Hello all!
I have a dilemma. I want to provide my players with a certain amount of confidence with their DC checks for their skills. After all, they have trained in them so they would generally know the type of difficulty associated with a DC check. Lets say for Acrobatics.
Now, I have a player want to jump on the back of a beast... a horse. I noticed in the Core book that if they are simply jumping up its a specific DC check. I also noticed that if they "Long Jump" say 10' its only a DC 10.
The player asks how difficult this is to them...
Option 1:
State that it is only a DC 10
Option 2:
Not state anything and have them guess all the time where they stand.
How do you all handle this situation? When it is appropriate to tell a player a DC # and when is it not?
I would assume on skills like perception that they should NOT know the DC check as it would indicate immediately that there is something to "perceive" therefore ruining the surprise! :)
Also, is there any wording in the Core or APG that states anything? I couldn't find anything.
Thanks for any advice!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually try to hide the numbers for most things, but I'll ask them their bonus and tell them if they have a good chance of succeeding or not, if it makes sense for the PC to be able to tell by looking. In the case of something that's common knowledge, like your jump check example or climbing a rope, where the DCs are in the Core Rulebook, I just tell them the number.
|
If the check is based on rules for skills (unless there is some mitigating circumstance, like slippery surface for climbing or balancing) it doesn't hurt for the players to look it up themselves and tell you what DC they need to make.
But if the check is something specific to the scenario, or there are mitigating circumstance (slippery surface, wind conditions, etc.) then keep it under your hat.
|
If the skill is untrained then I very rarely tell the player the difficulty (in our home game, we have a house rule that one can NOT take 10 on an untrained skill except in the most benign of circumstances).
But generally it depends on the difficulty wrt to the character and if it is an opposed roll. For opposed rolls, the character almost never knows the difficulty. For unopposed rolls, the character should pretty much always know the DC if their skill is high enough. By "high enough" I mean that a take 10 handily exceeds the difficulty (by 2 or more).
But I don't always remember if the player doesn't ask. If the player forgets to ask and forgets to take 10 then it isn't my responsibility. I'll TRY to remember but I've got a lot of things to keep track of and that is a fairly low priority.
|
Like Andrew said, if the DC for their task is something they can look up right from the CRB, then I'm happy to let them know.
If it is something that requires a judgement call from me GMing, I typically ask the player what their skill bonus is, and then ballpark them. ("You're very good at this, you think you can make it as long as catastrophe doesn't strike", or, "You're pretty sure this will be quite tough for you")
If it is a hidden or opposed DC of any sort, I kindly inform them to make the best judgement they can with the knowledge they have.
|
|
I'm dealing with the same situation, and there are a bunch of factors in play.
First, I think that at some point, a trained person could look at a task and get a feel for how difficult it would be. If they do it a lot, they should get the benefit of experience and basically just "know" whether they can do it. On the flip side, they should also have a clue that they can't do it.
Second, I'm trying really hard to get my players to take 10 on skill checks. Since my sessions always run long, anything that speeds things up is a big help, and it gives an unlucky player a break for part of the evening, at least.
So far, I've been giving the DCs for non-opposed skill checks, especially when players can take 10 on the check. They don't get the DC on any opposed skill checks. For example, I'll tell them the Acrobatics DC to cross a slippery pile of rocks, but I won't tell them the DC to move through a threatened square.
I also try to consider the information that the characters have available: for Swim checks, they can see how fast the water is moving, but they might not know how deep it is or if there are any underwater hazards. That gets a bit trickier.
I would prefer to just tell them "it looks easy" or"you're pretty sure you can do it", but that's more subjective and doesn't always translate well. "Easy" to a Monk and "easy" to a Fighter aren't necessarily the same DC. And for some reason, some of my players seem to think I'm trying to trick them or something, and they don't always trust me. :-) (Oddly, when I say, "You don't think you can climb that without a rope," they always believe me.)
