practice so it is possible that I am not the only player who doesn't like this practice.

I'd like to point out a few things that varied during the thread that may not have been clear at first.

-The DC's are not raised all the time just when the GM wants it to be a slim chance This may result in only one scene per level (usually crucial story points involving things of custom design like BBEG, custom room environment; and has been applied to: Disable Device, Caster level Check, or Hardness Break DC etc)

-The GM is not Floating DCs for every player independently, the DC's are raised to the Best mod+15.

-This practice is not a secret. However It was not disclosed before the game began. It was implemented during the course of the campaign. I suspect, as a response to players specializing in specific tasks and achieving numbers clearly above the normal range. However the GM made no attempt to keep it secret from the players after they figured it out and asked the GM directly.

-I still don't support this position as it ignores all character build choices. Choices that were made by the player to benefit them.

Thanks again for for your responses, there are several perspectives on closely related topics I had not considered.

[M1k31]

HWalsh wrote:

...For example:

If playing through the Rise of the Runelords, the players may know OOC that Nualia is in Thistletop and is preparing to free the demon Malfeshnicore... So they may realize that this doesn't happen in the timeline of events until after the events in other points... If the players decide to go there for "no particular reason" the GM is not required to have her be there preparing the ritual and be caught unawares.

It doesn't matter if we know that is what should happen. She's not actually there until she needs to be there for the story.

If a character is supposed to get away, sometimes they get away. Granted, you should come up with a realistic way this should happen.

Example: If, as someone stated here, they are an inquisitor with a ton of stuff into tracking... Then you don't have them leave in a way that tracking will work.

If you need a villain to escape due to plot, then come up with a believable way or a way that at the very least "seems legit" but don't let players just upend the story.

There is an exception to that though...

That is if you are running narrative driven games. I am a narrative GM so I do.

If you are running a sandbox style game, then you are free to ignore that and do whatever. Usually people in sandbox games don't care about an over arching story, they have personal goals they want to accomplish. Some want to be able to easily accomplish whatever they want and that is fine too. Never fiat, fudge, or cheat unless you need to.

I mean, heck... Again...

So lets say your PCs somehow get lucky, through some phenomenal roll, and kill the BBEG. Maybe someone is an archer who has 3 attacks (Normal Attack, Rapid Shot, etc) and manages to tag your BBEG with 3 back to back crits. (Sure this is unlikely to happen, but it can happen.)

Your BBEG is dead.

He falls, the PCs get to his body, they cut it up into little tiny pieces, they cook them, then they feed them to their pet Goblin. Your BBEG is now literally a pile of Goblin dung.

Do you just go, "Okay! You have stopped the BBEG's plans. Congratulations. The module is over. The game is over. Lets roll up new level 1's and start again in a new story next week!"

No. Of course not.

You find a way to salvage it. Maybe the BBEG has someone who can cast Wish? Maybe there is a demon lord who he has made an alliance with?

You come up with something.

The arguments against "the bad guy getting away" all assume that they can change characters in the middle. Of course I can't deduce the best way a BBEG can get away in a vacuum, but if these are my players, and I know what their abilities are I am pretty sure I can come up with something that won't shatter the verisimilitude of the game.

Here is a perfect example from a session I ran last week.

The PCs came on a cart that had been under attack. They interceded and drove the baddies off. One of the party members rushed over after the battle to find one of the victims croaking out, "We... Were... Betrayed..." Then he died.

By the rules this cannot happen. By the rules... This is impossible... He cannot die after saying that.

Why?

Because the rules are, "When at 0, or lower, HP you fall unconscious. Then you bleed out."

If the target was talking, he wasn't unconscious, therefore he cannot possibly simply "drop dead" after delivering his cryptic last words.

My player characters could have healed him. Had they went, "Oh he can't be dead. I'll just cast cure light wounds to stabilize him!"

They could have healed him then there goes my entire mystery plot. Poof. Dead. No point.

Granted, I could have had them all be dead when they got there, and him having written, "Betrayal" in his own blood before he died. I guess.

However it wasn't as narrative.

I knew, however, that attempting to heal him was possible.

So... I had an enemy archer, that the PCs weren't aware of, shoot him when the Cleric stepped up and was preparing to cast. The arrow killed him, then the party killed the archer.

Was that archer there before? Nope.

What would have happened if they had searched that area? Then the archer would have appeared somewhere else.

Well what if my PCs had some way to know magically where everyone was, that beat any form of concealment, and I needed to do something else?

I wouldn't have given the NPC any last words, he would have spelled betrayal out in his blood.

Are there other ways to do it? Sure. I could have said that they healed him, but it didn't work. They would have asked why and I could have said a number of plausible explanations... Poison, he was killed by a magic blade, or I could have even fudged it beyond that...

