|
I'm a huge Pathfinder fan yet unhappy with the skill system. I've been a GM since 1983, and a Pathfinder RPG GM weekly since the alpha playtest. My intention is to post a number of concerns here, with the goal of hearing from GMs who have been able to make this system work well at their tables. Can you help me address my disatisfaction with the Pathfinder RPG skill system?
I will number these to make it easier to compare responses with issues listed.
1. Once characters surpass about 8th level the number of ranks are so staggering that things become unchallenging.
2. It doesn't seem right that a DC of 10 should jump to DC 30 just because the players have gone up in levels. Therefore anything less than an epic challenge seems completely unchallenging.
3. With six players at the table, the point of asking for skill checks seems like a farce.
4. The consequences of failing skill checks are relatively meaningless.
5. All the characters have so many rank-points so widely distributed that trying to make anyone feel "special" for achieving their skill check feels impossible to achive.
6. Times of search and perception in particular seem a waste of time. Someone else always says, "Can I search too?" or "I also look around" and subsequently alerts everyone else. What's the real point here?
So these are top-of-mind points. This is an honest question about the Rules of the Pathfinder RPG game. And, of course, I am open to GM-error in my approach to this as the source cause (I won't feel that you are being harsh if you help me improve how I make the skill system relevant again.)
I am also curious if other GMs have been feeling this way. Even the adventure paths assume success when they say, "Let the party make a DC 15 Perception Check to notice X,Y,Z. I mean, really? DC15 is a thing of the past by level 5 or so.
Thus:
7. There's generally no reward or individualized outcome of a Skill Check success
So again, I'm trying to see the point in going about the motions of the skill system which feels like a farce. I sincerely appreciate your responses.
Regards,
Pax
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all seem to be greatly affected by the writing of the adventure and the composition of the party.
2. This simply isn't the case with some challenges; usually physical ones like jumping or balancing. Of course, as the game goes on batman wizards should be able to help the party circumvent them. Some DCs should be increasing with the party to represent new challenges. For instances, PCs should be looking deeper into history (higher history checks) and dealing with more difficult locks (higher disable device checks).
Do you have an example of an arbitrary jump in check difficulty?
My concern is more that the scaling of checks results in certain party members being incapable of proceeding because of a required check. For instance, the fighter who never put a rank in climb may find it impossible to scale a wall that everyone else in the party can.
3. Depends on party build. I've seen parties of 5 who knew they were going against Aboleths and no one had built a character with dungeoneering. I guess this will vary by group.
4. I've had PCs fall down chasms and die, not know that critical piece of information to skip around some difficult part of an adventure, or not be able to tell that the sheriff they are talking to is dominated. This seems to be an adventure design issue.
5. I often don't find this. Parties I DM for often have to plan and stretch their skill points to cover as much as possible.
6. Adventure design issue again. I have never liked static dungeons; dungeons should be 'alive' and players should feel like they are in danger and that they cannot simply take as much time as they want.
Just my opinion.
Well if a single act doesn't get progressively easier over time then the heroes aren't really progressing. When its an opposed check it definitely scales against you, and as you level you can do more and more ridiculous things. If your writing your own adventures you can add things to increase the DCs.
Consequences vary from situation to situation. If the problem is failure is meaningless then they should be taking 10/20.
1. Anything that varies due to the opponent (knowledge to identify a monster, acrobatics to get around a Monster, perception to see a trap or monster) grows in difficulty as the opponent does. I think while some skill checks will be Easy, to Represent The character Being Epic, as A Gm you should Give These Characters those Moments To Feel "wow That Was Easier Than At level 1.
2. Make Skill Checks More Exciting :D
3. Make Consequences For Certain Things. Not spotting A Trap is Deadly. You cant take a 10/20 on Everything. The rules Say when You Take A 20, It is Assumed you fail Many Time Before Succeeding. Sometimes Failing Once Means you Can't try again (like knowledge, spellcraft, appraise).
