GM creates Artificial DCs on the spot.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I play in a home game where the GM is very fair-minded (Most of the time). However there are times when the GM wants to up the challenge of the situation for I guess what they would call "story" or "drama". During these times the GM will adjust a DC to what he feels is a challenge for our characters. In practice this means taking account of our modifiers and setting the DC such that we can only succeed on a die roll of 15 or better.

What I find unfair about this is it completely ignores all of the choices and investments the player has made to improve that particular roll. For example if a player has Skill Focus, the bonus is disregarded because the number you have to roll on the die with or with out the feat is still 15. So while the feat helped get the player through many trials earlier in the game, when it comes to a time of "drama" say a "Boss Fight" the feat is not really beneficial at a time when the player probably needs it the most.

For the most part I've been quite about it and just been going along with it. What I would like to know is;

Does anyone else do this type of thing when they GM?

How common is this kind of thing in other/your home games?

If you witnessed this as a player what is the right thing to do?

PS: I'm not sure how many of the other players, if any, are bothered by this practice.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a bad approach. Some GMs won't understand or care because they prefer their conception of drama. I would approach the GM and articulate this in exactly the same way and explain it a non-confrontational manner. It may not fix things; but I think it's perfectly appropriate to explain.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Arbitrary rule rewriting is bad. This is a game of numbers- you need to have an idea of what to expect when going into a fight in order to make plans. Builds (such as ones that bother to get skill focus) depend on that predictability.

You can buff thing to make it harder, obviously. Doing a buff spell to up the boss's saves, or maybe DCs. But that requires a particular resource (a spell) and you can understand that it was used. And having the ability to buff (or having an ally that can do a buff) is accounted for in the encounter's CR.

Now... there are ways to have drama and bullcrap moves. I say make it part of the story.

Why not have monsters that are blessed by an evil, cheating bastard of a god? Give them something similar to mythic (without actually opening that can of worms) where they have a resource that lets them just rewrite their rules.

Lets say they have a 1/day rewrite ability that can change practically anything. Give them +100 hp so they can extend the fight. Give them a single instant reroll with +10 to the save. How about a troll that suddenly gets fire immunity? How about they suddenly get grab, or maybe they get a new kind of movement? A one time use SLA of an appropriate level?

Imagine what kind of havoc such creatures could bring. Any kingdom would be hard pressed to defeat a beast that can suddenly eliminate any weakness it has during a fight. This would require some powerful and highly adaptabile heroes to defeat it. This could easily be the stuff of legends.

And while yes, this makes prediction hard...it actually does so in a predictable manner. The players know that the monster can only pull his junk off once, and then it is spent. They also know that if they beat it down in one way, the rewrite will be used to counter that method... so having a back up plan would be extremely useful since you know it is not going to be avoided as easily once the rewrite is gone.

This can make things fairly interesting. The instant 'I win' moves like the slumber or ice tomb hexes cannot end the fight instantly anymore... but they are still major advantages since they can force the enemy to use their rewrite for the day. And while this could make specialists in things like enchantment get screwed over since the creature could get an immunity (or at least a sizable save bonus) to such effects... it also means that you can VERY easily scare the creature into prematurely using its rewrite.


Is the DM upping the XP rewards to reflect the higher challenge? He should. It is just like slapping the Advanced template on a monster on the fly when you are worried the basic monster won't make the party break a sweat -- it increases the CR by 1 and the XP should be adjusted accordingly.

On the fly adjustment of DC has its place, but it should serve the story and it is just as likely a DM will need to adjust down as up. Like when you set the DC of the lock on the only entrance to the dungeon so that the party rogue has a 80% chance to pick it, but when they actually get there the rogue doesn't have cat's grace up and the party bard is out of performance rounds and so can't inspire competence. If you didn't intend that single skill check to be a stopper that turns the party back and prevents them from entering the tomb you spent weeks designing, then you might want to fudge the DC and just let them in. The way I try to avoid this: When setting the DC for important skill checks I don't assume any non-constant modifiers (spells, on-use or expendable items, rounds of inspire competence, etc.) will be in play. If the party chooses to use those resources, then they have an easier time.