PC: "Why didn't he stabilize?"
Me: "Make a religion roll, DC 15."
PC: (Rolls) "12."
Me: "You don't know."

If he had passed:

PC: (Rolls) "18!"
Me: "Sometimes the Gods grant people a few more moments of life once their time has passed. This happens once they have already expired and are beyond most conventional means of healing."

Is this in the books? Nope.

Is this horribly game breaking and would realistically make people walk away from a game in disgust? No.

Is this "RAW" at all? Nope.

Its GM fudging for the sake of narrative and it is okay to do.

Or you could always do option C and "roll with it"

If players kill a big bad you can always replace them with former minions, rivals, or higher ups/powers. A "Power Vacuum" is both common in history and in fiction, you could take this as a chance to create your own big bad/encounter, or simply lead into another AP... you don't need to start a new story with new characters or fudge a revival/escape.

[knightnday]

Screen or no screen, rolling openly or not -- none of these mark anyone as weak or strong. Without actively playing with someone, you're basing opinion on something someone typed on the internet on any given day that they may or may not believe but simply said to score points or get a rise out of the opposition.

There is no One True Way to play, to roll, or to build a story. There may be ways that an individual may prefer, but that doesn't make it any better or worse than the next person's.

[Bandw2]

i've always rolled openly... the screen took to much space on the table, true story. never used it later either.

[AntiDjinn]

alexd1976 wrote:

I've got NO issue with a GM increasing DC on stuff... but a GM that asks for the result of the die roll... that's just... ick.

I decide on DC of challenges before rolls are made, and if the players make it, they make it.

I have unlimited resources as GM, I can always send in more monsters. :D

It's funny actually, in my games, I have a couple of players who always just tell me the result of the die roll, not the total of the roll plus their characters modifiers.

It happens so much and I have told them so many times "Is that your total or just what you got on the die?" that I have pretty much stopped asking them.

If I ask for a perception check, and someone tells me they rolled a 16 (and they mean the die has a 16 on it)-I take 16 as their total. I've stopped trying to correct them, it's been MONTHS.

I have instructed my players to give me the raw results of the roll only when: 1) They get a natch 20. 2) They get a natch 1 on a roll where 1 automatically fails. 3) They beat the DC of an all-or-none effect (no bonus for making it by X amount) with the roll even before adding bonuses. At all other times I will assume the announced number is the total.

[AntiDjinn]

Bandw2 wrote:

i've always rolled openly... the screen took to much space on the table, true story. never used it later either.

The DM screen used to be indispensable (whether or not it was standing on the table) because it contained all the tables and quick reference rules so you didn't have to flip through the books. The newest one not so much because a tablet delivers the info better with just a few finger flicks. Now, the inside of my screen is covered with notes about which NPC's the players have/haven't met and whom they are on good terms with, which organizations they have interacted with, and a Golarion calendar with campaign events (to remind me to say Erastus instead of July).

[KenderKin]

Another thing you might realize is that most of us "gonards" or whatever you want to call it has to assign difficulties, bonuses and penalties on the spot.

There was no assigned difficulty to do task X Y or Z.

The players would describe doing something and rahter than saying that's not possible or no way the DM understood his/her job was to assign a difficulty and determine bonuses and penalties for doing it.

I have nothing against the system or tables or formulas for assigning difficulties, but at times they fail miserably.

A humble example (determining weaknesses)
Formula : 10 + monster's CR

So to determine weaknesses of a skeleton is DC 11
and to Determine weaknesses of a giant skeleton is DC 17

PC: "Holy water has worked in the past against skeletons"
DM: "Yes but this is a giant skeleton and you failed your roll"

[thejeff]

Quite often you still do. (Or the module author does, if you're using one).

Sometimes that's disguised - You know the DC to jump a 15' pit for example. But that's often backwards, it's a 15' pit because you wanted that DC.

[Bandw2]

AntiDjinn wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

i've always rolled openly... the screen took to much space on the table, true story. never used it later either.

The DM screen used to be indispensable (whether or not it was standing on the table) because it contained all the tables and quick reference rules so you didn't have to flip through the books. The newest one not so much because a tablet delivers the info better with just a few finger flicks. Now, the inside of my screen is covered with notes about which NPC's the players have/haven't met and whom they are on good terms with, which organizations they have interacted with, and a Golarion calendar with campaign events (to remind me to say Erastus instead of July).

i'm aware of this, started with ADnD, had it mostly memorized(was still wrong occasionally).

