Hence why I mention things like Bards ,sorcwrers, and mesmerists. Having a stupidly high Diplo with enchantment magic togther gets kinda painful...
|
Ehhh, I'm fine with enchantment magic making people do stuff they normally wouldn't. Magic should do something magical after all. My only problem with Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate is that there's no effective way to defend against it. The DCs are often only a challenge at very low level, and using diplomacy against a level 1 commoner is only slightly easier than using it on a Demigod.
Come on, man. Don't bring martials vs. casters into this...
Diplomacy should work extremely well as written, but making a hostile intelligent creature friendly isn't dominate. It just means he doesn't want to fight to the death in the end.
Who mentioned castwr vs.martial????
We were talking about stacking diplomacy and charm together. Diplomacy them, then charm them. That makes them very friendly with ya. And when the charm wears off, they return to their disposition before the charm, which is now friendly.
Or use dominate on say,.. a noble, then use diplomacy/bluff to convince the townsmen that he rightfully passed lordship to me for the best interest of the town and make myself very popular.... and when the dominate wears off, he can try and say he was dominated all he wants, but everyone believes me thanks to their friendly disposition and my stupid high bluff.
You know, things loke that xD.
|
|
Sorry, yeah. Didn't intend to bait people into the martial/caster debate, and rereading the post it does seem kind of baity. Mostly meant to say that I'm not a fan of the DCs for diplomacy, or any of the social skills really. They become trivial, and there's really now way to make them level appropriate challenges without just making stuff up.
EDIT - Pixie, it was me. I said I didn't magic doing something a skill couldn't.
Oh you should see me DM a Blue Dragon, doppleganger, or Kitsune BBEG... One game I legitmately managed to make my party look like paranoid and deranged villains because they assuming enchantment magic was at play and when they tried to demand the judge be "screened" there was no trace of enchantment magic on the judge. He was just diplomanced quite well by a "good friend" of the dominated lawyer before hand who, himself, was a shapechanged Blue Dragon in a disposable disguise (a quick, temporary disguise instead of his.other main disguise)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna go ahead and drop this here for people unhappy with diplomacy.
Edit: @Kalindlara+Pixie: Thank you kindly!
Just gonna go ahead and drop this here for people unhappy with diplomacy.
Fixd for ya..
Oh and if you want to.combine the two to throw people off, I had a Sorcerer dominate herself (technically.legal. nothing stopping the sorc from casting dominate person on herself), failed her own will save, then (when combined with her STUPIDLY high bluff skill) used it as cover from accussations of the party that she was dominating people. With the people in the town having a high opinion of her already (she already diplomanced the people of the town), and her bluff allowing her to lie and pretend she herself was dominated, the party were thrown for a loop lol.
It is was actually kinda fun and it really confused the party (they didnt know they failed the sense motive).
Oh im pretty good at playing an enchantment diplomancer lol.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is why the GM has to "win" by making the players "lose."GM doesnt have to "win"
But some players think because they have a skill, they should be able to use it at will.
this isnt how skills, powers, saves etc work.
the GM is the narrator, the GM will tell you when to roll.
NOT the player rolling to DO something.
GMs act, players REact.
If the gm says the ground falls away beneath you and you fall into the chamber below.
You dont say "I made my reflex save!" You dont know what a reflex save his...play your character.If the gm says the ground is crumbling beneath you, make a reflex save.
then you roll and tell him the result.If the gm says rocks fall everyone dies... you just know not to play with that gm anymore.
Yeah, if a player has a skill they should be able to use it. That's how their character is present in the world. all this GM handwaving just makes it look like the GM wants a captive audience for his fanfiction. Assuming I was interested, I'd still want to wait till it was written down and I could read it at my leisure.
The GMs act players react? Nope, wake me when we're playing.
I do this a lot.
I have a chart of average difficulty of DCs per level depending on highly invested skills or lowly invested skills. I use it to get a gist of how difficult something should be and kind of round it down to it's nears multiple of 5. Some things I don't do this for, like jumping, opposed checks or things that are easy to remember but there's a lot of skill DCs with a ton of variables that can alter it. I don't got time for all that I just want the game to go by. I'm not going to nickel and dime every minute detail and follow the rules exactly. I just have a chart that says how hard DCs are and just throw in a number based on, "That seems kinda hard but not impossible for someone without training, I'll make it DC 15 and hope for the best." This happens a lot with knowledge checks because no matter what the rules say sometimes you come across something that should have a high DC but everybody on the planet knows about so it's no real mystery, or something that should have a low DC but it only exists because of a hermit that didn't tell anybody. I'll arbitrarily add or subtract 5 or 10 to a DC for things like that.
If bounded accuracy from 5th edition has one thing going for it its that you can kinda guess what the DC should be without looking at anything. Then you can just throw around a fair enough number and things work out. In Pathfinder skill bonuses can be worthless or auto-win because there's this sense of either maxing it out or leaving it alone with nothing in between so sometimes I don't even bother and just say yes or no if it's trivial enough.