7. I Like What Whale Cancer Said. Make Dungeons Not Static. Sometimes Taking Time to Search a Room completely means More enemies Will Come. Especially if Some enemies Managed To Retreat Or Raised an Alarm. That Means players Must Have High perception rolls To Make That DC 15 with rolling. Sure, you'Ll have A PC with 17 perception That auto finds The Item, then Let Him Have His glory.
I too get Annoyed when players All Shout "I take A 20 To Search This Room" In Every Room! I have Added consequences For Taking Too Long. I also Dislike when players all say They are Aiding another For Skill Checks. Sometimes I add consequences for Rolling lower Than The Required Aid another DC 10: "you've actually Upset The Man You are Trying to negotiate with By Your Rude Comment. -2 To The Total Diplomacy Roll Instead Of +2." I'Ve Only Used This Once For A Very impatient NPC.
I agree with you, Pax Veritas. I find the skill system a bit frustrating as well. I'll list a few ideas I've had.
#3. I don't have players roll for skill checks. I use "passive" skill checks. Your passive skill rating is your ranks + 10. I keep a list of the players' ratings in the most commonly used skills. When a skill check is required in the adventure I check my list to determine if the skill check is passed or not. I find this approach covers most situations.
If the skill check is opposed - usually by an NPC - I then use the passive skill rating and have each party roll a d10 and add it to their skill rating for their total. Yep, a d10. To me rolling a d20 and then adding your ranks makes skill checks way too "swingy". I think if you've spent points on a skill, you should be able to rely on that skill. This type of skill check is most often used with Perception vs Stealth, or Bluff vs Sense Motive. One thing I do too is that players never roll their own Sense Motive checks. I think that leads to too much metagaming. I roll for them and then hand them a notecard with their impression of the NPC. This leads to some fun situations and great role playing rather than just having the group go with whichever PC rolled the highest Sense Motive check.
#1: One solution to this - although it complicates things - is to make the cost of buying a rank in a skill variable. What I mean by this is the first five ranks cost 1 skill point, ranks 6-10 cost 2 points, ranks 11-15 are 3 points, and 16+ are 4 points. I have not instituted this idea, but I've seen other RPG's do this. I do think this approach is more realistic than the one currently in use.
#6: This I think is a tough one. If something is in an adventure then I'm assuming the PC's are meant to find it, so why go through the hassle of all these search checks? Just let them find it. I don't think I've ever met a player who thought rolling Search checks was exciting.
This situation is also greatly sped up by using the passive check system I mentioned above.
I do think making the skill system more exciting requires a lot of work on the GM's part. One thing I'm working on is making battles less common and far more interesting with terrain and such so that skills can be incorporated into the battle itself. Things like jumping on top of some crates, taking a swipe at an enemy and then backflipping over him onto the ground, swinging on ropes, chandeliers, etc. The skill system currently feels like a "tacked on" thing to me and not really well integrated into the other parts of the game, but I think with some work it could be a fun, dynamic system.
This also requires a chat with your players. No one in my group minds that they usually don't roll their skill checks, and they've been happy with no more rolling 1's on Climb checks and such.
As a side note, I also use the passive system with Initiative as well. My players enjoy not having to "break" the story for Initiative rolls and waiting for the order to get figured out before resuming the story.
There are plenty of skill checks that are opposed. People tend to think "skillcheck=perception"...?
There is Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Intimidation (Dazzling Display...), Diplomacy, ...
Knowlegde checks vs weird Monsters, to identify special abilities/immunities, these get harder at higher levels.
Escape Artist vs Grappling.
Healing vs Diseases/Poisons (which can be handcrafted to resist you usual healing magic)
Survival becomes an entirely new challenge once you hit other planes... good old hunting for food isn't possible on half the planes out there, especially the more hostile ones (fire plane and negative plane as obvious examples).