One thing you might point out to your DM: By bumping the DC to the point where the character who has spent skill ranks and feats to be very good at that roll has a slim chance of succeeding, he has ensured that no one else in the party has any chance whatsoever. What you wind up with is a party like: "He is our perception guy. He is the one who can notice stuff. The rest of us blunder around like naked mole rats, we didn't even train perception because we can't be good enough to beat the ever-increasing DC it takes to see and hear stuff in this world and still be good at the other stuff, so we leave that to the perception guy and hope he can point all the threats out."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont have an issue with modifying the DC as player or GM as long as it is situational and used sparingly. If it was becoming a pattern of shutting down a particular PCs talent, I'd probably speak up about it. Respectfully and constructively of course.

These types of things should be discussed as a group. The GM could be unaware of the impact or the PC might have stumbled onto something that makes the game a bit trivial. If a GM insists on ramping up challenges or shutting down talents frequently without good reason as a playstyle, I may excuse myself from their game. If a player insists on becoming a hyper specialized hammer and treat every game challenge as a nail, I'll choose not game with them. Ultimately, it comes down to playstyle, and I dont have time for folks who are inflexible.

Some folks might want a straight up RAW interpretation of the game and thats A-ok too. I would advise you to be aware that folks might differ on the subject and you may have to find some common ground. Usually folks can work it out and get back to the fun but occasionally the grounds too far to cover. Dont get upset, dont get incendiary, just be real about it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't personally do it and (these days) glare at the GM if I suspect them of doing it.

My first 3.5 GM did it and it was baffling and confusing. I'd roll and he'd ask what I got on the dice, when I tried to add my modifiers he'd tell me no, just the dice. It was... bad. Very very bad. Worse, he usually played this up as a good thing. He was "allowing" me to do things I wouldn't otherwise be capable of doing.

The solution, like most interpersonal problems, is "Sit down and discuss it like reasonable people". Open with your concerns, that it's invalidating build choices by scaling up. Players who focus on something should have an easier time at it, not make it harder for everyone else. And in regards to that, be sure to include the gap between the highest and lowest players and explain how nobody but the highest player can contribute. You can also point to the suggestions for favorable/unfavorable conditions and note that they're only +2/-2, not "scale to whatever the highest player is".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate it, because why invest in skills if the DC is 15+highest? If we all sit at 0 for all the skills things would be just as hard as if we had all 20's. And thus why play a skills class? Might as well play the 7 int fighter and just smack the things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Setting an invisible 25% wall on a campaign makes sense as a guide to keep you guys more plot focused, but if it is to proceed in the story the DC should be more like a 75% chance to succeed just to avoid the "well the rogue couldn't unlock the door" roadblock. It's not a bad thing, but it is very ham fisted. GM's already are expected to adjust DCs to meet the party and story needs.

I would just be happy he doesn't say "no you can't do that" or just narrates an event no save no roll.


This is something I mostly see with DMs who have a planned solution to problems, or used to protect a GMPC's skill set; mostly for turning off diplomacy and creative solutions. For me, the best road seems to be moving away from actions that require checks, but I'd rather play the game than the DM.

I've never found a solution that didn't result in pouting.


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.


Personally, I don't think it's good to do with anything. Massively high skill check rolls should result in a ridiculous use of skills; rather than skills DCs being adjusted to the party. It shouldn't be harder to do diplomacy, the better you get at it. But a someone with a high high diplomacy modifier should be able to bring tables down for peace negotiations.

Silver Crusade Contributor

thorin001 wrote:
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...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I hate it, because why invest in skills if the DC is 15+highest? If we all sit at 0 for all the skills things would be just as hard as if we had all 20's. And thus why play a skills class? Might as well play the 7 int fighter and just smack the things.

Yeah, when the DC is always "Roll 15 or better on the dice" you might as well not bother having character sheets at all. What your character's skills or abilities are doesn't matter, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
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...

Sounds reasonable.....


It can definitely be an issue if this is common. By "adjust a DC" I'm going to assume you mean in a highly disadvantageous manner to the PCs. Assuming you're outside PFS (this is a home game) a good GM will be building the campaign around your characters. This will include some hand-waving to keep numbers challenging (15 or above to succeed on anything is definitely what I'd call distasteful - is it a new GM? Sometimes it just takes a while to get a good feel for things).