What I don't get is why the GM has to "win" by making the players "lose."GM doesnt have to "win"
But some players think because they have a skill, they should be able to use it at will.
this isnt how skills, powers, saves etc work.
the GM is the narrator, the GM will tell you when to roll.
NOT the player rolling to DO something.
GMs act, players REact.
If the gm says the ground falls away beneath you and you fall into the chamber below.
You dont say "I made my reflex save!" You dont know what a reflex save his...play your character.If the gm says the ground is crumbling beneath you, make a reflex save.
then you roll and tell him the result.If the gm says rocks fall everyone dies... you just know not to play with that gm anymore.
Yeah, if a player has a skill they should be able to use it. That's how their character is present in the world. all this GM handwaving just makes it look like the GM wants a captive audience for his fanfiction. Assuming I was interested, I'd still want to wait till it was written down and I could read it at my leisure.
The GMs act players react? Nope, wake me when we're playing.
what do the players see?
how do they know anything is there?
The Dm describes it.
It isnt there unless they Gm has told the players about it.
a player cant "go here and do this" unless it's THERE.
Players DONT say "I use my disable device skill to open that door"
the Gm hasnt said there is a door or a lock to open, yet.
The way this works is:
You walk down a hallway, its dark but there is light coming from a crack in what seems to be a door about 20 feet away.
"I approach the door quietly"
roll for stealth please.
You approach the door, what do you do now.
"Is the door locked?"
how are you checking the door, do you try to open it? do you feel the door? or are you trying to visually inspect the door?
"I look to see if it's locked"
are you using a light source?
"no"
roll perception.
there appears to be a lock mechanism, you cannot tell if it is locked or unlocked.
What do you do?
NOT:
"I walk up to the door, I roll a 22 stealth, and a 30 disable device"
Thats not how it works.
a floor can simply fall away.... a reflex check is required to see IF they sustain damage OR if they can avoid falling in.
BUT if they are in the room and the floor falls away, but no damage is sustained by anyone and there is no way to avoid falling in (its literally the whole floor, no hand holds or steps or anything to hang on to....then everyone falls in...no one takes damage, so there is NO NEED to make a reflex check.
Simple....the floor falls away, you are now in the chamber below.
No roll required.
for the things a player CAN change, alter or effect, they get a roll to determine success.
There are things they simply cannot effect.
the DM is the narrator...not the players.
What I don't get is why the GM has to "win" by making the players "lose."youve never run into goblins with levels in fighter before, have you?
I once got my azz handed to me by a NPCs mount...I didnt realize the horse was a animal companion of a high level NPC... I was trying to steal a horse to escape a castle and I was cracking guard skulls like a pro, but the horse captured me :/?
Your anecdotes have nothing to do with my statement.
If the Disable DCs go up by 20 as soon as someone gets Skill Focus and castles are suddenly made of solid adamantine the minute someone goes to destroy a door with their adamantine weapon, there's a major conflict at the table.
I don't care if the goblins have fighter levels. That's completely legit. I don't care if that one notable horse in the castle happens to be an animal companion. These are typical things that a party can deal with. That goblin fighter probably still gets wrecked by Color Spray. That horse can still be Handled with a DC25 check. If that goblin suddenly sprouts a +15 Will Save, though, that's where I have issues. The GM is trying to "win" the table, like it's poker or something, but the GM is more than a dealer.
IMO, there is no game that is simply "the GM's story" because the players' input is essential to a living world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what do the players see?
how do they know anything is there?
The Dm describes it.It isnt there unless they Gm has told the players about it.
You've managed to concoct the worst possible game play I can imagine. If the players can't make assumptions about your world, or offer options their character would take that you haven't thought of, then what's the point of pretending to play a game. This ignores the whole value of playing a pen and paper game over just playing video games.
A player should certainly be able to say "I sneak up the door check for traps and proceed to unlock it if I find not traps, here are my rolls."
I'd have my phone out after a few moments of that nonsense and some important things come up whenever other games were scheduled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people think that this is okay to do with skill checks? You would not be okay with it if it was for attack rolls or saves.One of my GMs actually does a lot of this. I just spam save-or-die effects.
I'd leave, but that would just result in another night spent at home alone...
Completely off topic...
I just discovered that you are also GM Tyrant Princess. You are awesome.
What I don't get is why the GM has to "win" by making the players "lose."youve never run into goblins with levels in fighter before, have you?
I once got my azz handed to me by a NPCs mount...I didnt realize the horse was a animal companion of a high level NPC... I was trying to steal a horse to escape a castle and I was cracking guard skulls like a pro, but the horse captured me :/?
Your anecdotes have nothing to do with my statement.