Skills highly depend on what the DM makes of them. Basic combat is easy to do, skilled combat requires more thought/planning from the DM, skill-challenges (yes similar to 4th ed., but they did it wrong, imho: roll=/=role) are fully dependent on the DMs imagination. It's his story after all, you are the heroes of it, but he's providing the villains and world+fluff background. He has got to give you the opportunities to use those skills against increasingly tough opponents.
Skills are more about social and intellectual challenges. If you turn skills into combat-abilities you make them mandatory for all classes, thus killing classes like the good old fighter or barbarian that don't have many skill points. Magic-users can compensate through spells, roguish/ranger classes have the skill points. But I don't think you should boost the rogue by making the fighter/barbarian suck.
To a DM, I can give this advice:
if your players are going into roll-playing instead of role-playing, give them a malus to their skill-check, if they actually give you examples on how they try to outwit their opponent in a diplomatic challenge (talking sense into a local king), give them a bonus to their check. Force your player into ROLEplay to earn their skillcheck. :-)
As a sad example: one fellow player started giving out "Guidance" all day long as soon as we were about to face a situation that might need a skill-check... have that spellcasting turn against him. And make sure player's don't abuse metagaming "I aid for +2", have them explain WHAT they do to provide that +2 or deny the bonus.
I don't feel comfortable to give advice to someone with that much GM experience but maybe I can give some perspective on some of your concerns:
1. Once characters surpass about 8th level the number of ranks are so staggering that things become unchallenging.
2. It doesn't seem right that a DC of 10 should jump to DC 30 just because the players have gone up in levels. Therefore anything less than an epic challenge seems completely unchallenging.
As has been pointed out, acts that are challenging for 1st level characters shouldn't be challenging for 8th level PCs. I think you may have a misconception of the power of PCs compared to the real world.
There is a nice article here that's been written for 3rd edition but still applies.
An APL of 8 means those guys are already larger-than-life uber-beings with powers and skills unheard of except in legends and tales from afar.
3. With six players at the table, the point of asking for skill checks seems like a farce.
Well, AFAIK, the game is built around a party of four so having 1.5 that number of course means that they are able to cover more bases. To challenge such a party you will have to broaden the spectrum of challenges as well.
4. The consequences of failing skill checks are relatively meaningless.
That's just not true. Failing Acrobatics goes "Ouch!", failing UMD goes "fizzle!", failing Diplomacy goes "What you say about me mother?!", failing Climb (by more than five) goes "AAAAAAAaaaaaa....poof!" and so on. Sure, sometimes failing doesn't matter but that's completely fine! And of course you can always tinker with things. Example: Don't want your rogue to take 20 on every lock? Add a trap that goes off when he fails by more than five. Of course you should award more XP in that case accordingly.
5. All the characters have so many rank-points so widely distributed that trying to make anyone feel "special" for achieving their skill check feels impossible to achive.
Is your party of six made up of six skill monkeys? Because in my APL 13 group there is definitely a clear distinction between the characters.
6. Times of search and perception in particular seem a waste of time. Someone else always says, "Can I search too?" or "I also look around" and subsequently alerts everyone else. What's the real point here?
Could it be that your players have trouble to separate player and character knowledge?
So you may have noticed that I quite like the skill system and how flexible it is. I hope these points help in some small way.
|
I'm really curious about the party composition and the average PC Int...there are quite a few skills...and even a skillmonkey rogue (which tend to suck in combat) can't cover every base...now...2 or 3 in a group...sure...
As to DCs going up...of course, the demands go up, too...the locks are higher quality...the beasts rarer...the NPCs more skilled themselves (for opposed checks)...
My players very rarely keep their skill selections laser-focused. They learned that lesson early on when the party had to scale a 50ft cliff face and the Barbarian was out of comission.
I'm a huge Pathfinder fan yet unhappy with the skill system. I've been a GM since 1983, and a Pathfinder RPG GM weekly since the alpha playtest. My intention is to post a number of concerns here, with the goal of hearing from GMs who have been able to make this system work well at their tables. Can you help me address my disatisfaction with the Pathfinder RPG skill system?