Chase scenes are my biggest problem. I haven't figured out whether I can tell them the DCs or even whether they can take 10.
|
|
I would not allow take 10 in a chase scene.
As for the general question of telling players the DC, it can be a tricky balance.
For things where multiple people need to make a relatively low DC check of some sort I tend to tell them the DC, because there's not really much suspense here and the time saved by sharing the DC will be nice. Ex. adventure mentions a DC 10 perception check to notice the scratch marks on the door. I might ask for perception checks, DC 10.
If there's a single effect and it's important I generally will not share the DC. Or if I want to avoid metagaming I will not share the DC. (Sometimes I will even ask for sense motive or perception checks when nothing is going on, to help keep players on their toes)
Things like skill checks for jumping over gaps are set in the CRB so I generally remind people of the DCs.
As for jumping onto a horse I would probably just tell them it's DC 10, but if they were jumping to grab the prince as the dragon was flying away with them I would not.
Basically I think it has to do with balancing player expectations, convenience, metagming, time and suspense.
Low drama rolls that are fairly routine are probably good to share the DC. There's not really a whole lot of suspense and you don't give away anything important by setting a DC that the player knows about for jumping on the horse. Also it'll save a little bit of time that can be used for more role-playing or combat or description, whatever your group thinks is fun.
High drama rolls, unusual circumstances, metagame concerns and heightening the drama are good reasons not to reveal the DC. Isn't it much scarier if the BBEG casts blindness on you and you are asked to make a save, hoping it's high enough, rather than the GM just telling you it's DC 14 to start with?
|
|
By its nature, time is a factor in a PFS game. Players have to devote even a small amount of their efforts to trying to dial-in on target numbers like DC and AC wastes some of that valuable time. We're already dealing with much of the game on a numbers-based meta-level I see little value in obfuscating a few of them, particularly when not doing so would facilitate quicker play. The more efficiently everyone at the table can play the numbers-based elements of the game like combat and skill use the more time can be spent on the elements that get short-shrift like story, plot, and characterization.
I don't mind looking up the DC's from the CRB and I agree that having the players know somewhat about what their characters can possibly do makes for a much easier time on the GM to do other more important things however my concern is there is no specific rule which states, "Players can lookup a DC for acrobatics" vs "GM assigns willy-nilly numbers to just make the game go faster". This makes playing very difficult when a player does not know where he (or a GM) stands on a particular maneuver. This is the dilemma. As a GM I want a solid foundation of what can/cant be done and since I am so new, letting the players have some confidence that I know what I am doing and rule justly.
Its very inappropriate and unfair for me to say to a player with minimal skill, "That DC to jump on the horses back is 15" and on the person who has acrobatics to a +13 tell them, "Um that DC is 28".
Where is the structure? This is what I want to know.
Thanks!
|
This thread has derailing a bit into two things - if taking 10 is allowed, and, the original question - can the player be told the DC. I'll only address the latter.
The best example for this is if a Climb check is required. The character wants to climb something, and all the descriptions are in the rulebook. In that case, it's safe to tell the player he needs to succeed at a DC 15 climb to make it, because you could otherwise say "it's a rocky surface with adequate handholds and footholds", but if they want to know the DC, and you don't tell them, it's just an annoyance to make them look it up themselves.
Swim is another good example - 10/15/20 for calm/rough/stormy waters.
But say they're searching a room with Perception. Something is there, but you can't say it's a DC 25 check to find it. There's no set DCs for that kind of thing that they can just look up.
Healing a poison might be a similar situation where the player doesn't know what the poison's DC is - and you can't tell them, because they have no way of knowing.
|
|
There isn't much that I won't tell my players in the interests of speeding things up. After the first round or two of combat I'll even tell them the AC of the things they're attacking so they can just tell me if they hit. Sometimes it leads to metagaming like deciding whether or not to Power Attack, but only once have I had a player outright lie to me about their results.