[Crimeo]

Quote:

So to determine weaknesses of a skeleton is DC 11

and to Determine weaknesses of a giant skeleton is DC 17

PC: "Holy water has worked in the past against skeletons"
DM: "Yes but this is a giant skeleton and you failed your roll"

A bit off topic, but you don't have to roll knowledge to make inductions, because inductions by their very nature are not knowledge until/if they are confirmed as fact, and they come with no guarantee (unlike the info from a successful knowledge roll) of truth. Or if you prefer "because the knowledge skill rules don't say you do." Maybe giant skeletons turn out NOT to be vulnerable to holy water, the GM wouldn't tell you that if you are just inducing, but would if you rolled knowledge successfully.

So the PC can go ahead and roll just in case he remembers for SURE in a book that this is true. But regardless of result, can go ahead and operate on the assumption anyway.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed some personal sniping. Let's move the focus from longevity of play and validation of GM style based on that, and back to the original topic.

[AntiDjinn]

KenderKin wrote:

So to determine weaknesses of a skeleton is DC 11
and to Determine weaknesses of a giant skeleton is DC 17

PC: "Holy water has worked in the past against skeletons"
DM: "Yes but this is a giant skeleton and you failed your roll"

So throw it and see what happens. Either they are vulnerable or they are not. The knowledge check doesn't determine whether or not the holy water will do damage; it determines whether or not you expect it to work.

[thejeff]

AntiDjinn wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

So to determine weaknesses of a skeleton is DC 11
and to Determine weaknesses of a giant skeleton is DC 17

PC: "Holy water has worked in the past against skeletons"
DM: "Yes but this is a giant skeleton and you failed your roll"

So throw it and see what happens. Either they are vulnerable or they are not. The knowledge check doesn't determine whether or not the holy water will do damage; it determines whether or not you expect it to work.

Yeah, but if you know out of game that they're vulnerable "trying it" is problematic. That's why we have knowledge skills in the first place.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Yeah, but if you know out of game that they're vulnerable "trying it" is problematic. That's why we have knowledge skills in the first place.

Trying it on skeletons earlier would have been problematic.

Trying it on greater skeletons later, without any need to specifically remember anybody having told you or having read in a book that greater skeleton properties = skeleton properties, is perfectly reasonable and in fact should be expected for any character with more than like 4 WIS, regardless of any knowledge check.

Knowledge is remembering third party supplied information from the past. It isn't remembering your own experiences (should be free) nor using inductive or deductive reasoning (Wisdom).

[Pixie, the Leng Queen]

"Well it worked on the small guys, lets see if it works on this big guy" is a completely reasonable move without requiring any further knowledge rolls.

Kinda like "Well I know that little red dragon shoots fire. If I had to put my money on it, the Big one probably shoots fire too" is completely reasonable. Now granted you would need a proper knowledge roll to also know that the Big guy is also a nasty spell caster and such, but using basic reasoning of a smaller guy and guessing its advanced or adult stages has similair abilities isnt unreasonable.... Especially if you hve already encountered said minor/younger versions

[AntiDjinn]

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, but if you know out of game that they're vulnerable "trying it" is problematic. That's why we have knowledge skills in the first place.

Monster knowledge skills are supposed to provide a benefit for making them rather than remove a state of being hosed for not attempting them. If you make the check then you know holy water is a good idea. If you don't even attempt it, then you are on your own to come up with ideas. Yes, there are individual monsters who break the molds for their kind and you will have to find out the hard way: "yikes, these are bog mummies. They are immune to fire rather than being highly flammable." If the monster at hand isn't one of those, there is no reason a single monster 411 check should have a huge effect on the fight.

[Stereofm]

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

"Well it worked on the small guys, lets see if it works on this big guy" is a completely reasonable move without requiring any further knowledge rolls.

Kinda like "Well I know that little red dragon shoots fire. If I had to put my money on it, the Big one probably shoots fire too" is completely reasonable. Now granted you would need a proper knowledge roll to also know that the Big guy is also a nasty spell caster and such, but using basic reasoning of a smaller guy and guessing its advanced or adult stages has similair abilities isnt unreasonable.... Especially if you hve already encountered said minor/younger versions

Agreed, but even without that, there is nothing wrong with throwing an alchemist fire on a troll even if you failed the roll. Trial and error.

If you have one available, and your normal attacks don't work as well as they should, why would you not try another method ?

And if someone finds this is meta gaming, then throw another kind of troll vulnerable to something else once in a while.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Agreed, but even without that, there is nothing wrong with throwing an alchemist fire on a troll even if you failed the roll. Trial and error.

If you want to do this, as a GM I would probably make you list off ALL of the weird items you are carrying in your backpack that could possibly be a unique form of attack, and then if you have, say, 8 of them, you roll a 8-sided-die to determine which one your character tries.

And this is only after seeing a normal sword not work, as you seem to be agreeing.