I will number these to make it easier to compare responses with issues listed.
1. Once characters surpass about 8th level the number of ranks are so staggering that things become unchallenging.
Jumping over a gap, no. Trying to acrobatics past a dragon, yes. Basic tasks become simple yes, because by 8th level the characters are superhuman, on par with marvel superheroes like spiderman or the xmen. But opposed checks scale with their enemies. Bluffing a level 16 monk with full sense motive is still going to be very very hard.
2. It doesn't seem right that a DC of 10 should jump to DC 30 just because the players have gone up in levels. Therefore anything less than an epic challenge seems completely unchallenging.
Again characters of high level shouldnt be facing natural simple challenges. Batman doesnt have trouble balancing on a narrow ledge, neither should a level 15 ninja
3. With six players at the table, the point of asking for skill checks seems like a farce.
Why because they are likely to have it? I mean in my group even huge parties are often missing a skill depending on composition, it seems to me you just have a group heavily focused on skills. They should be rewarded for that effort.
4. The consequences of failing skill checks are relatively meaningless.
See above comment about them being superheroes. Falling off a ledge, not a big deal to spiderman. Unless you mean like social skills, then the failure means as much as the dm makes it mean.
5. All the characters have so many rank-points so widely distributed that trying to make anyone feel "special" for achieving their skill check feels impossible to achive.
Do you just not have fighters and sorcerors and clerics in your group? My parties tend to worry about having enough skill points. And again, I think this is a matter of scale. If the rogue bluffs the head guard and pickpockets the king, he'll feel special, but the monk jumping the 10ft gap isnt meant to feel special any more then the fighter does when he hits something with his sword.
6. Times of search and perception in particular seem a waste of time. Someone else always says, "Can I search too?" or "I also look around" and subsequently alerts everyone else. What's the real point here?
I dont get your problem, is it a matter of a party working together? Should the rest of the party stand around twiddling their thumbs while the rogue searches the room?
So these are top-of-mind points. This is an honest question about the Rules of the Pathfinder RPG game. And, of course, I am open to GM-error in my approach to this as the source cause (I won't feel that you are being harsh if you help me improve how I make the skill system relevant again.)
I am also curious if other GMs have been feeling this way. Even the adventure paths assume success when they say, "Let the party make a DC 15 Perception Check to notice X,Y,Z. I mean, really? DC15 is a thing of the past by level 5 or so.
Thus:
7. There's generally no reward or individualized outcome of a Skill Check successSo again, I'm trying to see the point in going about the motions of the skill system which feels like a farce. I sincerely appreciate your responses.
Regards,
Pax
Individualized outcome is all about description. As a dm if a player gets a really high result, I usually give them something advantageous out of it, and I do my best to describe what they do in an interesting way. I dont say 'you tumble past him'. I say 'you feint left, duck under a table, and then vault over the chair to get past him'. In the end its all about description.
That said, I wonder if some of this is more adventure design then it is problems with the skill system in general. Usually APs are meant for an average party that is unoptimized, IE rogue, fighter, cleric, wizard. If you instead have a bard, inquisitor, ranger, ninja that focus on skills, you probably need to adjust certain parts of it to make it more interesting. That is just a sort of reality in running published material, you have to pay attention to what your party is good at and adjust.
That doesnt mean you have to make the 15 perception check a 30, but you could include some alternate challenges that are more difficult and offer greater rewards. Like sure that note with a location and a time was a 15, but for a 30, you find the bad guy's journal tucked in a false bottom drawer also.
All of that said, I think you might be off a bit on your perceptions of mid to high level characters and what they should be capable of. I would say you might want to give 'E6' a try, because it keeps the character more in the realm of reality then the game when it advances past there.
Heck I give my players extra skill points on ocassion if they spend enough down time studying in libraries, and it's not yet been a problem.