If one of my players has a cranked perception, then I'll include things like treasure or traps in my room descriptions if they would beat the DC with a Take 10. If there isn't a trap or they can't passively beat the DC, I'll say that they don't see any traps and let them decide if that means there isn't one or if they should look harder.
|
@Binary1: If, as the location of this thread implies, you are running games using Pathfinder Society scenarios, most of the DCs will be given in the document. For "simple" things, which are standard DCs, like the wall climbing and swimming citations, you can tell the players, although the more experienced ones are likely to tell you a number for the DC for your confirmation.
For the other skill checks, some of them are things the players will have a ballpark figure on, Diplomacy DCs are a bit variable, but fairly consistent if the circumstances are known.
The last batch are usually what you won't tell the players, but most of them are either ununusal circumstances or opposed checks. Sometimes, the DC can be revealed by a Knowledge check (Yeah, most goblins just suck at Perception, so sneaking up on them is fairly easy.). Other times it is purely a shot in the dark (Well, I have a good Acrobatics skill. Let's see if I can roll well enough to be able to move through that enemy spellcaster's square to get flanking on them.). And, even then, most of the DCs are constructed by standard rules, and can, usually, be reverse engineered to see how they came up with the numbers.
Honestly, and it is seldom done, there are certain times when the player shouldn't know what his PC's skill check result was. This kind of check is covered in the rules, but is used for opposed checkls where the PC may not know how well they did, like Forgery or Disguise rolls.
Also, and many GMs forget this, there is no rule in Pathfinder about not being able to search an area multiple times for traps. Usually a Perception check won't set off the trap, it is only the Disable Device check that can do that, and that only when failed by 5 or more.
(On a side note, I have noticed, recently, a marked increase in the appearance of the casting of the Orison/Cantrip Guidance. Significant increase. Heck, my Summoner was using that as his main action during a recent game, but he was only 2nd level at the time.)
|
|
Does anyone use a pre-rolling system for perception rolls etc?
Im going to be running Halls of Dwarven Lore this weekend and in regards to the traps I want it to flow a bit better. Im going to get players to roll 5 perception rolls at the start of the scenario and use these to determine who sees what trap.
And considering there are never any rogues locally its unlikely I will have people taking 20 looking for traps.
Anyone else do this as their norm?
Thanks
|
Does anyone use a pre-rolling system for perception rolls etc?
Im going to be running Halls of Dwarven Lore this weekend and in regards to the traps I want it to flow a bit better. Im going to get players to roll 5 perception rolls at the start of the scenario and use these to determine who sees what trap.
And considering there are never any rogues locally its unlikely I will have people taking 20 looking for traps.
Anyone else do this as their norm?
Thanks
I don't like prerolling, as I find that every time I do the players throw me for a curveball. The one time I will always preroll is for a rogue that has Trap Spotter. Then I'll just add the trap into the room description.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Does anyone use a pre-rolling system for perception rolls etc?
Im going to be running Halls of Dwarven Lore this weekend and in regards to the traps I want it to flow a bit better. Im going to get players to roll 5 perception rolls at the start of the scenario and use these to determine who sees what trap.
And considering there are never any rogues locally its unlikely I will have people taking 20 looking for traps.
Anyone else do this as their norm?
Thanks
Remember they don't get automatic Perception checks to notice traps unless they have the Trap Spotter talent. So they shouldn't get a check unless they say they're looking. You still might want to roll it yourself though, so they don't metagame based on how good or bad their roll was.
Ok great advice guys! I appreciate the input. I still don't see where it specifically states in the Core or APG or even the GM guide if there is a typical rule for allowing players to know the DC on specific skill checks.
I guess its up to GM interpretation (which can lead to arguments on what is/is not applicable.
The argument I get mostly is "why wont I know the DC? I am an experienced Acrobat/Climber/Rider?"