Personally if I have something which is new to the setting, or which the PCs have no reason to know I will meta-game and look at their sheets for numbers inspiration involving knowledge checks. When doing so I'm usually striving to hit a balance where the heavily-invested characters (like those with skill focus in your example), have what I consider to be a reasonable chance of deducing things about the "mystery thing" given their extreme knowledge of that field of study without breaking the encounter. For some things the DC might just be "roll a 20." Those without at least some specialization are unlikely to make the DC in either event.

To offset this I try and build such encounters into the plot such that characters can glean helpful information well in advance of the fight (usually either lowering the DC, or giving outright knowledge of certain special abilities. Occasionally if they're doing really well this will even include specific anti-plot-thing items) by doing well along the way.

Other than knowledge checks I don't fudge much; skills are inherently limited compared to magic and for the most part don't break the system. The few which can (like intimidate) I have house-rules for which are explained in advance of character creation. Guns are the only thing which really breaks the attack system, and I similarly have house-rules for them.


We have a DM who does this, I suspect. I think it's due to an emphasis on the way the mechanics works, in his case - he regards making a high skill roll to avoid or defeat an encounter as "too easy" (since it's just one die roll, as opposed to the large number of successes required in a combat). We've spoken about it, and he doesn't seem to put much store in the argument that I've put lots of resources into those aspects of my character so the "cost" is significantly more than just a die roll.

It does tend to remove any incentive to be good at anything other than combat, since when we create characters focused on stealth, diplomacy, lore or whatever we end up facing pretty much the same combat challenges but being worse at fighting.

It doesnt't really bother me, but if you can't see eye to eye, I guess one solution would be to focus on combat characters in that DM's games.

At our table, I've tried including scenarios where non combat options are clearly superior in the hope of demonstrating that the world won't end if an encounter is resolved with just one die roll (or even just by roleplaying). However, that kind of DM tends to build combat-only characters anyhow, so I haven't really managed to make the point yet.


I love made up DCs and prefer it that way.

Needing a 15 or higher is super silly.


In the game I GM I alter the DC of skill checks if I think the DC or situation is nonsensical. For example, a house rule I have is that if you fail by 5 or less on a check to break something (usually a door, in the case of my players) the DC gets reduced by 5 for the next check to represent the fact that you might not have broken it but you probably did some damage to it.

The other time when I'll eyeball a DC is if the method for determining the actual DC is very mathy (Stealth vs. Perception when you account for distance, concealment, environmental conditions, etc.) and the players don't want to have the pace of play interrupted by my performing a bunch of arithmetic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a big bad appear early in the game
5th level Black Guard (in the days before anti paladin in this edition)

he was there only for drama and foreshadowing purposes.
PCs were 1st level and this was the first combat.... goblins and skeletons conjured by the blackguard.

PC paladin walked around the skeletons and two handed a longsword into the blackguard on a confirmed crit with a smite evil.
Pc finished the blackguard off on her next turn.
Two attacks, Big bad for the entire chapter was dead.

We're talking about a 1st level PC with padded armor and a mundane longsword.

they were supposed to go onto the castle to investigate why the "lord" was allowing this stuff to go on unabated in his hamlet.
the lord WAS the blackguard.

I had to invent a vampire and rewrite to make the blackguard a lieutenant.
Everything after that was much harder for the PCs because the power level was adjusted to reflect there were things more powerful than the first encounter....

Especially considering the PC took the Blackguards +2 Flail and MAsterwork full plate from him.

You SURE its a bad idea to fudge difficulty for the proper effect and just just let dice rolling tule everything?
what about saving PCs from utter destruction?
Oh well you all failed your saving throw...the dragon spend the next few weeks eating all your charred bodies... dont worry it will only take a littel over a year to get your new characters back up to 13th level...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not let them have an unexpected victory or loss. Running the next session with a new party searching through the scarce remains and effects of the previous isn't so bad. It worked great in Futurama anyway.

I much prefer that the players feel at risk in encounters than protected. They should believe they could die, and know that maybe it's best to run sometimes. you can't do that if they're always rescued by some last minute DMing. They should definitely feel like their actions can change the story.

Out of curiosity, what would have happened in the story if the big bad had died? Power vacuum or something?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's a difference between the occasional GM Fudging to continue the narrative, and playing Mother May I?

You and the other players need to speak to your GM, and make it clear that you would prefer to use static DCs, because you want your skill investments to matter, especially during dramatic scenes. Not everyone is going to be great at every skill, so there will still be drama if even one or two players have it in the bag.