My intention is to post a number of concerns here, with the goal of hearing from GMs who have been able to make this system work well at their tables. Can you help me address my disatisfaction with the Pathfinder RPG skill system?
1. Once characters surpass about 8th level the number of ranks are so staggering that things become unchallenging.
2. It doesn't seem right that a DC of 10 should jump to DC 30 just because the players have gone up in levels. Therefore anything less than an epic challenge seems completely unchallenging.
3. With six players at the table, the point of asking for skill checks seems like a farce.
4. The consequences of failing skill checks are relatively meaningless.
5. All the characters have so many rank-points so widely distributed that trying to make anyone feel "special" for achieving their skill check feels impossible to achive.
6. Times of search and perception in particular seem a waste of time. Someone else always says, "Can I search too?" or "I also look around" and subsequently alerts everyone else. What's the real point here?I am also curious if other GMs have been feeling this way. Even the adventure paths assume success when they say, "Let the party make a DC 15 Perception Check to notice X,Y,Z. I mean, really? DC15 is a thing of the past by level 5 or so.
Thus:
7. There's generally no reward or individualized outcome of a Skill
Check success
Great post Pax. Allow me to give you my perspective as a DM and player since the 80's as well.
1. Not all characters have a ton of skill points. I have a cleric that gets 2/lvl and at lvl 19 he has 38 which is about what our rogue started with at lvl 1. So I have to disagree with you here. My experience is players do not get too many skill points.(see below for more reasons why)
2. After a half dozen levels or so routine tasks should be just that, "routine". And that's OKAY for a couple reasons. Fist, it shows that the characters are growing and gives players a sense of accomplishment when their PCs can finally jump over that 10 foot gap without sweating every time. Secondly, even if a check is normally routine, circumstances and a clever GM can make them more difficult at any time. Suddenly the DC for that 10' jump becomes a lot higher when the bad guy greases the area. Thirdly what is routine to 1 PC is not routine to another. 3 out of 4 PCs might not think twice about that jump but a wizard with 12 str and no ranks in acrobatics would probably look for an alternative, thereby still making it a fun encounter.
3. 6 players at the table is a lot and they will probably have most things covered. Keep in mind that not all 6 of them will always be in a position to make a skill check and be involved. Think what the characters would check for vs what a player would. A lot of times if everyone is always involved in every skill check it's a case of metagaming. Also just because they have ranks in the requisite skill doesn't mean it will be easy for them.
4. Couldn't disagree more. There have been many times where characters skill rolls determines life or death or success or failure of a mission.
If you are having problems with this then it is a GMing issue. Working to create situations where the skills matter is a job of the GM, NOT the skill system.
5. If you feel the skill points are out of control you should do a couple things 1. AUDIT the character sheets an make sure skill points are all kosher. 2. Check that the DC's you are setting are correct. A lot of skills have circumstantial bonuses that will greatly affect the DC and are easy to forget. It is my general experience that most PCs will not have enough points to spread around and be experts at everything. They will generally do a couple things really well, a couple things adequately and the rest only on a good die roll. (there are rare exceptions to this when a PC builds a character to specifically be a skill monkey)
6. Perception can be tricky because out of game everyone "sees" the other player searching and suddenly wants to search too. These are times when you have to remind the players not to metagame. It's unusual everyone in character suddenly stops whatever they were doing the second a comrade lifts up a mattress and pokes around under it. Secondly, in regards to the DC 15, that is just a baseline under IDEAL conditions which RARELY happens. Perception for example states that the DC goes up 1 for every 10' feet away the subject of your check is. So spotting an enemy 100' away is minimum DC 25 and that's in bright light.
Hearing someone through a door in a room next to you is around a 22 (+5 through the door and they are probably about 15' away) I would re-examine the DC's you're setting as they sound very low.
