Bagpuss
Legend
You go anything to back up that claim, as you know it is a rulebook. I would say it is more detailed than the DMG as it breaks down each skill, rather than just giving ball park examples like the table in the DMG.
I want my actions to matter
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
If experience in play is what makes players better, then how come brand new players with no RPG experience at all are so often the best and most creative players at the table?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Dunno about a thread, but some prog-rock or electronica group really needs to create an album entitled "Bloodtide Translator".
Probably wouldn't have much to do with the poster here by that name, though....
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Before I say more, is this a hypothetical example of something someone might post, or is this your actual take on how RPGs should work?
While I understand the desire to get on with it, this is way too harsh even for me.
That, and fast-paced is IMO highly overrated. As long as they're doing things in character rather than talking about hockey or politics, that's good enough for me.
Perhaps obviously, this would depend on what you were asking people to agree with.
W'rkncacnter
Hero
"bloodtide translator" sounds like a breakcore song.
well, that or an ultrakill act, but those are already all named, so...
I sure do however because 3.x was the other way around from 5e & it put the burden of finding supporting rules on the player who tries to challenge the GM. You can see the first step in the direction of a trivial "I have a game to run, you can look for some supporting rules for your claim while I continue running the game. If you find any I'll look at it between sessions" statement from the GM.
You made clear that you don't have a firm grasp of the skill system you are trying to school people on when you didn't even recognize the dmg table section and claimed that it wasn't in "the rulebook". Asking someone to find a 3.x rule supporting the GM's agency to do something like set DC and not expecting the rules to immediately shut down the charge only serves to underscore that. This is what it looks like when a system actually supports the gm's ability to make rulings based on the particulars of a scenario
- After turning to PHB page 61 ( chapter4:skills) to cut short this straw grasping & show just how far from a paddle you are in the creek of RAW you are it then took me less than a minute of skimming relevant headings to find that there is a "Difficulty Class" heading on pg 63 that contains the following sentence right near the section start "The DC is a number set by the DM (using the skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result on your skill check in order to succeed."
- The rules being used for guidance are located in the DMG chapter 2:using the rules. Specifically the DC table on DMG 31, but also with heavy reliance on bonus types & DM's best friend. with occasional inclusion of degrees of success & degrees of failure (also dmg ch2 on pg33) Not the player's handbook .
- If you keep skimming or reading up to DMG32 (still ch2) you will see a section titled "difficulty classes" that begins with the following paragraph "Assigning DCs is your job, but usually☆ the rules are straight forward. The game has a standard rule for the DC of a saving throw against a spell★, and creatures✪ and magic items❄ with abilities that force others to make saves always have that saving throw clearly detailed (or else they function just like spells, and you use the spell rule). The general rules are as follows."
- ☆ Clearly this is not the case because a player is trying to use the PHB in order to overrule the GM who is relying on the DMG, that is not the fault of either rulebook.
- ★Although there are spells in the phb examples, "manacles" and the wall described in climb are not spells
- ✪ They are not a creature either
- ❄ Nor is there any reason to assume they are a magic item
Bagpuss
Legend
It isn't a case of challenging the GM we are talking about here, but what the actual rules say. Sure the GM can set whatever DCs they like, they could make free climbing the North Face of the Eiger, DC 5 if they like but that isn't what the rulebook suggests.
That's because the vast majority of the 3.5 rules are in the PHB (which everyone has access to), with some additional rules in the MM, the DMG is mainly guidance, while it has useful information it is entirely possible to play without ever referring to the DMG.
Not saying anything about the GM's agency to set whatever DCs they like, I'm just asking for some evidence to your claim that PHB rules are just their for the players to have a spitball idea of the DC, and the the DC's were generally easy to make.
Right so the DC is set by the DM looking at the skill rules which are in the PHB.
So there is a bit conflict here between expectation, guidance and the rules. The rules for some particular skills could easily push the DCs into the 20 to 30+ range, while the guidance was generally avoid those levels of DCs.
They other problem is opposed skills, players generally only had a small handful of skill point to spend across an number of skills, but opposition NPCs in published scenarios often specialised their skills in the opposing skills like Sense Motive, Perception and the like. So if a player didn't focus they would fail in those skills at lot of the time (didn't help that NPCs were often higher level than the PCs in order to make them a challenge for a party of 4).
Certainly I recall published scenarios at the time where taking 10, would never succeed, and unless you had put all your skill points into a skill, and like had a positive attribute bonus take 20 would fail too. To be fair the game almost assumed taking 20 in a number of skills like opening locks.
My experience as a player and a GM (running published scenarios) at the time was unless you constantly upped your skills each level they quickly became irrelevant, and failure even with a character putting all their ranks in a skill, was common.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I don't know. It would probably help at least as much as what he's given us, which is "I make up my own definitions that are too complicated to tell anyone" and "I walk my own path off a cliff."Dunno about a thread, but some prog-rock or electronica group really needs to create an album entitled "Bloodtide Translator".
Probably wouldn't have much to do with the poster here by that name, though....