Sigh, wish there was a book of DC checks which specifically stated:
DC 0 walking across a floor
DC 5 walking across a wet floor
DC 10 running across a floor
DC 15 running across a wet/icy floor
DC 20 running across a floor carrying a plate of food
DC 25 running across a wet floor carrying a plate of food
DC 30 running across a floor carrying several plates of food
DC 35 running across a wet floor carrying several plates of food
DC 40 running across a wet floor, doing a cartwheel whilst carrying several plates of food
Something like this for all the skills...so everyone at LEAST has a ballpark of what can be expected. Like a book of skills.
Rolemaster has this in "School of hard knocks" and I need it for Pathfinder! :)
Thanks again for all the input!
|
Yep, general DC for most uses of any particular Skill (or their base values) are included in the CRB, which players are not only encouraged to read, PFS expected them to have done so. If the DC is included in the Skill's description, feel free to tell them as you are only informing a player of a rule. Otherwise, the DC is much like an opponent's AC or other unknown value.
As far as getting your players to take 10, when asking them to make a skill check when they are allowed to take 10, ask instead if they are taking 10. Some will, some won't.
|
|
Remember they don't get automatic Perception checks to notice traps unless they have the Trap Spotter talent. So they shouldn't get a check unless they say they're looking. You still might want to roll it yourself though, so they don't metagame based on how good or bad their roll was.
Based on the Perception description, I'd say everyone gets automatic Perception checks if the trap has an observable stimulus.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.
The Trap Spotter talent allows a rogue an automatic check whether or not the stimulus is observable.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Remember they don't get automatic Perception checks to notice traps unless they have the Trap Spotter talent. So they shouldn't get a check unless they say they're looking. You still might want to roll it yourself though, so they don't metagame based on how good or bad their roll was.Based on the Perception description, I'd say everyone gets automatic Perception checks if the trap has an observable stimulus.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.The Trap Spotter talent allows a rogue an automatic check whether or not the stimulus is observable.
If a trap has no observable stimulus, then what exactly happens when the Trap-Spotting rogue succeeds at that check?
Your idea kind of implodes when you start trying to apply it reasonably, I'm afraid.
|
|
There was a chart in one of the scenario's I ran that listed the difficulty of certain skill checks with something like this:
DC15-20 Easy, DC21-25 slightly difficult, DC26-30 difficult, DC31-35 very difficult, and DC36-40 almost impossible. Those were not the exact terms and numbers, and consider it was for a higher tier aventure. I typically give them a description like above on how difficult they might perceive it is. GM say "It looks like a very difficult trap to disarm", then they know enough and can proceed. If a player needs a linguistic's check or a disable device to remove an item without breaking it forever, I used the same types of descriptions so they could decide if they wanted to enlist help. No actual DC's need to be handed out.
|
|
If a trap has no observable stimulus, then what exactly happens when the Trap-Spotting rogue succeeds at that check?
Your idea kind of implodes when you start trying to apply it reasonably, I'm afraid.
I've always treated it as some kind of roguish intuition. It is an extraordinary ability. :P
Off-topic thoughts...
Here's an example of how I run Perception, Trap Spotter, and traps staying as close to written rules (as far as I know) as possible.
Example A: Pit trap in an open hallway.
As soon as a PC can see the area where the pit trap is, they get an automatic Perception check due to there being an observable stimulus (e.g. the section of the floor that falls away). If the party rogue with the Trap Spotter talent fails this first check, they get another automatic check when approaching within 10 ft. Anyone who succeeds notices the trap.
Example B: Pit trap behind a closed door.
When the PCs approach the door, there is no observable stimulus for the trap so no one gets a Perception check. If the party rogue with the Trap Spotter talent approaches within 10 ft. of the trap on the other side of the door, they get an automatic check even though there is no observable stimulus. If they succeed, their extraordinary trap-sensing skills tell them there's a trap on the other side of the door.
|
|
I see what you are saying. Either option may work fine depending on the players. Some players enjoy the metagame aspect of give me the number, I will do what I can to up my chances and then roll it out. Many enjoy that kind of numbers game, more so in OP than in home games. In the home game environment we enjoy the descriptive role play aspect of the game more than number crunching. I am fine with either way. Most of the guys/gals I have been gaming with like the idea of rolling a perception to determine if they think it looks dificult, in certain situations, then get a general description of the difficulty. You are correct though because you need to know what their bonus is before telling them the difficulty to them, or you must add "It looks to be difficult for the average adventurer". As long as the players have fun, I really don't care. I prefer a description but will barf out the number in OP if pressed.