7. There are general XP rewards you can give for successful skill checks the core book mentions as much (can't remember if they are optional or not). The immediate reward to the players should be fairly obvious if you are making the DC's challenging enough. They will get stoked when they make their rolls. It can be VERY rewarding for players to use their skills successfully and creatively when the GM is doing things right.
A couple other notes-
Remember sometimes the GM rolls skill checks for PC's as in the case of searching for traps. This is done to keep a player from metagaming ie: still acting overly cautions in a dungeon because they know they rolled a 1 on their search.
DESCRIBE THE RESULTS. Don't just say "ok you made it and the trap is disarmed" Our Rogue once disarmed a symbol of death by meeting the DC EXACTLY. Our GM described how he barely disarmed it with beads of sweat rolling off his face etc etc. And by the time he was done we really felt like we'd been through an ordeal and one hell of a really close call.
To wrap up-
It really sounds like the situations you're creating that call for Skill checks are falling flat. That also seems to be combined with the DC's being off. Remember it's the GMs job to make the situation challenging and exciting, not the skill systems job. It is just a tool for you to organize events and activities.
Just about everything I've experienced since 3.0 - Pathfinder (because the skill systems are very similar) is just about the opposite of what you are describing is happening at your table. (with the occasional rare hiccup)
So my conclusion is that it must be your gaming style. Our gaming table has players sweating over skill checks and on success PCs feel just as good as if they've won a battle.
|
|
It really sounds like the situations you're creating that call for Skill checks are falling flat. That also seems to be combined with the DC's being off. Remember it's the GMs job to make the situation challenging and exciting, not the skill systems job
I think this statement sums up a very thoughtful assessment of my situation. As a GM of many years, I'm very comfortable seeking to find out what I own, whenever a situation arises.
Additionally, based on previous comments from Kolotroni, Niko77 and others... I'm going to take steps to fix what I can on my end, putting my frustration aside for the moment.
1. I created a chart and documented everyone's current skill ranks for all skills.
2. I am going to re-assess the DCs I am ascibing to situations. It is possible that I need to rethink those modifiers to get a more accurate target DC.
3. In this week's game I made several passive rolls that helped increase the flow of rp, but also to create more mystery, and less metagame focus.
4. I really need some help re-envisioning the consequences of DCs. After reading the responses of this thread, I reflect that I may be need to reimagine them as having serious concequences. If I don't do this, how can I expect my players to feel the challenge/victory?
Level 9 Party Composition (will turn level 9 this week): Oracle, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter, Bard.
A few scenario questions, hoping to keep this thread going a little bit to get the help I need:
Example A: Classic 10' stone bridge of death over fatal chasm. Question: Monster pushes player 5 feet over edge. Should I offer any kind of skill check to hang on? Should I rely solely on a reflex save or fall to death? I'm just trying to envision possible fatal results of skill checks?
Example B: Player declares, "I disable the device." As usual I describe the trap mechanism. Player fails. I usually have the trap go off - explaining what went wrong during the disable that triggered the trap.
Example C: If the players need to bluff their way past a foe that is too challenging for them... My players typically roleplay their "bluff" well. An opposed check occurrs bluff v. sense movtive. If the players fail, the party passes through, if failed, battle occurs. This one sounds pretty clear - but because its an opposed check it depends heavily on the NPCs sense motive skill, and in some cases the npc might not have a lot of ranks in sense motive. Is there anything else I could do?
Example D: If everyone searches a room, can I have the non-rogue encounter a trap they could not detect? If it is hidden, this would be based on perception. At 8th level, I would set the hidden trap DC at 20. I could make this check for the player. Is that DC about right? Is the consequence of trap being triggered during the search fair? I think so, but I would love your opinions on these examples.
some DCs scale with what you are trying to accomplish. Yes a maxed out skill on a level 10 character can easily be so unreasonably high that it makes normal usages of the skill impossible to fail, but then again at that level a character is also already at a superhuman level. At tht point you will have to give them superhuman challenges. Locks and traps that are so masterfully crafted, probably with the aid of magic that they have disable device DCs of over 30, enemies with equally high perception skills as your sneaky guy's stealth or enemies with just as high stealth skills as the players' best perception scores. chasms that are 60 feet or more across. Seas so violent that even an aquatic creature has problems with swimming there.