If the Disable DCs go up by 20 as soon as someone gets Skill Focus and castles are suddenly made of solid adamantine the minute someone goes to destroy a door with their adamantine weapon, there's a major conflict at the table.
I don't care if the goblins have fighter levels. That's completely legit. I don't care if that one notable horse in the castle happens to be an animal companion. These are typical things that a party can deal with. That goblin fighter probably still gets wrecked by Color Spray. That horse can still be Handled with a DC25 check. If that goblin suddenly sprouts a +15 Will Save, though, that's where I have issues. The GM is trying to "win" the table, like it's poker or something, but the GM is more than a dealer.
IMO, there is no game that is simply "the GM's story" because the players' input is essential to a living world.
i was simply pointing out it is VERY common to get all worked up as PCs when they cant EASILY defeat a goblin because it's "just a goblin"
goblin is a race. not a definition.
And you cant just "handle animal" someones AC, especially this one that ended up having a high intelligence.
The GM described Stables, I went in to steal a horse.
He asked which horse it take....Well heck, I take the BEST ONE!
"roll perception and...do you have handle animal?"
no but i have ride....
ok give me a ride check as well.
"there is one that is clearly the best one in the stable."
Sweet I take that one!
It just happened to have more AC and HPs than I did and dint want to be taken.
The Dm simply played an intelligent animal the way an intelligent animal would have acted.
I cant jump up and down and say "thats not fair"
Where would the NPCs animal companion BE? HIS bed chambers... or the ANIMAL chambers?
What does a smart intelligent horse look like?
well, it looks like "the best one!"
What does a goblin look like?
Small brown and dirty.
What does a 7th level goblin knife master look like?
small brown, confident and dirty.
what does a locked door look like?
could look like any door.
IRL a burglar breaks into your home....crap! But my doors were locked!
There are better locks and security systems that what you have... you can get better.
So if a PC broke into a place as a 1st level rogue, and then later tried to break in at 3rd level and now he cant... WTF the DM is crewing with the DCS!!
OR it could be a better lock and heightened security.
Take into consideration that the higher the pcs go in level the harder things are.
the fighters are no longer fighting 'mere' goblins anymore than the rogue is picking the lock at a mundane weapons locker to steal short swords and a spear.
so DCs will go up just like AC and Hp.
so unless you are talking about the rogue returning to his boy hood home and trying to break in.... then yes the DCs probably go up because the owner of the door his trying to keep more important stuff behind it.
the lock at the wells fargo is going to be tougher than the lock at the pawn shop.
PCs knowing what the Dc SHOULD be is just meta gaming.
Contributor
|
Why do people think that this is okay to do with skill checks? You would not be okay with it if it was for attack rolls or saves.One of my GMs actually does a lot of this. I just spam save-or-die effects.
I'd leave, but that would just result in another night spent at home alone...
Completely off topic...
I just discovered that you are also GM Tyrant Princess. You are awesome.
Thank you! ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have a fetchling shadow sorcerer who built for massive stealth (which I did once build lol) is getting noticed a lot, I am going to get annoyed. And funny thing is, it is easy to know your modifiers roughly. If I am getting a (20 invisibility+ 10 ranks+ 5 dex+ 2 racial+ 5 umbral ability+ 4 stealthy+ 6 skill focus) +52 to stealth before ever even rolling (this is assuming moving. If stationary it jumps to 72) and assuming and average of 10 roll for a total of 62 stealth at level 10 I know that, EVEN IF THEY ROLLED A PERFECT 20, they would need a perception of +42... that is not happening... and if im some ho getting regulairly detected, then imma be.pissed cuz your just making stuff up.out of nowhere...
|
Just remember that diplomacy still needs a minute of talking to work. You can be the best diplomancer in the world and any barbarian can still hit you over the head before you talk her into anything.Now granted... there is one skill set that honestly you may need to bumb up DCs to ensure no "autowin" and that Diplomacy/bluff/intimidate.
Diplomamancers can get very strong and rather hard to stop... especially when said Diplomamancer is something like a Mesmerist, bard, or socerer with heavy focus on enchantment type.magic. between the huge bonus to diplomacy and charm spella stacked togethwr... they can actually be damn near unstoppable...
I miss my old 3.5 human "vampire spawn monster class (thank u libris mortis)"", Disciple of Beezlebub. That was a nadty diplomancer.
Actually - with Skill Unlock, you can drop that down to a single round.
So - you could literally sneak into the room of the BBEG, jump out from behind of a pillar, and yell "BE MY FRIEND!" during the surprise round. And then... he is.
Congrats - you just won the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a lot of people have missed the OP's point. An illustration of it goes something like this:
DM: "You come to a 10' chasm across the tunnel."
Player: "Okay, I get a running start and get a 22."
DM: "I don't care what your skills are, what did you roll on the d20?"
Player: "Huh? Well I rolled a 12, but I have a +10 modifier."
DM: You fall into the chasm, you needed to roll a 15 or better on the die."