Make it clear that this is impacting your enjoyment of the campaign, and that he as a GM might find it more interesting to find new ways to challenge the heroes using the rules as written, rather than changing skill DCs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

I had a big bad appear early in the game

5th level Black Guard (in the days before anti paladin in this edition)

he was there only for drama and foreshadowing purposes.
PCs were 1st level and this was the first combat.... goblins and skeletons conjured by the blackguard.

PC paladin walked around the skeletons and two handed a longsword into the blackguard on a confirmed crit with a smite evil.
Pc finished the blackguard off on her next turn.
Two attacks, Big bad for the entire chapter was dead.

We're talking about a 1st level PC with padded armor and a mundane longsword.

they were supposed to go onto the castle to investigate why the "lord" was allowing this stuff to go on unabated in his hamlet.
the lord WAS the blackguard.

I had to invent a vampire and rewrite to make the blackguard a lieutenant.
Everything after that was much harder for the PCs because the power level was adjusted to reflect there were things more powerful than the first encounter....

Especially considering the PC took the Blackguards +2 Flail and MAsterwork full plate from him.

You SURE its a bad idea to fudge difficulty for the proper effect and just just let dice rolling tule everything?
what about saving PCs from utter destruction?
Oh well you all failed your saving throw...the dragon spend the next few weeks eating all your charred bodies... dont worry it will only take a littel over a year to get your new characters back up to 13th level...

As a revolutionary idea, how about not throwing a creature at the party and expecting the creature to without a doubt survive.

There was no reason you had to send the frigging BBEG at the players from the get go. You could have used a lieutenant instead. Someone non-critical If the players beat him, then great. They get some cool gear, the final confrontation becomes a little easier, and you give the smiting player a round of applause for killing a guy who is clearly well above the party's capabilities. The party feels good at being that bad ass, and you don't have to restructure the entire campaign or fudge the dice, because you planned the entire thing acknowledging the possibility that the PCs might surprise you.

As for using a dragon on the party, do you actually have any examples where that sort of thing could happen. The party should be able to take 1 or 2 breath attacks before getting dropped, even on a failed save. If the party is acting like idiots and getting shredded by the dragon, that's on them. If you don't like the idea of a dangerous highly intelligent foe doing it's best to kill the PCs, then don't throw a dangerous highly intelligent foe at the PCs. Or come up with a reason why it wouldn't kill them. Maybe it's a Green Dragon or a dragon who knows Geas or Dominate Person(or has a servant who can cast it), and it has some dirty work it can compel the PC to perform. But for god's sake don't make the PCs fail. Then they have every right to call you out for removing any sort of actual choice or challenge for the PCs. Most players don't like it when they will definitely succeed or fail regardless of their actions or the dice, and they will succeed or fail how ever you want them to, choice be damned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The DM ignoring the skilllevel of a character means that it plainly isnt worth investing ANYTHING into skills at all.

This impacts high-skill classes massively in a greeatly negative way, and makes casters the top problemsolvers even more.

Why bother
* having anything above INT 7
* playing a high-skill classes
* maxing a skill
* spending gold for a magic skillitem
* blocking an Item Slot with a skillitem
and then being as competent as the allways-slightly-slobbering Fighter with a droopy eye in the situations when it really matters?

--> this is bad DMing!


Guru-Meditation wrote:

The DM ignoring the skilllevel of a character means that it plainly isnt worth investing ANYTHING into skills at all.

This impacts high-skill classes massively in a greeatly negative way, and makes casters the top problemsolvers even more.

Why bother
* having anything above INT 7
* playing a high-skill classes
* maxing a skill
* spending gold for a magic skillitem
* blocking an Item Slot with a skillitem
and then being as competent as the allways-slightly-slobbering Fighter with a droopy eye in the situations when it really matters?

--> this is bad DMing!

Now now...you want skill points so you can be trained in a bunch of skills.

And then never put more than that single skill point into each skill since the checks scale precisely with how many skill points you have.

So having a bunch of skill points becomes a "gotta catch 'em all!" sort of deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a lot of the people on this thread have much GM experience. Keeping players from blowing up your plans is hard, especially on a module or as a new GM, and the first reaction a lot of GMs have is to immediately say "you can't do that". Offering a arbitrarily high DC skill roll is a big improvement from there, though there are still better things to do to keep players on the invisible railroad.

