Comfort level with circumstance modifiers

[Ourph]

The situation:

A human Rogue is attempting to disable a complex clockwork trap inside a small recess in the wall of a dungeon while using a candle as a light source (shadowy illumination only). Part of the process for disabling the trap involves distinguishing between different colored parts of the mechanism, some of which are different shades of the same color (brick red and fire engine red for example) or similar shades of different colors (dark green and dark blue for example). The GM decides that the poor illumination makes the task more difficult and applies a -4 circumstance penalty to the Disable Device roll as a result.

As a player, how comfortable would you be with the GM applying that modifier in this situation? Answer in the poll and explain your answer if you feel the need.

 

[Starglim]

If I was in that campaign, I would find that trap design extremely silly and arbitrary and it would probably diminish my enjoyment, but given that colour-coded trap parts exist for some reason, it's the DM's or adventure writer's job to apply a modifier for them.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What Starglim said. Totally kosher.

Edit: Ok, who took the third option? Circumstance modifiers are, um, circumstantial. How can you expect the DM to list them all up front?

 

[IronWolf]

I'm fine with it as long as circumstance modifiers applies to the NPCs too. There can't be rules for everything and circumstancial modifiers help provide at least some form of resolving various challenges.

 

[Turjan]

I don't see the reason for option 3 in this poll. The GM can adjust the modifiers as he sees fit according to the RAW, and -4 is not outrageous. Bad lighting plus similar colours make easily for two -2 modifiers.

 

[Andre]

If I was in that campaign, I would find that trap design extremely silly and arbitrary and it would probably diminish my enjoyment, but given that colour-coded trap parts exist for some reason, it's the DM's or adventure writer's job to apply a modifier for them.

For myself, I find the design ingenious. A creature that relies on darkvision would never get it right (all the colors would be the same shade of gray). I'll have to use that one sometime and see if the players figure out the reason behind it.

 

[the Lorax]

I'm perfectly comfortable with it, I didn't even need to know about whatever color coding was going on. If the DM said "Due to the poor illumination you suffer a -4 penalty trying to disable this clockwork device." I would be OK with that.

 

[TheGM]

There is a circumstance - the shadowy light and the close colors - and there is a way around it - get a brighter light - so I don't have any problem with it.

 

[Arc]

There is a circumstance - the shadowy light and the close colors - and there is a way around it - get a brighter light - so I don't have any problem with it.

I think that that's the best description of a circumstance modifier I've seen - "There is a way around it." If there's an obvious solution, then the DM should feel free to pile on the penalties or bonuses as he sees fit, since a clever PC should probably change the circumstance be he attempts the check.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Honestly, I voted for the last option (and to date I was the only one !), but none of them remotely describe my feelings on the matter.

I almost never apply a modifier of more than +/-2. Every great once in a while, I might add a +/-4, but it would be for extraordinary circumstances. Also, I would normally only give one modifier, not a coctail modifier of four of five -2s and one +2, say.

That's not a RAW issue, just personal preference. I don't like throwing around modifiers when I GM d20.

As a player, I don't care that much, but I do prefer the consistency of modifiers staying in the +/-4 range.