Player: "But the DC is only 10 for a 10'."
DM: "The DC is whatever I say it is because DRAMA dammit!"
Hm... I wonder what would be the highest diplomacy you can.pull off right now...
It seems a lot of people have missed the OP's point. An illustration of it goes something like this:
DM: "You come to a 10' chasm across the tunnel."
Player: "Okay, I get a running start and get a 22."
DM: "I don't care what your skills are, what did you roll on the d20?"
Player: "Huh? Well I rolled a 12, but I have a +10 modifier."
DM: You fall into the chasm, you needed to roll a 15 or better on the die."
Player: "But the DC is only 10 for a 10'."
DM: "The DC is whatever I say it is because DRAMA dammit!"
That was the point of.my sorcerer. If i got a +52 to stealth, there is no convievable way things are gonna notice me unlessbypur just ignoring my.modifiers...
I had a DM who really didn't care for players pumping their skills, saying it was unrealistic for character to never fail (at something they were experts at) to the point of enforcing consequences for rolling a 1 on skill checks.
He literally said "if you already have a +10 to your skill, then stop putting skill points in it."
i was simply pointing out it is VERY common to get all worked up as PCs when they cant EASILY defeat a goblin because it's "just a goblin"
goblin is a race. not a definition.
I don't disagree with that sentiment. That said, players who get "all worked up" should really be thinking "Wow, that's one heck of a goblin." However, just because a goblin or 5 goblins have class levels doesn't mean that all goblins have class levels, nor should they unless you have a very specific, story-driven reason for it. "The fighter one-shots normal goblins" is not a valid reason in most cases. Again, there's a difference between throwing an appropriate, challenging encounter at a party and throwing something that is exclusively designed to bypass character specialization across the board.
And you cant just "handle animal" someones AC, especially this one that ended up having a high intelligence.
Actually, you can. It's a push, the DC is 25, and you get it to perform a specific task. It takes a full round action, so it's not a sustainable thing most of the time, but when you start by making the animal perform the Exclusive trick, you get decent traction pretty quickly. Animal companions are not exempt from Handle Animal rules, but are, in fact, completely handled by them.
The GM described Stables, I went in to steal a horse.
He asked which horse it take....Well heck, I take the BEST ONE!
"roll perception and...do you have handle animal?"
no but i have ride....
ok give me a ride check as well."there is one that is clearly the best one in the stable."
Sweet I take that one!
It just happened to have more AC and HPs than I did and dint want to be taken.
You've brought up a situation where you went in over your head and lost the gambit - without Handle Animal, you didn't have a reasonable way to take care of business. That happens and, in fact, it's not that uncommon when you dive into a situation uninformed.
The Dm simply played an intelligent animal the way an intelligent animal would have acted.
I cant jump up and down and say "thats not fair"Where would the NPCs animal companion BE? HIS bed chambers... or the ANIMAL chambers?
What does a smart intelligent horse look like?
well, it looks like "the best one!"
"The best one" is probably the best groomed, which you can reasonably assume is a special one if it stands out. Everything the GM did in your story seemed reasonable. As such, it's not addressing the core complaint of the OP.
What does a goblin look like?
Small brown and dirty.
What does a 7th level goblin knife master look like?
small brown, confident and dirty.
Does that goblin look like he has better quality knives than the others around him? Perception, Craft: Weapons, even Kn. Local to recall that there's one of those in the area are all reasonable ways to determine a class leveled goblin. Maybe you heard by Diplomacy (gather info) in town. Just run into it? Then you'll certainly find out once it stabs your kidney harder than you expect a goblin to hit.
Again, though, once that bugger sprouts an attack bonus of "I hit the defensive specialist on a 5 and ignore all concealment/cover/invisibility/DR/buffs," that's when the problems start with design.
what does a locked door look like?
could look like any door.
"I, Disablo the Burglar, can unlock even the most well-built locks! I have challenged craftsmen the world over to best me with their designs and all have failed!"
*Suddenly, every lock in the world is DC of Disablo's Disable Device +15.*
IRL a burglar breaks into your home....crap! But my doors were locked!
There are better locks and security systems that what you have... you can get better.
So if a PC broke into a place as a 1st level rogue, and then later tried to break in at 3rd level and now he cant... WTF the DM is crewing with the DCS!!
OR it could be a better lock and heightened security.
Take into consideration that the higher the pcs go in level the harder things are.
Reasonable, for sure. If I can afford to purchase superior locks, that's absolutely fine. I would not expect every 15th level home to have a simple (DC 20) lock - I would expect Superior (40 - the highest listed DC in the CRB) or Good (30). If Disablo has a +35 Disable Device and literally every house immediately has a DC 50 lock, though, there's something wrong.
the fighters are no longer fighting 'mere' goblins anymore than the rogue is picking the lock at a mundane weapons locker to steal short swords and a spear.
so DCs will go up just like AC and Hp.
so unless you are talking about the rogue returning to his boy hood home and trying to break in.... then yes the DCs probably go up because the owner of the door his trying to keep more important stuff behind it.
the lock at the wells fargo is going to be tougher than the lock at the pawn shop.