Honestly, people should read some of the good GMing advice out there like The Lazy DM, or the 5e DMG, or Dungeon World, or Dogs in the Vineyard. TBH, I didn't read the Gasmastering Guide, but from what I've seen it's pretty much rules to handle specific things again and not much about building a co-operative story and what to do when the players and GM reach an impasse. I also recommend checking out something like Critical Role where Matt Mercer puts DMs to shame by running a smooth game with lots of individual attention for 8 players.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've been GMing for over 12 years.

I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion; I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like [chokes up] tears... in... rain. Time... to die.

Erm... I mean, arbitrary DCs are doing the opposite of what this GM wants them to do. Instead of increasing the tension of the moment and letting the players feel more in character, it's making them feel like their choices don't matter at all.

A game isn't a railroad, even a railroady one. If the players do something unexpected you improvise, using the rules as a springboard. The GM in this case is hurting his game by being arbitrary when there are some simple fixes he could make that wouldn't negate player and character choices.


I agree, which is why I suggested GM resources to help with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have plenty of GM experience (unfortunately). I'm guessing lots of other people in this thread do as well, given that they're talking about what they do when they GM (and apparently how awesome it is being a robot). Keeping players from blowing up plans in a module is super easy. If you don't already have something prepared, you tell them "the module doesn't seem to have considered that. Do you want to take some time figuring out what should happen or are you okay just ignoring it?" Setting an arbitrarily high DC that the players can't make is just being dishonest when you could just tell them "no". Setting an arbitrarily high DC that one of the players can make on a lucky roll means you're right back where you started, with no idea what the @#$% to do, should the player make that lucky roll.

If you really think it's poor GMing to use the fixed numbers provided by the book and numbers derived from actual stats and skill points instead of scaling every challenge the party faces to the member with the highest modifier for that challenge, I have to disagree. Vehemently. Someone who puts skill points into a skill wants to be better at it, not make everyone else worse.

And what good does suggesting GM resources to a player do? The GM isn't doing this because they're scared of the numbers or can't come up with anything. They're doing it because they think "drama" only exists if the dice roll is stacked against the player and so they're guaranteeing it's stacked by ignoring modifiers, bonuses, etc. and using only the dice roll itself. Do you have a specific resource on "setting arbitrary DCs for the sake of dramatic tension, why it's a bad idea" or do you expect the OP to comb through every post, podcast, and video those people have ever done and find one themself?

Sovereign Court

Bad GM is bad.


It's clear the GM is trying to railroad the players hard, the only reason to give a slim chance of success is to force failure and make the players follow his plot while the bad guy runs away.

It's not about "choosing the right numbers, it's all about changing the approach to GMing a game and developing a cooperative plot that engages teh players and suits the GM's setting and vision for the plot. Saying:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
A game isn't a railroad, even a railroady one. If the players do something unexpected you improvise, using the rules as a springboard.

Is 100% accurate, but it's not very helpful when the GM doesn't know A) how to improvise or B) how to use the rules as a springboard. So I suggest sources I know that make great stories of different scales by working with the players and planning session around how to make player's actions drive the plot.

Literally any of those sources covers that topic in detail, the variety just changes what it is good for. The D&D DMG is a great source for D&D products, but the direct application to pathfinder takes more work, The Lazy DM is a terrific book and what I use a lot when GMing any system but doesn't have great advice for truly epic battles between gods and men, Dungeon World is 20 pages of rules and like 380 pages of game mastering information and cooperative world building but is most applicable to "classic" D&D stories, and Dogs in the Vineyard gives amazing GM advice to build an cooperative episodic story and while the game has a narrow focus the advice is really good for any system. In total, the books are a few hundred pages of GM information which pales in comparison to the thousands of pages of rules for Pathfinder. I don't think giving suggestions like that are out of line for a game this complex.

Also, I will always recommend Critical Role for an example of what a good gaming group is like. They are connected to the characters and world and the show is very entertaining besides. A lot of people enjoy the games they play but have settled for a bad group for them and don't want to consider the most extreme solution of leaving if things don't change (obviously talk like adults is step 1).

EDIT:
I take back the 5e DMG, the advice it has doesn't apply to Pathfinder well because it relies on Advantage/Disadvantage so much.