I think you can tell whether or not you have a reasonable chance of accomplishing a task. Shoot a free throw, for me, easy. I will take the shot. Slam dunk? Impossible, I know better. The players all talk, so when I tell the Linguistic's expert that it will be difficult for him, they quickly chat and the others decide what actions they can do to help.
No worries on the snarky post stuff. You need thick skin anytime you post an opinion on these boards anyway. All is good.
I would always relate my DC descriptions to what an average characters abilities were...
10's in stats, no special racial abilities or skill points. Just a plain old schmuk.
Then, because the players KNOW their skill value in the skill, if you say its HARD then it is always compared to an average type character.
Trivial = DC 0-5
Easy = DC 5-10
Normal = DC 10-15
Hard = DC 15-20
Etc
This works brilliantly if done that way! I think I will use this scale.
So, next to impossible skill checks by a character with a +30 in Acrobatics means they can do the almost impossible very confidently! :D
I like it.
Thanks!
|
|
@nosig: I don't think they want to conceal the difficulty, but they want to make the situation more conducive to the role play side, instead of the roll play side.
Sometimes, though, you gotta roll with the roll play, instead of trying to force everything into role play.
And that, I think, may explain when you give the DC, and when you give a general idea, and when it becomes a roll in the dark.
Common tasks would be roll play, where you give out the DC, along with explanations for why that broken down wooden wall is a DC 20 climb check instead of the expected DC 10...
Sometimes, they will only get a descr5iption of the stuff, and won't know for sure how difficult it is, "It looks like your average commoner could nail climbing this wall without any problems."
And, especially when the roll is opposed, they may not get any information until they either manage to sneak by the guard, or get stopped when moving.
Then again, some of the Perception modifiers for the guard should be fairly obvious if the PC looks, like if the guard looks bored or distracted, it should be obvious that it would be easier than if the guard is standing there alertly...
And, as nosig has pointed out, if you really want to do these things as role play, you have to make sure that the GM and players are working to the same basic assumptions in their role play.
"This looks like an easy climb." Looks and climb are well-defined. Easy needs to be clearly defined as to how it is being used by the GM:
"Easy" as a static definition, whether 6-10, or well within the capabilities of a zero level commoner; or as a PC-relative term, whre the GM knows that PC A is a high-Str fighetr with a +7 Climb skill, so a DC 15 climb is going to be easy for him, whereas that Cleric PC with breastplate, 12 STR and no ranks is going to find that same climb to be "near impossible", since his climb is at -5 or some such.
|
|
It is unlikely your take 10 on climb is a -2 as you would not have your tower shield equipped while climbing (its armor check penalty only applies when it is equipped), you will need to unstrap it from your back after the climb and equip it.
Strength 7, Full Plate, buckler gets close to -12, I think. Muleback cords for carrying capacity.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@nosig: I don't think they want to conceal the difficulty, but they want to make the situation more conducive to the role play side, instead of the roll play side.
Sometimes, though, you gotta roll with the roll play, instead of trying to force everything into role play.
It baffles me to think that someone's roleplaying could be hindered by hearing a number spoken aloud.
|
|
Easy answer, if the player could look up the DC in the rules there will never be an issue when stating what the DC is. This gets complicated when a scenario complicates things by providing an arbitrary DC which seems to include various circumstance modifiers (sometimes defined, sometimes not). As long as the character would be aware of the circumstances providing those modifiers, I think it's fair to call them out and give the total modified DC. As far as I'm concerned, unless the scenario states something providing a modifier is hidden from the PCs I'll assume they notice before the need to make a check.