PCs knowing what the Dc SHOULD be is just meta gaming.
And NPCs reacting to PC skill ranks is equally metagaming, unless they've succeeded at Knowledge checks appropriate to the players - probably along the lines of 9+HD (since player CR = HD-1) for each character. Players should equally be able to find out that there's been a run on high-quality locks at market, that adamantine is suddenly in vogue for certain non-weapon, non-armor things (which, btw, are not legal per CRB/UE).
Honestly, there is nothing terribly wrong with making up a few DC's as long as the thing in question is supposed to be difficult and there is some foundation for it in the rules. Disable Device is a particularly grievous example. Suppose you get that +40 to your check, now what happens? By standard rules, there are no more traps. As a result, that +40 bonus is useless. By making up an inflated DC, your bonus can actually do something.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think our boards have a consistency problem. While both the attitude expressed here ("Don't revise challenge levels to oppose PC investments, that defeats the point of investing") and the attitude expressed on other threads ("If your players are optimizing a lot, adjust encounters to keep challenging them") are good and valid concepts that I agree with, they don't exactly mesh, do they?
On the one hand, I want my players to feel like their build choices mean something.
On the other hand, optimizing is something they should only do to make their concept work. It shouldn't be used to get "better" at encounters—I mean, what benchmark are you even using to define "better"? If a level 3 alchemist is effectively level 7 because of his amazing build, I'm going to send CR 7 encounters against him (I'm putting the "mixed party" risks aside for now, since that's a whole other can). Encounters are supposed to be challenging. You can optimize to make your kooky sling-master viable, but you shouldn't bother optimizing to make your synthesist summoner the most powerful being on the battlefield. I'll just revise the battlefield. Instead of a flock of kobolds, you'll be facing a pack of troglodytes. The challenge sticks and your "winning"-geared optimization becomes a waste of time.
As such, I can understand why someone would "artificially" raise skill DCs so they're still challenging. I think it's misguided, but I don't think it's railroading. Actually, I think people are really doing the OP's GM a disservice here with their exaggerated examples. He's not making these tasks impossible. He's making them require decent rolls (15-20). Basically, he's trying to insert artificial challenge to keep things 'interesting'.
But skill checks aren't supposed to be interesting. Most of the time, they're supposed to be shortcuts. It's not graceful, but it's how the system is built. Screwing players out of their skill ranks is a very clumsy attempt at fixing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of upping the DCs, what if you simply required multiple checks? Of course, that only works if you have something present stressing out the PC so they can't Take Ten. And you need a proper reason for it requiring multiple checks.
Almost like the secret to making skill checks interesting is to put effort into it instead of increasing numbers.
As such, I can understand why someone would "artificially" raise skill DCs so they're still challenging. I think it's misguided, but I don't think it's railroading. Actually, I think people are really doing the OP's GM a disservice here with their exaggerated examples. He's not making these tasks impossible. He's making them require decent rolls (15-20). Basically, he's trying to insert artificial challenge to keep things 'interesting'.
But skill checks aren't supposed to be interesting. Most of the time, they're supposed to be shortcuts. It's not graceful, but it's how the system is built. Screwing players out of their skill ranks is a very clumsy attempt at fixing it.
It's is a balancing act, to be sure. I want to respect my player's choices to invest in a particular skill - but it's hard to pin down the reason behind their doing it that challenges me. Is it to "win the encounter"? or is it to realize a character? I prefer the latter, but have run into the former and do my best to not knee-jerk "up the DC to frak that guy!" when I GM.
Not always easy, especially when it trivializes encounters. Player: "Oh, that's a DC 25 trap? I'll just Take 10 on it." GM: S#&%!! I totally forgot his +15 + bonus on Disable Device! In game, it's too late. Prior to the game, however, I will make sure to put in a few DC 28+ traps. How else does the Player get to experience any value in investing in their skill if it becomes a mere hand-waving "yeah, your success is automatic, so let's just move on" unless they get a chance to roll every now and then?
Instead of upping the DCs, what if you simply required multiple checks? Of course, that only works if you have something present stressing out the PC so they can't Take Ten. And you need a proper reason for it requiring multiple checks.
Almost like the secret to making skill checks interesting is to put effort into it instead of increasing numbers.
I support that idea. Skills, in particular, are an area of the system that I think are poorly designed and lead GMs to odd or bad choices. You can see this in a lot of PFS scenarios, in particular, where DC 25 trained-only skill checks are success conditions for levels 3-4. Why that high? Because they didn't scale it down from the 6-7 subtier.