I dont neccesarily scale dcs to the skills - however, I will look at the highest skills in the party and provide some additional challenges that only they can possibly suceed at that might give them additional benefits at an increased risk of failiure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do this, mostly with things like Disable Device, but not all the time. I have some locks or devices that will be challenging, preventing my Disable Device-focused player from "taking 10" on every lock.

Yes, you want to reward you players for investing in a Skill. AND you don't want it to become an automatic success either. When a players has a +15 on their Disable Device skill, you have to up the challenge on some devices. Ditto for other skills.

"But then I'm not getting any better at it if you keep upping the DC!"

No - you're able to tackle tougher things now. And some things, YOU will be about the only person in the group who has a chance at it!

Really - it's no different than AC, which scales up as you have gained bonuses "to hit", making you still about on the level you were @ 1st - roughly a 25-30% chance of success barring additional bonuses from spells, etc. Creatures you wouldn't dream of hitting before are now possible, while lower level ones are chaff.


hiiamtom wrote:

It's clear the GM is trying to railroad the players hard, the only reason to give a slim chance of success is to force failure and make the players follow his plot while the bad guy runs away.

It's not about "choosing the right numbers, it's all about changing the approach to GMing a game and developing a cooperative plot that engages teh players and suits the GM's setting and vision for the plot. Saying:

I'm not seeing anything to indicate your "theory" on what the GM is doing is correct... on the contrary, if they disregard any stats and only ask/care "is the roll above 15, or below" they are not even merely attempting to railroad players, they are attempting to write a "choose your own adventure" by themselves, only using players as a "random name/number generator".

The players might as well not even be there, or have wasted a character sheet.


Im sorry but, if the enemies are consistently seeing my Goblin Slayer with a (1 skill rank+5 dex+3 class skill+4 racial+2 skill focus) 15 stealth modifier... at level 1 is messed up...

I would be annoyed...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

I do this, mostly with things like Disable Device, but not all the time. I have some locks or devices that will be challenging, preventing my Disable Device-focused player from "taking 10" on every lock.

Yes, you want to reward you players for investing in a Skill. AND you don't want it to become an automatic success either. When a players has a +15 on their Disable Device skill, you have to up the challenge on some devices. Ditto for other skills.

"But then I'm not getting any better at it if you keep upping the DC!"

No - you're able to tackle tougher things now. And some things, YOU will be about the only person in the group who has a chance at it!

Really - it's no different than AC, which scales up as you have gained bonuses "to hit", making you still about on the level you were @ 1st - roughly a 25-30% chance of success barring additional bonuses from spells, etc. Creatures you wouldn't dream of hitting before are now possible, while lower level ones are chaff.

Exactly this. It's fine if the guy who really specialized in climbing faces challenges like "Go up this two hundred foot sheer cliff with almost no handholds and nowhere to rest before you reach the top in order to find the secret entrance to the Big Bad's lair." That's an epic challenge that makes his skill investment feel useful to the party.

What's not fine is "Now that your climb bonus is +15 instead of +5, all those walls that used to be DC 20 are now DC 30." It would be sort of like playing Rise of Runelords, except instead of moving up from fighting goblins to taking and giants and ancient immortal wizards you just kept of fighting goblins with gradually increasing stats for the whole AP.


What I don't get is why the GM has to "win" by making the players "lose."


Guru-Meditation wrote:

The DM ignoring the skilllevel of a character means that it plainly isnt worth investing ANYTHING into skills at all.

This impacts high-skill classes massively in a greeatly negative way, and makes casters the top problemsolvers even more.

Why bother
* having anything above INT 7
* playing a high-skill classes
* maxing a skill
* spending gold for a magic skillitem
* blocking an Item Slot with a skillitem
and then being as competent as the allways-slightly-slobbering Fighter with a droopy eye in the situations when it really matters?

--> this is bad DMing!

Do I have a dragon example?

Shah! You clearly never played first edition.

I had it happen TO me.

Party was known dragon slayers before I joined the group.
My character was from another campaign, I joined as the party cleric. (half orc cleric assassin)
after some minor tweaks to adjust the the DMs campaign I joined the party on their quest.
We were all between 13-15th level (thats high for a 1E group)

We knew we were looking for a dragon, knew we were approaching the lair.

dragon was a spell caster, cast a few spells and a breath weapon and took out the entire party, TPK....never even met a single minion.

did it all from a hiding place, when we made saves vs a few minor spells (illusions and stuff) rolled init, dragon won....breath weapon.

