Comfort level with circumstance modifiers

[Orius]

I have no problem. Detecting subtle differences in color is something that would be rather difficult in poor lighting, so a negative modifier to the roll is entirely justified in this situation. The modifier isn't too high to be totally out of line either.

 

[Orius]

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 think this is really a matter of rules-lite/rules-heavy. The +/-2 circumstance modifier to rolls really isn't what I'd consider a heavy hard to apply rule as it's rather simple, straightforward, and easy to remember. It's something that can easily be applied to both rules light and rules heavy games.

 

[Terwox]

This is spot-on, I think. Hard to do in the dark, -2, extra hard to do in the dark because it relies on acute vision specifically, another -2. Done.

If I was DM'ing, it'd be somewhere between a -2 and a -5, basically depending on my mood, to be honest. Primarily, NPCs must be held to the same standard for me to be comfortable and happy with it.

 

[Turjan]

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.)

Maybe, you should just read the appropriate chapter in the DMG (pg. 30). The example given adds 5 different modifiers to a check. Then it says explicitly:

"You can add modifiers endlessly... Multiple conditions add up to give the check a total modifier and the DC a final volume."

The next paragraph then says that "for extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances, you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than -2". The example given is a modifier of 20! This means that a modifier of -4 is in a very reasonable range.

 

[Ourph]

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.)

Well, the SRD is a good resource, but it doesn't have all the helpful advice or expanded options given in the actual rulebooks. Here's a quote from the 3.5 DMG that I think answers your concerns.

It's certainly acceptable to modify this rule. For extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances, you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than -2.

It sounds to me like the poll has exactly the option for you (either #3 or #4 depending on how you feel about house rules) if you aren't comfortable with your GM going beyond the listed DC modifiers or the standard "DM's buddy" +2/-2 rule of thumb.

 

[DonTadow]

I add modifiers based on the situation. It helps add surprise to a situation and helps the pcs think of alternative ways to help them with skill bonuses and ability checks. The RAW does say -2/+2 but that is not consistant with the other modifiers throughout the DMG. The more ingenious the idea the better the modifier. The harder the circumstance the higher the modifier. Helps keep pcs on their toes.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm totally fine with the use of circumstance modifiers. It allows the GM to tailor the challenges based on the situation at hand.

Kane

 

[archastrel]

Well, the SRD is a good resource, but it doesn't have all the helpful advice or expanded options given in the actual rulebooks. Here's a quote from the 3.5 DMG that I think answers your concerns.

Most humble apologies then, and I withdraw my comment. Your ruling seems reasonable.

I spend most of my time working from the SRD, writing my own rule system, and, until now, it hasn't let me down.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The only thing I'm really hesitant about is the context. Anytime you start detailing the mechanisms for a trap, things get a bit dicey because:
1. Players start thinking "well, we could do this and this and that and the other and that should disable it." And maybe it should, but the game has a skill for dismantling traps and it is radically devalued if you start allowing so-called roleplay (I say so-called because most characters doing it have neither any hint of mechanical knowledge or proficiency disabling traps) to disable traps on a regular basis.

2. As soon as you start designating the exact things that make a trap work, you wonder how it's possible to disarm certain traps, etc. and can easily end up with a system that either demands that the players know how to disable traps if their characters do (in which case, I guess I'd better play a monk rather than a fighter because I know unarmed combat but not any kind of sophisticated swordsmanship) or just straight-up makes the rogue's skill at disabling traps too risky to use.

In other words, I'm fine with a -4 circumstance penalty for poor illumination when disabling a trap, but if you're telling me it's color-coded and has four buttons and I need to figure out which ones to press in which order, I just want to make my disable device check, thank you very much....

 

[DonTadow]

The only thing I'm really hesitant about is the context. Anytime you start detailing the mechanisms for a trap, things get a bit dicey because:
1. Players start thinking "well, we could do this and this and that and the other and that should disable it." And maybe it should, but the game has a skill for dismantling traps and it is radically devalued if you start allowing so-called roleplay (I say so-called because most characters doing it have neither any hint of mechanical knowledge or proficiency disabling traps) to disable traps on a regular basis.

2. As soon as you start designating the exact things that make a trap work, you wonder how it's possible to disarm certain traps, etc. and can easily end up with a system that either demands that the players know how to disable traps if their characters do (in which case, I guess I'd better play a monk rather than a fighter because I know unarmed combat but not any kind of sophisticated swordsmanship) or just straight-up makes the rogue's skill at disabling traps too risky to use.

In other words, I'm fine with a -4 circumstance penalty for poor illumination when disabling a trap, but if you're telling me it's color-coded and has four buttons and I need to figure out which ones to press in which order, I just want to make my disable device check, thank you very much....

There's a big difference between a trap and a puzzle. The later you describe is a puzzle. But the example given is similar to a thief having thieves tools or not having the right tool to disarm a particular trap. The colors on the trap are merely a description. Just as a crowbar may help disable a pressure plate, so can good lighting help with disabling a color coded trap.

You got to make sure to have your players know the difference between what is a puzzle and what is a trap.