Ultimately, while this game is about numbers, many of those numbers are made irrelevant by circumstance and tactics. Your 30' move speed on land means nothing when you're fighting underwater or while flying, or if you have to climb to reach the battlefield. The DC to unlock a door hardly matters when you have an adamantine weapon and didn't care about stealth in the first place. These are regular challenges from levels 3-5 in many campaigns. Simply making the DCs on skill checks higher pushes people towards all the things that avoid those rolls, especially spells.
Instead of upping the DCs, what if you simply required multiple checks? Of course, that only works if you have something present stressing out the PC so they can't Take Ten. And you need a proper reason for it requiring multiple checks.
Almost like the secret to making skill checks interesting is to put effort into it instead of increasing numbers.
Except that doesn't work vs +40 because they'll automatically pass it anyways.
If I have a fetchling shadow sorcerer who built for massive stealth (which I did once build lol) is getting noticed a lot, I am going to get annoyed. And funny thing is, it is easy to know your modifiers roughly. If I am getting a (20 invisibility+ 10 ranks+ 5 dex+ 2 racial+ 5 umbral ability+ 4 stealthy+ 6 skill focus) +52 to stealth before ever even rolling (this is assuming moving. If stationary it jumps to 72) and assuming and average of 10 roll for a total of 62 stealth at level 10 I know that, EVEN IF THEY ROLLED A PERFECT 20, they would need a perception of +42... that is not happening... and if im some ho getting regulairly detected, then imma be.pissed cuz your just making stuff up.out of nowhere...
some tables a 20 on a skill check is a "crit" as in automatic success.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a lot of people have missed the OP's point. An illustration of it goes something like this:
DM: "You come to a 10' chasm across the tunnel."
Player: "Okay, I get a running start and get a 22."
DM: "I don't care what your skills are, what did you roll on the d20?"
Player: "Huh? Well I rolled a 12, but I have a +10 modifier."
DM: You fall into the chasm, you needed to roll a 15 or better on the die."
Player: "But the DC is only 10 for a 10'."
DM: "The DC is whatever I say it is because DRAMA dammit!"
how do you know that is what happened?
how does the PC know what the DC is? Meta gaming?
MORE often than not, its usually a player who has managed to memorize stuff in the rule books. "I got a 17, so I hit the goblin because goblins only have a 12 ac"
the character doesnt KNOW that stuff.... its out of game knowledge.
its also interesting to me the same people who insist its only a DC 10 to jump a chasm also completely ignore encumbrance.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
its also interesting to me the same people who insist its only a DC 10 to jump a chasm also completely ignore encumbrance.
To be fair, encumbrance isn't a secret. It's completely on the PCs' side of the screen. They should be taking it into account on their character sheets.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once played a powerful sorcerer who specialized in enchantment effects. If I remember correctly, CR-appropriate enemies should have failed their strong saves 80% of the time against certain spells.
Except they didn't. In fact, in the entire history of the character, only one minor enemy of no consequence ever failed the save against the spell I had focused on.
I realized after a few games that it was because the GM was fudging the rolls, which he denied. My character ended up being universally reviled by the other characters (and their players) in the party because they all saw my extremely powerful build as "completely useless."
Never again will I abide by such shenanigans. It totally wrecks the fun. I'm with better people now.
i was simply pointing out it is VERY common to get all worked up as PCs when they cant EASILY defeat a goblin because it's "just a goblin"
goblin is a race. not a definition.
I don't disagree with that sentiment. That said, players who get "all worked up" should really be thinking "Wow, that's one heck of a goblin." However, just because a goblin or 5 goblins have class levels doesn't mean that all goblins have class levels, nor should they unless you have a very specific, story-driven reason for it. "The fighter one-shots normal goblins" is not a valid reason in most cases. Again, there's a difference between throwing an appropriate, challenging encounter at a party and throwing something that is exclusively designed to bypass character specialization across the board.
And you cant just "handle animal" someones AC, especially this one that ended up having a high intelligence.Actually, you can. It's a push, the DC is 25, and you get it to perform a specific task. It takes a full round action, so it's not a sustainable thing most of the time, but when you start by making the animal perform the Exclusive trick, you get decent traction pretty quickly. Animal companions are not exempt from Handle Animal rules, but are, in fact, completely handled by them.
You've brought up a situation where you went in over your head and lost the gambit - without Handle Animal, you didn't have a reasonable way to take care of business. That happens and, in fact, it's not that uncommon when you dive into a situation uninformed....The GM described Stables, I went in to steal a horse.
He asked which horse it take....Well heck, I take the BEST ONE!
"roll perception and...do you have handle animal?"
no but i have ride....
ok give me a ride check as well."there is one that is clearly the best one in the stable."
Sweet I take that one!
It just happened to have more AC and HPs than I did and dint want to be taken.
just because your 15th level would necessarily mean ALL your locks are DC 40 either.
