New Mearls Article - Skills in D&D

[Sammael]

But... you're making a judgment call that an animated giant statues is "effectively" +0. How do you not see that? Or, do you have an animated giant statue modifier in your game? What about climbing up the slippery tentacle of a giant octopus? Or, the razor crags with the sun right in your eyes? Or, the brilliant marble tower slicked with elephant's blubber? Or, inside the sleeping god's nostril as he snores?

You have modifiers for all that? Awesome.

What's the sleeping god's snoring modifier?

Dude, I was being reasonable. But being funny is not working out here.

The base DC for climbing ANYTHING is 7. Then I noted that the statue did not have ledges, but did have handholds (as you described it). That means the statue is effectively 17. Then add +5 because it's slippery, for a total of DC 22.

There is a GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE between basing your entire system on DM fiat, and between providing baseline which can be easily adapted to various circumstances. Mearls' article implies that such baselines should either not exist at all, or, at best, be the domain of the Dungeon Master (i.e. players should not know about them). That's HORRIBLE DESIGN. It was horrible back in the 80s, and it's certainly horrible now.

 

[P1NBACK]

There is a GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE between basing your entire system on DM fiat, and between providing baseline which can be easily adapted to various circumstances. Mearls' article implies that such baselines should either not exist at all, or, at best, be the domain of the Dungeon Master (i.e. players should not know about them). That's HORRIBLE DESIGN. It was horrible back in the 80s, and it's certainly horrible now.

Wait a minute...

Instead, we can let the DM set DCs based on what a player wants to do using a robust set of guideline DCs.

... Emphasis is mine.

Yup. That's a baseline that doesn't exist at all... I guess "robust" and "set" and "guidelines" means "does not exist at all".

Seriously.

 

[Sammael]

Do the players know what those DCs are beforehand? When they create their characters?

Does each DM have to come up with DCs on his own? Will there be continuity between different games?

Is there a general set of guidelines for all DCs a la 4E (i.e. DCs tied to PC levels rather than objective circumstances), or do we have objective DCs for each skill? Because 4E's DC guidelines are such that AFAIC, they do not exist at all.

 

[Jack99]

This supposed very complex table, is it the same that = 10 ft + 5ft/str modifier? Yeah, that's extremely complex and hard to remember...

 

[P1NBACK]

Do the players know what those DCs are beforehand? When they create their characters?

Does each DM have to come up with DCs on his own? Will there be continuity between different games?

Is there a general set of guidelines for all DCs a la 4E (i.e. DCs tied to PC levels rather than objective circumstances), or do we have objective DCs for each skill? Because 4E's DC guidelines are such that AFAIC, they do not exist at all.

Are you seriously still arguing there are no guidelines set forth in this hypothetical ruleset based on one climb skill and a specific sentence that says there will be guidelines?

Wow.

 

[Sammael]

Are you seriously still arguing there are no guidelines set forth in this hypothetical ruleset based on one climb skill and a specific sentence that says there will be guidelines?

Wow.

You are arguing the counterpoint based on exactly the same statement.

Besides:

If the DM rules that climbing a surface requires a check, you usually make a Strength check to pull yourself up. Your DM might instead ask for a Dexterity check to climb a swaying surface, or a Wisdom check to find the handholds on an invisible wall of force.

If that's not DM fiat, I don't know what is. "If," "usually," and "might" are the keywords there.

[MENTION=53135]Jack99[/MENTION] - the table is not linear. Your formula only applies up to Str 20. And it's the principle of the thing - imagine having a table for every single little rule out there.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Do the players know what those DCs are beforehand? When they create their characters?

Does each DM have to come up with DCs on his own? Will there be continuity between different games?

Should they know? I'm not asking this to challenge, but to open an honest inquiry. Should a player know if a PC can jump that chasm 100% of the time, and should the player motivate the PC as if it were so?

If the DM is inconsistent with the DCs, might that reflect the uncertainty of reality?

There's no "right" or "wrong" here --- I think it depends on the core design conceit, something which Mike Mearls seems to have been avoiding discussing all this time.

 

[P1NBACK]

You are arguing the counterpoint based on exactly the same statement.

No. Your argument is, "It's based ENTIRELY on DM fiat."

My argument is, "No, it's not. Mearls said there would be robust guidelines. And, since pretty much all RPGs are based around DM judgment calls, even yours with your strict guidelines, then this is not entirely based on DM fiat, but judgment calls with guidelines."

My evidence is: Mearls' statement about robust guidelines, and your own system's failing to methodically set DCs for examples of climbing without DM judgment (and yes, it IS a judgment to say that climbing an animated statue's back is the same as a wall with hand-holds...).

@Jack99 - the table is not linear. Your formula only applies up to Str 20.

More lies:

+5 feet / point above 20

I don't mind you having a different opinion or taste in games, but DISHONESTY is ED UP.

 

[Sammael]

Should they know? I'm not asking this to challenge, but to open an honest inquiry. Should a player know if a PC can jump that chasm 100% of the time, and should the player motivate the PC as if it were so?

If the DM is inconsistent with the DCs, might that reflect the uncertainty of reality?

There's no "right" or "wrong" here --- I think it depends on the core design conceit, something which Mike Mearls seems to have been avoiding discussing all this time.

Good points. IMO, the variance is already reflected in the actual roll - no player can be 100% certain that his character will succeed (particularly if the system has fumbles or something similar), but they should be reasonably aware of how well their characters can perform certain activities. For example, I know that there is no way in hell I could jump across a 2m wide hole. But I also know that jumping over a 1m hole is something I can do most of the time.

From my experience, explaining DM inconsistency through in-game constructs never ends well.

 

[Sammael]

More lies:

I don't mind you having a different opinion or taste in games, but DISHONESTY is ED UP.

Calling me a liar is grounds for reporting, but I'll let it slip since I think you don't know what "linear" means.

Ask any mathematician. +5 per 2 points of Str which changes to +5 per 1 point of Str once Str hits 20 is not a linear function.