Campaign had been running two years.

just everyone rolled incredibly horrible saves all in a row.

I had a party I GMd do the same thing will a medusa. I expected them to roll over her....one medusa in a room....party had a paladin.... they didnt KNOW it was a medusa... so they never took all the cheesy meta gaming precautions and the party TPKd on bad saves. Even the paladin who I thought for sure would save.

The dice has ones and twenties....Thats a BIG swing from awesome success and terrible failure.
Regardless of how much youve planned your character.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Im sorry but, if the enemies are consistently seeing my Goblin Slayer with a (1 skill rank+5 dex+3 class skill+4 racial+2 skill focus) 15 stealth modifier... at level 1 is messed up...

I would be annoyed...

this depends on how they are seeing you....A really high stealth skill =/= hide in plain sight.


Serisan wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
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 :/?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:
Guru-Meditation wrote:

The DM ignoring the skilllevel of a character means that it plainly isnt worth investing ANYTHING into skills at all.

This impacts high-skill classes massively in a greeatly negative way, and makes casters the top problemsolvers even more.

Why bother
* having anything above INT 7
* playing a high-skill classes
* maxing a skill
* spending gold for a magic skillitem
* blocking an Item Slot with a skillitem
and then being as competent as the allways-slightly-slobbering Fighter with a droopy eye in the situations when it really matters?

--> this is bad DMing!

I didn't Send him at the party.... he made no attacks at him.... I just didnt realize the map I was using was small enough for her to maneuver over there and get close enough to melee

she literally walked around skeletons to do it.

we're talking about a party that (at that time) never played before....

He was there to say Mwahaha! Im evil and run off cackling maniaclly.

Purely plot device at that time.

Princess Leia was captured by Darth Vader int he first 30 minutes of new hope.

He is the THE BBEG.
Arguably more powerful than the emperor, yet makes an appearance VERY early on.

Here is how it works.

Does Leia have a hope in hell of killing Vader? Or Tarkin? Or anyone else who has major plot significance? If the answer is yes to any of them, then you have two options that are fair to your players:
1)Allow for the possibility, how every unlikely, that Leia kills Vader/Tarkin/who the hell ever.
2)Don't put Vader/The Emporer/Khan in a position where Leia has the opportunity to harm them.

Any fudging to cheat the players of things they *should* be able to do is unfair to them.

Or, as an original idea, you could go ahead and stop the PCs from killing the BBEG, but you only do so once you get the go ahead from the players first. The reason fudging like that is bad is that it ultimately is a betrayal of trust. The players expect that their actions can achieve things, and they behave based on that expectation. You are deciding that despite the paladin making a very dicey dodge around the threats between him and the BBEG, his lucky strike that put him at a huge amount of risk doesn't count for anything, because...you can't figure out how to write a plot that can hold up to the PCs*. So admit that to the players. Say "Sorry, but I don't think I can handle you killing that guy. The entire adventure falls apart if you do. Can we hand wave it as him getting away? He can drop his weapon or something so you get a benefit out of it." See how they react. The players will probably be understanding, and you get to acknowledge that needing to deny players the right to make meaningful actions isn't a good thing. Most importantly, you didn't effectively lie to the faces of the players when you allow them to play under a pretense of role-playing (which is fundamentally about making choices as a character) while denying any meaningful consequences for those actions, positive or negative.

*Protip: You can't. Not without blatant railroading or literally hoping the PCs don't do certain things. A plot will either necessitate railroading to preserve it, or be swiftly thrown away when the PCs jump the rails. Don't even try. Instead, write a situation that the PCs can interact with and change through their actions. That way, when Leia murders Vadar with her super secret "break the plot" weapon, the emperor takes interest and realizes who her father is, and orders her to be brought to him. Then when Luke, Han and friends break her out, the twins can discover their heritage together, and later on in the second Death Star the fight can be between Darth Sideous and his Force sensitive assassin Mara Jade versus the Jedi Knights Luke and Leia Skywalker. See, that sounds kinda cool, right. It isn't the same story and it won't have quite the same themes, but damned if it isn't a good story in and of itself. And all of this wouldn't have happened if you said "NUP, YOUR THING DOESN'T WORK, SORRY. NEINER NEINER NEINER". Stop enforcing your own vision on the PCs. Let them make their own way the way they want to. If that means killing the villain in the first act and changing everything, then so be it. The game will be better for it. Embrace it, because this is what Role-Plaing is about. Making choices, and dealing with the consequences, good or bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Im sorry but, if the enemies are consistently seeing my Goblin Slayer with a (1 skill rank+5 dex+3 class skill+4 racial+2 skill focus) 15 stealth modifier... at level 1 is messed up...