I mean a 15th level fighter retired, living in hamlet somewhere probably doesnt even HAVE locks... who is going to steal from him? Someone with a death wish?
this is a basic misunderstanding most players have with the whole "wealth by level" nonsense that was created and broke many aspects of the game long ago,
Everything doesnt (and wouldnt) scale with level in an actual organic world.
If you are roleplaying, it should be a game like zelda where you are stopped at a certain line and cant go forward until you "level" up.
10th level fighters may very well engage a swarm of goblins they can one shot.
1st level fighters may be captured and held for ransom by an ogre magi.
Things exist for reasons and purposes outside the players existence.
If the pcs all committed suicide right now, there would still be a dragon living in thta mountain, the curio shop would still have three potions of sale and there would still be a damsel in distress.
why does s&*# happen?
because the DM says so.
its raining, its sunny, this lock has an unbelievably high DC and that halfling can see your shadow tiefling....
WHY?
I dunno, go find out out.
If it IS "because I say so" and the DM is running a monty haul/twilight zone mashup.... then you have to decide if you want to play in that campaign.
BUT more often than not, we are talking about rules lawyering players, and I have high suspicions that this thread is on about exactly that.
|
Contributor
|
I once played a powerful sorcerer who specialized in enchantment effects. If I remember correctly, CR-appropriate enemies should have failed their strong saves 80% of the time against certain spells.
Except they didn't. In fact, in the entire history of the character, only one minor enemy of no consequence ever failed the save against the spell I had focused on.
I realized after a few games that it was because the GM was fudging the rolls, which he denied. My character ended up being universally reviled by the other characters (and their players) in the party because they all saw my extremely powerful build as "completely useless."
Never again will I abide by such shenanigans. It totally wrecks the fun. I'm with better people now.
I've had similar worries about a couple of campaigns - RotRL especially.
My solution? Talk to the player, and ask him/her to play something else.
If I have an issue with a concept, I tell the player in advance. I don't jerk them around and negate their concept.
I'll fudge, under very rare circumstances. In Carrion Crown, I started rolling save-or-dies in front of the players, and it's been a big hit... much more exciting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once played a powerful sorcerer who specialized in enchantment effects. If I remember correctly, CR-appropriate enemies should have failed their strong saves 80% of the time against certain spells.
Except they didn't. In fact, in the entire history of the character, only one minor enemy of no consequence ever failed the save against the spell I had focused on.
I realized after a few games that it was because the GM was fudging the rolls, which he denied. My character ended up being universally reviled by the other characters (and their players) in the party because they all saw my extremely powerful build as "completely useless."
Never again will I abide by such shenanigans. It totally wrecks the fun. I'm with better people now.
This might be part of the issue. No, it probably IS the issue.
What is fun for you or another player might be building something that utterly dominates/destroys/rules over the game. You can do tremendous damage, never fail any skill check, your spell works most if not all the time.
The game for others and/or the GM at that point often can be less fun; it becomes watching Bob do X. Wow. Another guy charmed. Another skill test blown out of the water. Look, you killed everything in one attack. Someone wake me when or if it is my turn.
Wrecking fun happens both ways too. I'm not saying the GM is right or wrong to change the DCs; rather, I'm suggesting that some GMs may do this to try to cling to a semblance of game balance or fun for other people or themselves. Something that is mostly fun for everyone involved rather than 100% fun for one person.
There are better ways to do it, most of which should happen before the game starts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once played a powerful sorcerer who specialized in enchantment effects. If I remember correctly, CR-appropriate enemies should have failed their strong saves 80% of the time against certain spells.
Except they didn't. In fact, in the entire history of the character, only one minor enemy of no consequence ever failed the save against the spell I had focused on.
I realized after a few games that it was because the GM was fudging the rolls, which he denied. My character ended up being universally reviled by the other characters (and their players) in the party because they all saw my extremely powerful build as "completely useless."
Never again will I abide by such shenanigans. It totally wrecks the fun. I'm with better people now.
Ah yes, the sort of DM who looks on baffled and pink from behind his DM screen as you declare "There isn't a save versus that spell, it's automatic."
|
I've played games where the gm didn't fudge the dcs and enemies very ofte rolled 15+ and passed their saves. It is frustrating.
also I have played where my amazing sniper character couldn't hit a thing with his gun, but in melee he was unstoppable. Dice are random and combat is quick, you might not get average results.
I've played with GM of the arbitrary school, but not anymore since it is not very fun.
If a player expects npcs to be low level they should be surprised. The more successful the more likely they will be higher lvl. I start npcs at lvl 5 then adjust up or down based on age and experience, switching to PC classes if they are very successful. If it is a planned combat I use the cr encounter guide lines (npcs can be rough at low levels with their extra hit dice for their cr).
