Comfort level with circumstance modifiers

[S'mon]

Given that the darn book SAYS to use circumstance modifiers, they are clearly part of the RAW. Yeah, I'm fine with them - I love them, in fact, I should use them more than I do, especially in combat.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't mind them at all, but in the above scenario, if it's so dark that the rogue can't tell the difference between the colors, I'd have him state in which order he pressed the buttons. If he's wron, he's wrong. There's a time when roleplaying should supercede the rules.

 

[Ourph]

Thanks for the responses so far everyone. Those are some very interesting points. I'm actually really surprised with the results so far. Recent discussions on rules-lite vs. rules-heavy made me believe there would be a far greater percentage of ENworlders uncomfortable with DMs applying circumstance modifiers not specifically covered in the RAW.

I don't mind them at all, but in the above scenario, if it's so dark that the rogue can't tell the difference between the colors, I'd have him state in which order he pressed the buttons. If he's wron, he's wrong. There's a time when roleplaying should supercede the rules.

When I envisioned this scenario, I imagined that disabling the trap required the Rogue stopping/dismantling significant numbers of moving, colored gears in a clockwork type assembly in a certain order according to their color. I didn't envision the trap being detailed enough in the DM's notes to handle the situation the way you describe, with the Rogue's player saying "I stop and remove the 1 inch diameter gear in the upper, right-hand corner of the assembly first, followed by the 1.25 inch diameter gear with the square teeth in the back, middle section of the assembly just behind the linked chain....etc." In other words, the trap is complex enough that roleplaying the entire disassembly process would be tedious.

 

[Turjan]

Recent discussions on rules-lite vs. rules-heavy made me believe there would be a far greater percentage of ENworlders uncomfortable with DMs applying circumstance modifiers not specifically covered in the RAW.

Except that they are covered in the RAW .

 

[archastrel]

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.

I didn't answer the poll because it didn't have the choice I wanted.

The answer I would choose is: I'm fine with circumstance modifiers, but the GM chose the wrong modifier. It would be a -2 modifier, not a -4, using the rules as written.

Note that poor illumination and similar colors is one circumstance, not two. (Difficult to see.)

If you had poor illumination and a distraction of a heavy swam of buzzing insects, that would be two different circumstances and would warrent a -4 penalty.

 

[archastrel]

When I envisioned this scenario, I imagined that disabling the trap required the Rogue stopping/dismantling significant numbers of moving, colored gears in a clockwork type assembly in a certain order according to their color.

Use a complex skill check instead of a single skill roll for circumstances like this.

Complex skill checks are described on page 81 of the Unearthed Arcana book.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I don't mind them at all, but in the above scenario, if it's so dark that the rogue can't tell the difference between the colors, I'd have him state in which order he pressed the buttons. If he's wron, he's wrong. There's a time when roleplaying should supercede the rules.

Well said! The same procedure can be used when searching for secret doors, and so on: players describe what their characters are doing to find the the secret door instead of rolling a Search check.

 

[Ourph]

Except that they are covered in the RAW .

I said "specifically covered" - as in "enumerated" or "codified". This is the distinction I'm trying to draw (that came up in previous discussions). I will be the first to agree that the RAW give GMs permission to apply circumstance modifiers. The purpose of the poll is to find out ENworlder's comfort level with their GM actually using that option.

 

[Ourph]

The answer I would choose is: I'm fine with circumstance modifiers, but the GM chose the wrong modifier. It would be a -2 modifier, not a -4, using the rules as written.

Note that poor illumination and similar colors is one circumstance, not two. (Difficult to see.)

If you had poor illumination and a distraction of a heavy swam of buzzing insects, that would be two different circumstances and would warrent a -4 penalty.

Can you give me a page reference for where the RAW state the circumstance modifier for poor illumination is -2? I looked pretty thoroughly through the rulebooks before posting this thread, so (unless it's included in a non-core book) I'd be surprised to have missed it.

Use a complex skill check instead of a single skill roll for circumstances like this.

This isn't really relevant, but if it helps you answer the poll, feel free to assume that the GM calls for a complex skill check, applying the -4 modifier for illumination to any appropriate rolls.

 

[archastrel]

Can you give me a page reference for where the RAW state the circumstance modifier for poor illumination is -2? I looked pretty thoroughly through the rulebooks before posting this thread, so (unless it's included in a non-core book) I'd be surprised to have missed it.

I can give you a quote from the SRD:

2. Give the skill user a –2 circumstance penalty to represent conditions that hamper performance, such as being forced to use improvised tools or having misleading information.

Note that it doesn't even really give you any way to get to -4 at all here, though I'm willing to concede the possiblity of two different circumstances that cause a penalty. (It says "conditions that hamper" instead of "a condition that hampers" which implies that -2 is the worst you can have, regardless of how many circumstances may apply.)

(Hm. Preview Post does not seem to work... that's kinda annoying.)