Well if you're looking to get the most out of existing skills, look at Rite Publishing 101 New Skill Uses - it would definitely make skills more interesting.
I think that the problem is not jumping, of course. You can rise DC in some situations, but the real problem are fly, spellcraft, some knowledge checks and ride. I'm testing some change on that, so a 8 level wizard will not be able to recognize a 9th level spells with a 8 on check. Also, it will be possible to make a rider fall from his mount. But as i said, still testing.
Just some extra thoughts:
2. After a half dozen levels or so routine tasks should be just that, "routine". And that's OKAY for a couple reasons. Fist, it shows that the characters are growing and gives players a sense of accomplishment when their PCs can finally jump over that 10 foot gap without sweating every time. Secondly, even if a check is normally routine, circumstances and a clever GM can make them more difficult at any time. Suddenly the DC for that 10' jump becomes a lot higher when the bad guy greases the area. Thirdly what is routine to 1 PC is not routine to another. 3 out of 4 PCs might not think twice about that jump but a wizard with 12 str and no ranks in acrobatics would probably look for an alternative, thereby still making it a fun encounter.
Ahhh, greasy pits. I love those. Grease on this side, anyone walking up to look into the pit REF save or slide into it and anyone doing a running jump to jump over the pit will still usually jump from really close to the pit, hence in the grease, and will slide into it. Grease on the other side makes them fall down and slide down the hall into the next (hidden) pit, or stop sliding right next to that ogre, troll, giant, or titan who is clever enough to wait for his lunch to come sliding (prone) to him...
But even more fun is putting an invisible wall of force on the far side of the pit - let them jump, smack head first into that wall, then fall into the pit. Hours of belly laughs for every dungeon master...
6. Perception can be tricky because out of game everyone "sees" the other player searching and suddenly wants to search too. These are times when you have to remind the players not to metagame. It's unusual everyone in character suddenly stops whatever they were doing the second a comrade lifts up a mattress and pokes around under it. Secondly, in regards to the DC 15, that is just a baseline under IDEAL conditions which RARELY happens. Perception for example states that the DC goes up 1 for every 10' feet away the subject of your check is. So spotting an enemy 100' away is minimum DC 25 and that's in bright light.
Hearing someone through a door in a room next to you is around a 22 (+5 through the door and they are probably about 15' away) I would re-examine the DC's you're setting as they sound very low.
I don't get why you and some previous posters have a problem with multiple characters searching. Why is that "metagame"? If the rogue is looking under the mattress, why can't the cleric say "Hey, he's searching under the mattress? I'll search with him"? It's not like the cleric (character) is unable to see the rogue (character) lifting up the mattress and searching under it.
It's not metagaming when your character can see another character doing something and you decide to help him (Aid Another) or try to do the same thing yourself (two chances to succeed instead of only one).
Where are you getting DC 25? Spotting a medium-sized enemy 100' away in bright daylight is a DC 10 unless that enemy is using stealth, in which case the DC is his Stealth roll +10. Heck, you could find an average concealed door 100' away in bright daylight with a DC of 25.
7. There are general XP rewards you can give for successful skill checks the core book mentions as much (can't remember if they are optional or not). The immediate reward to the players should be fairly obvious if you are making the DC's challenging enough. They will get stoked when they make their rolls. It can be VERY rewarding for players to use their skills successfully and creatively when the GM is doing things right.
You give XP rewards for defeating an encounter. Most encounters are with monsters or other enemies. Some encounters can be stuff that isn't a monster or an enemy, like encountering a trap or encountering an irritating noble. The goal of these encounters is to accomplish something, such as survive and/or disable the trap, or convince the noble to do something important. If the PCs succeed at accomplishing this goal, they are usually considered to have "defeated" the encounter. The XP reward is set based on the Challenge Rating (CR) of the encounter which is more or less up to the DM, though most monsters, enemies, and traps have preset values for their CR.