I would be annoyed...

this depends on how they are seeing you....A really high stealth skill =/= hide in plain sight.

Im talkin about them somehow having a perception score higher than your i,possibly high stealth at level 1.. not to many creatures at level 1 having Blind sense/sight or tremorsense.

When I.am sneakin up.behind a guard and he suddnely "rolls" a 35 perception, i call BS


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
If you really think it's poor GMing to use the fixed numbers provided by the book and numbers derived from actual stats and skill points instead of scaling every challenge the party faces to the member with the highest modifier for that challenge, I have to disagree. Vehemently. Someone who puts skill points into a skill wants to be better at it, not make everyone else worse.

I totally agree with this.

I also agree that a GM who is just spamming arbitrary DC changes needs some work.

But I really also believe that you need to take into consideration the power level actually at the table. In some cases raising the DC is needed. Other times GM Fiat is needed.


so you dont think planning EVERYTHING by CR is in all actuality, railroading?

Bilbo had NO chance of defeating smaug. But h could steal a cup from him!

by your definition, smaug cant exist yet, because bilbo isnt powerful enough to know of his existence.

IF the Pcs know he exists AND then get their hands on the map and key (plot device) THEN they can theoretically travel to his layer and get in.

Your advice is to withhold any plot device from players that might be above their CR as if these things dont exist

the lock a rogue cant pick (yet)
the dragon the party cant slay (yet)

none of it exists?

Could Leia have slain tarkin? Sure...if she had a blaster.

if she had been her mother padme she could have strangled tarkin with her had cuffs.

just about anything or anyone that can throw the PCs into a dungeon is too powerful for the PCS to defeat, at that time.

Classic series of Modules, In the dungeons of the slave lords.
Pcs get captured by the slave lords.
They are all PCs classes well above the level of PCs.
Why does the module assume the PCs are defeated, well duh.
Why are the PCs killed, duh BBEGs sell slaves. Not dead bodies.

Pcs are expected to escape from the dungeon (as part of the plot) with no gear, no armor and no spells.

But all that is "unfair" according to you.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Im sorry but, if the enemies are consistently seeing my Goblin Slayer with a (1 skill rank+5 dex+3 class skill+4 racial+2 skill focus) 15 stealth modifier... at level 1 is messed up...

I would be annoyed...

this depends on how they are seeing you....A really high stealth skill =/= hide in plain sight.

Im talkin about them somehow having a perception score higher than your i,possibly high stealth at level 1.. not to many creatures at level 1 having Blind sense/sight or tremorsense.

When I.am sneakin up.behind a guard and he suddnely "rolls" a 35 perception, i call BS

I suppose that depends on what youre sneaking up behind?

What if Lando Calrissian is posing as a guard to try to free his friend Han solo? and you just happen to be sneaking into jabbas palace for unrelated reasons?

you dont know lando, lando doesnt know you, but knows your sneaking up on him and doesnt know why.

IRL I used to own the second fastest quarter mile car in the state of Ct.
everyone thought it was the fastest until I met this ford ranchero 500.
Things are out there that are better than you, and you dont expect them to look like grandpas lime green wanna be pickup truck.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
If you really think it's poor GMing to use the fixed numbers provided by the book and numbers derived from actual stats and skill points instead of scaling every challenge the party faces to the member with the highest modifier for that challenge, I have to disagree. Vehemently. Someone who puts skill points into a skill wants to be better at it, not make everyone else worse.

I totally agree with this.

I also agree that a GM who is just spamming arbitrary DC changes needs some work.

But I really also believe that you need to take into consideration the power level actually at the table. In some cases raising the DC is needed. Other times GM Fiat is needed.

this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

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.

"this is not the stealth skill you are looking for"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

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.

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And remember it only makes them friendly, and there are certain things people won't even do for their friends.

1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / GM creates Artificial DCs on the spot. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.