Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reliable Talent. What the what?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7295379" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Agreed to a degree. It's highly unlikely that a theoretical physicist will make a mistake on a simple algebra equation. Could it happen? Sure. Your woodworker isn't likely to have a lot of failed simple birdhouses. My point is simply that as you get better at what you do, the threshold of where you're likely to make mistakes rises.</p><p></p><p>Despite the fact that most of us learned to walk so long ago that we don't even remember it, doesn't mean that we don't sometimes trip (and even injure ourselves severely, occasionally to the point of death). But that sort of random and extremely unlikely event isn't the sort of thing we typically model in a D&D game. So why do we persist with the idea that somebody with a +9 modifier to their skill can somehow fail at something that's a DC of 12, without significant mitigating circumstances? If the base is 10 (that is, your passive score is 10 + modifier). That is, unless circumstances warrant disadvantage (which can still be applied to a passive check), why do we still seem to insist that you can fail by making a bad roll at something that you automatically succeed at if you don't roll at all.</p><p></p><p>Also note that "automatic success" also doesn't mean you don't make mistakes along the way. As you note, it could be that you did make a mistake, recognized it, corrected for it, and ultimately succeeded. That is, success, whether automatic due to a given score, or the result of a die roll, doesn't mean that the process of succeeding was perfect, just that the result was success.</p><p></p><p>Which goes back to the original post. If the rogue is automatically succeeding at everything, that's because they aren't attempting anything that's really beyond their capability to succeed. If you think that they are capable of succeeding at too much, then either they aren't meeting enough challenging things, or maybe we're lowballing the difficulty of given tasks. That is, the issue isn't that they are automatically succeeding (although that's another debate that comes up a lot), but that they are automatically succeeding at too much.</p><p></p><p>When setting a DC, I think the levels of difficulty are based on an individual who is untrained, or has very basic training. It's not really defined though.</p><p></p><p>So picking a lock, for example. I personally think that's a very hard thing to do. Even with a medieval lock which is much simpler in design than today's locks. Would a person without any training and any modifiers be able to pick one? I don't think so. So I'd put picking a lock at a DC 20 at the lowest. That allows a 5% chance off success for even an untrained individual. I'd rather see it at a DC 25, because then you either have to have a very high natural skill, or some training to succeed. But the game isn't currently designed like that. It's designed so that a party of characters will have a chance to succeed at nearly anything. Not necessarily everybody in the party, but that somebody within the party will. We, on the other hand, don't care about that. We're more interested about what makes sense in the game world, and if that means something is too difficult for the PCs at that level, then they can come back and try it later. Or find another way, like breaking the lock, kicking in the door, a <em>knock</em> spell, or whatever. We don't alter the DC for the "designed level of the party," instead it's a question of what makes sense here.</p><p></p><p>The benefit of this approach is that you design the probabilities around your expectations. So in the case of picking a lock, we generally think that only somebody with a natural high Dexterity combined with advantage will be able to pick a lock without training. A DC 25 meets that expectation. Somebody with some training and a high Dexterity, or more training with a lower Dexterity can also do it. That DC 25 works fine. A character with a +11 modifier? It's not automatic, but they won't fail often. </p><p></p><p>Think of it a different way. In all sorts of shows, movies, etc., there are points where the characters have to pick a lock. It is very, very rare for them to ever fail. In most cases it doesn't even matter how much time it takes them. The dramatic contribution of the scene is one that establishes the circumstances of the following scenes. That is, they don't belong there, and presumably don't want to be caught. The drama isn't in the lockpicking skill, it's how the use of that skill frames the subsequent action. Sometimes it's used for comedic purposes, where somebody is taking too long to pick the lock, and somebody else is impatient and just kicks it in. Obviously remaining undetected is unimportant to them. </p><p></p><p>But in the game, we often get hung up on playing the rules. That is, there's a rule for picking a lock, so therefore that rule must come into play. If that rule is "eliminated" due to an ability, then we feel that it's breaking the game. But the skills are really ways to differentiate the characters and their, well, skills. That is, they provide different options, each of which might be beneficial. If you consider the skill the important part, not rolling the dice to see if the skill succeeded, then it changes the entire discussion.</p><p></p><p>For example, the goal is to get into the building. The rogue has a skill to pick the lock. The wizard has the <em>knock</em> spell. The fighter can kick the door down. Any one of them can break a window to get in. And any one of them can search the area and potentially find the key that's hidden nearby. Where's the drama? What makes one option more dramatic than the other? What drama is lost if the rogue can automatically succeed at picking the lock? </p><p></p><p>The reality is, without something else, there really isn't any drama. Just different ways to get inside. Presumably breaking a window is the last option (or not really one at all) because they want to remain undetected. The <em>knock</em> spell, and even kicking in the door are also not desired for the same reasons. Otherwise there would be no debate. But it's the fact that they want to get in undetected that really matters, not the specific method of getting there. </p><p></p><p>If these are low level characters, they might have to resort to another alternative. But if they are high level characters, wouldn't the expectation be that the rogue will just be able to pick the lock? Unless the lock is especially complex, or whatever, they've picked hundreds if not thousands of locks with the same basic design. Why are we concerned about failure at that point? We've moved past that point in the character's career.