A couple other notes-
Remember sometimes the GM rolls skill checks for PC's as in the case of searching for traps. This is done to keep a player from metagaming ie: still acting overly cautions in a dungeon because they know they rolled a 1 on their search.
As a the rulebook states, this should be done whenever the PCs don't automatically know if they succeeded or failed. Climbing a cliff, failing the roll is very obvious when you fall, success is very obvious when you get to the top, so let the PCs roll. Searching for a secret door, failing is not obvious because it means there is a secret door that you failed to find which is indistinguishable from the possibility that there is no secret door - either way you find nothing - so the DM should roll in secret to keep the players unaware of what really is (or isn't) there.
My suggestion is this:
If you have PCs that invested in skill ranks in something, they SHOULD, even MUST, feel like that was worthwhile. Don't set DCs so hard that they are always challenged or else they will always feel like noobs. I once had a DM send us on a level 1 adventure to sneak into a castle. We had to climb the wall. At level 1, the DC was 15 which wasn't easy for most of us. When we were level 10, some nasty villains had taken over the exact same castle and we had to invade it again. We decided to climb the same wall, but for some reason the DC was 25. Same wall, different DC. I asked the DM why and he said "to keep it challenging". He could have said that the new occupants had recently hired a bunch of dwarves to repair the wall, fill in the nooks and crannies, smooth the rough edges, and make the wall much harder to climb, but all he said was "to keep it challenging". I always thought that was a fairly lame answer - here we were, 10th level superheroes, and we were no better at climbing that castle wall than we were when we were noobs.
But on the other hand, you SHOULD, and MUST, create occasional challenges that push them to their limits, even the skill monkey gets challenged sometimes (and everyone else is mostly screwed until the skill monkey solves the challenge).
Just some extra thoughts:
But even more fun is putting an invisible wall of force on the far side of the pit - let them jump, smack head first into that wall, then fall into the pit. Hours of belly laughs for every dungeon master...
That's brilliant. I honestly had not thought about that one.
I don't get why you and some previous posters have a problem with multiple characters searching. Why is that "metagame"? If the rogue is looking under the mattress, why can't the cleric say "Hey, he's searching under the mattress? I'll search with him"? It's not like the cleric (character) is unable to see the rogue (character) lifting up the mattress and searching under it.
It's not metagaming when your character can see another character doing something and you decide to help him (Aid Another) or try to do the same thing yourself (two chances to succeed instead of only one).
Where are you getting DC 25? Spotting a medium-sized enemy 100' away in bright daylight is a DC 10 unless that enemy is using stealth, in which case the DC is his Stealth roll +10. Heck, you could find an average concealed door 100' away in bright daylight with a DC of 25.
Here's a perception scenario to explain what I've seen in many games. A group of 4 is mopping up after a fight. 2 players are in one room 2 are in an adjacent room. Room 1 has players using the heal skill and a wand to heal up from the last battle while also keeping an eye out for baddies. Room 2 has characters that start searching that room. As soon as the players in room 2 announce they are searching, all the sudden everyone at the table announces they too are searching and suddenly it's like a race as to who can find any loot.
The player's in room 1 have completely forgotten the fact they are in another room and shouldn't know what's going on in room 2, they are preoccupied. They also suddenly forget they are in the middle of using other skills that take time. It's clearly a case of metagaming. It happens more often than you think.As for the DC 25- under the Perception skill it clearly states
"Distance to the source, object, or creature: +1/10 feet"
So a medium-sized enemy 100' away in bright daylight is a DC 20.
I think the example we were using was also not in bright daylight so we added +5 for lighting and conditions.
So spotting a concealed door 100' away in bright light is a DC 35 as opposed to 25.