Locks can be enhanced with magic, or could just be fake; Perhaps it is an illusion. There are many possibilities the world should be exciting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the OP (who hasn't chimed back into this thread with more details, so going off the first post). If the DM is using impossible DC's (as in made-up after you roll and tell him what you got), foregone conclusions, and impassible obstacles to keep the party following the story, just point out those times when this type of storytelling strains verisimilitude.
Like:
DM: "You see a 50 foot pit with wicked spikes on the bottom. The skeleton of some hapless adventurer is impaled upon the spikes."
Player1: "How do we know it is an adventurer?"
DM" Uhhhh... moldering remains of adventuring gear cling to the skeleton... So anyways, back to the story..."
Player2: "I fly down there and cast detect magic, The corpse must have some amazing gear if he got this far in."
Player1: "Grab the skull so I can cast legend lore on it. This person must have been a rogue of some renown. Considering he had to have bypassed and reset all the traps and illusions that we did. Because there is only one entrance. He certainly didn't go through any of the doors that are adamantium and welded shut that so carefully guided us along this glorious path."
DM: "None of the items are magic. So back to the story..."
Player3: "That doesn't make any sense. Not even a chime of opening or some magic thieve's tools? There is no way a lowbie schlub made the check to see the invisible entrance door, then managed to deactivate and reset that trap (I barely made it at +20) picked the lock, and survived the disintegration effects that beset us at every wrong turn. You know what this means -- there has to be another entrance."
DM: "No! The legends are very specific: There is only one way into and out of the tower of ultimate doom. So, back to the story..."
Player2: "No way. We simply have to know who this person was. He or she must have had a pivotal role in the lore of this dungeon. Each of us has trained to be experts in our particular area, yet this dungeon (like every one in your world) has has challenge us like were were still first level. And this poor soul made it farther than we have so far, apparently with no magic gear. We will need to delve into how he or she was able to do this because it is all about the story man."
Player1: "Yeah, how could I possibly take another step when the body a legendary adventurer needs to be laid to rest? I assume you are going to have full details when we do legend lore."
If your DM is of the "participatory fanfic masquerading as a game type, and you call him on it in-character and in the context of the story then he either has to come up with something to salvage the story line or retro out the element that made you call shenanigans.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A character who aims to be the "Greatest Safecracker In The Universe", maxes out their Disable Device, takes the Rogue Talent to be able to take 10 on Disable Device even when stressed or distracted, skill focus disable device and on top of that has Fast Disable.
No mundane lock on the material plane should be able to stop him, even an Arcane Lock should be a joke for such a character.
So when he's busting into a safe, and the GM says: "You need a 15+ to succeed". I'd have to wonder: Who designed this safe with a DC greater than 50?
And then inside is nothing more valuable than this apparently nigh uncrackable lock. Steal the lock, apparently it's far more valuable.
I don't know. There are other more narrative games where narrative imperative trumps the simulation, FATE, Spirit of the Century and its kind.
But Pathfinder isn't by nature a narrativist game, and it can be frustrating when transparent rules are made opaque for the sense of "drama".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that doesn't work vs +40 because they'll automatically pass it anyways.Instead of upping the DCs, what if you simply required multiple checks? Of course, that only works if you have something present stressing out the PC so they can't Take Ten. And you need a proper reason for it requiring multiple checks.
Almost like the secret to making skill checks interesting is to put effort into it instead of increasing numbers.
Why are you even presenting DC <42 skill checks as an encounter? That's like asking someone to roll to open a door.
No, that's just background noise. The real test comes across when the guy with the +40 Acrobatics comes across the two-hundred foot glass wall. The only way up is to jump to the nearest platform twelve feet up. Then the platform after that. Then five more. Then you have to jump onto the back of a roc gliding on thermals (don't ask me why he's there, maybe you're up in the mountains). Now you're jumping up these platforms with an angry roc chasing you, rushing you. And so on.
You give people with heroic skills heroic tasks to complete. That's called encounter design.
Back to the OP (who hasn't chimed back into this thread with more details, so going off the first post). If the DM is using impossible DC's (as in made-up after you roll and tell him what you got), foregone conclusions, and impassible obstacles to keep the party following the story
He's not. People have weirdly gotten fixated on the idea that the GM is setting impossible tasks and/or railroading. He's doing neither of those things. He's creating artificial "challenge" by setting skill DCs to be 15+highest skill bonus in the party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the OP (who hasn't chimed back into this thread with more details, so going off the first post). If the DM is using impossible DC's (as in made-up after you roll and tell him what you got), foregone conclusions, and impassible obstacles to keep the party following the story, just point out those times when this type of storytelling strains verisimilitude.
Like: ...
Ah, the ol "derail the game" solution. The answer to that, for GMs listening and wondering what oh what to do, is to respond "Maybe all his magical gear was stolen some time ago. Perhaps by the rest of the party that made it past here. Of course, you have no way to know. Moving on, Legend Loring, or do you guys need a break for a few moments?"
GMs being annoying are not cool. Players doing it are also not cool.