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7295379, member: 6778044"] Agreed to a degree. It's highly unlikely that a theoretical physicist will make a mistake on a simple algebra equation. Could it happen? Sure. Your woodworker isn't likely to have a lot of failed simple birdhouses. My point is simply that as you get better at what you do, the threshold of where you're likely to make mistakes rises. Despite the fact that most of us learned to walk so long ago that we don't even remember it, doesn't mean that we don't sometimes trip (and even injure ourselves severely, occasionally to the point of death). But that sort of random and extremely unlikely event isn't the sort of thing we typically model in a D&D game. So why do we persist with the idea that somebody with a +9 modifier to their skill can somehow fail at something that's a DC of 12, without significant mitigating circumstances? If the base is 10 (that is, your passive score is 10 + modifier). That is, unless circumstances warrant disadvantage (which can still be applied to a passive check), why do we still seem to insist that you can fail by making a bad roll at something that you automatically succeed at if you don't roll at all. Also note that "automatic success" also doesn't mean you don't make mistakes along the way. As you note, it could be that you did make a mistake, recognized it, corrected for it, and ultimately succeeded. That is, success, whether automatic due to a given score, or the result of a die roll, doesn't mean that the process of succeeding was perfect, just that the result was success. Which goes back to the original post. If the rogue is automatically succeeding at everything, that's because they aren't attempting anything that's really beyond their capability to succeed. If you think that they are capable of succeeding at too much, then either they aren't meeting enough challenging things, or maybe we're lowballing the difficulty of given tasks. That is, the issue isn't that they are automatically succeeding (although that's another debate that comes up a lot), but that they are automatically succeeding at too much. When setting a DC, I think the levels of difficulty are based on an individual who is untrained, or has very basic training. It's not really defined though. So picking a lock, for example. I personally think that's a very hard thing to do. Even with a medieval lock which is much simpler in design than today's locks. Would a person without any training and any modifiers be able to pick one? I don't think so. So I'd put picking a lock at a DC 20 at the lowest. That allows a 5% chance off success for even an untrained individual. I'd rather see it at a DC 25, because then you either have to have a very high natural skill, or some training to succeed. But the game isn't currently designed like that. It's designed so that a party of characters will have a chance to succeed at nearly anything. Not necessarily everybody in the party, but that somebody within the party will. We, on the other hand, don't care about that. We're more interested about what makes sense in the game world, and if that means something is too difficult for the PCs at that level, then they can come back and try it later. Or find another way, like breaking the lock, kicking in the door, a [I]knock[/I] spell, or whatever. We don't alter the DC for the "designed level of the party," instead it's a question of what makes sense here. The benefit of this approach is that you design the probabilities around your expectations. So in the case of picking a lock, we generally think that only somebody with a natural high Dexterity combined with advantage will be able to pick a lock without training. A DC 25 meets that expectation. Somebody with some training and a high Dexterity, or more training with a lower Dexterity can also do it. That DC 25 works fine. A character with a +11 modifier? It's not automatic, but they won't fail often. Think of it a different way. In all sorts of shows, movies, etc., there are points where the characters have to pick a lock. It is very, very rare for them to ever fail. In most cases it doesn't even matter how much time it takes them. The dramatic contribution of the scene is one that establishes the circumstances of the following scenes. That is, they don't belong there, and presumably don't want to be caught. The drama isn't in the lockpicking skill, it's how the use of that skill frames the subsequent action. Sometimes it's used for comedic purposes, where somebody is taking too long to pick the lock, and somebody else is impatient and just kicks it in. Obviously remaining undetected is unimportant to them. But in the game, we often get hung up on playing the rules. That is, there's a rule for picking a lock, so therefore that rule must come into play. If that rule is "eliminated" due to an ability, then we feel that it's breaking the game. But the skills are really ways to differentiate the characters and their, well, skills. That is, they provide different options, each of which might be beneficial. If you consider the skill the important part, not rolling the dice to see if the skill succeeded, then it changes the entire discussion. For example, the goal is to get into the building. The rogue has a skill to pick the lock. The wizard has the [I]knock[/I] spell. The fighter can kick the door down. Any one of them can break a window to get in. And any one of them can search the area and potentially find the key that's hidden nearby. Where's the drama? What makes one option more dramatic than the other? What drama is lost if the rogue can automatically succeed at picking the lock? The reality is, without something else, there really isn't any drama. Just different ways to get inside. Presumably breaking a window is the last option (or not really one at all) because they want to remain undetected. The [I]knock[/I] spell, and even kicking in the door are also not desired for the same reasons. Otherwise there would be no debate. But it's the fact that they want to get in undetected that really matters, not the specific method of getting there. If these are low level characters, they might have to resort to another alternative. But if they are high level characters, wouldn't the expectation be that the rogue will just be able to pick the lock? Unless the lock is especially complex, or whatever, they've picked hundreds if not thousands of locks with the same basic design. Why are we concerned about failure at that point? We've moved past that point in the character's career. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reliable Talent. What the what?
Top