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
In 5e all the rules needed to play the game are in the PHB and the DMG is entirely guidelines. In 3e the rules to play the game were in both the PHB and the DMG, not just the DMG. Page 13 under the heading Changing the Rules says, "Every rule in the Player’s Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn’t mean you can’t change some rules for your own game." It's clear from this that the skills rules in the PHB are rules for the DM to refer to. Especially since earlier in the DMG it tells the DM to have the PHB ready to refer to when needed.
The DMG skill rules are more general and involve interpretation, not hard rules. What you are looking at in the DMG skills section are some random examples of skills on page 31, and general rules principals on page 34. You are then misapplying the general rules section by saying that since skills aren't mentioned, the PHB skills rules aren't rules.
If you look at page 34 of the DMG it gives the rules that apply in general. The rules for spell DCs is a general formula: 10+spell level+caster ability modifier. Monster ability DCs: 10+1/2 hit dice+monster ability modifier. Miscellaneous: 10 to 20 with 15 being default for anything not covered by any other rule.
The reason you don't see skills in that section on page 34 is because there isn't a general rule formula for it. The skill DC is highly dependent on what the PC is trying to do and the in game circumstances going on. To help the DM figure out the DCs the DM needs to combine the PHB rules and DCs with the DMG advice on modification.
In short, you are correct that the PHB DCs are a ballpark, but only because circumstances and DM interpretation can modify those numbers. They are not hard numbers, but they are the base for the task described. @Bagpuss is also correct that the PHB has the core rules for skill checks and is not just there to kinda sort give the players an idea.
The player can assume that the DC to climb an uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds is 20, with the understanding that if there is something the DM knows about the situation that the player doesn't, that number MIGHT be modified. The DM should not be changing the DC from 20 to something else without reason, such as knowing that some of those handholds and footholds are loose, making it harder than it appears.
No. Nothing you are claiming is accurate. What few bits there that come close are rooted in other misunderstandings misstatements & gaps in knowledge of the rules. The phb was only referenced because of your desire to elevate it to some word of God status and the fact that it almost immediately removes itself from relevance wrt assigning of DCs as I pointed out. DCs didn't work like 5e. A DC 25 only requires +5 on top of taking 20. Taking 20 however imposes q hurdle of its own as follows
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes
for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round
action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or
distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for
failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20
on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill
check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20
means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you
fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as
long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes
that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did
attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure (for
instance, a Disable Device check to disarm a trap), your character
would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could
complete the task (in this case, the character would most likely set
off the trap). Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open
Lock, and Search.
For example, Krusk comes to a cliff face. He attempts to take 10,
for a result of 16 (10 plus his +6 skill modifier), but the DC is 20, and
the DM tells him that he fails to make progress up the cliff. (His
check is at least high enough that he does not fall.) Krusk cannot
take 20 because there is a penalty associated with failure (falling, in
this case). He can try over and over, and eventually he may succeed,
but he might fall one or more times in the process. Later, Krusk
finds a cave in the cliff and searches it. The DM sees in the Search
skill description that each 5-foot-square area takes a full-round
action to search, and she secretly assigns a DC of 15 to the attempt.
She estimates that the floors, walls, and ceiling of the cave make up
about ten 5-foot squares, so she tells Krusk’s player that it takes 1
minute (10 rounds) to search the whole cave. Krusk’s player gets a
result of 12 on 1d20, adds no skill ranks because Krusk doesn’t have
the Search skill, and adds –1 because that is Krusk’s Intelligence
modifier. His roll fails. Now the player declares that Krusk is going
to search the cavern high and low, taking as long as it takes. The DM
takes the original time of 1 minutes and multiplies it by 20, for 20
minutes. That’s how long it takes for Krusk to search the whole cave
in exacting detail. Now Krusk’s player treats his roll as if it were 20,
for a result of 19. That’s good enough to beat the DC of 15, and
Krusk finds an old, bronze key discarded under a loose rock.
for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round
action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or
distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for
failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20
on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill
check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20
means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you
fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as
long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes
that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did
attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure (for
instance, a Disable Device check to disarm a trap), your character
would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could
complete the task (in this case, the character would most likely set
off the trap). Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open
Lock, and Search.
For example, Krusk comes to a cliff face. He attempts to take 10,
for a result of 16 (10 plus his +6 skill modifier), but the DC is 20, and
the DM tells him that he fails to make progress up the cliff. (His
check is at least high enough that he does not fall.) Krusk cannot
take 20 because there is a penalty associated with failure (falling, in
this case). He can try over and over, and eventually he may succeed,
but he might fall one or more times in the process. Later, Krusk
finds a cave in the cliff and searches it. The DM sees in the Search
skill description that each 5-foot-square area takes a full-round
action to search, and she secretly assigns a DC of 15 to the attempt.
She estimates that the floors, walls, and ceiling of the cave make up
about ten 5-foot squares, so she tells Krusk’s player that it takes 1
minute (10 rounds) to search the whole cave. Krusk’s player gets a
result of 12 on 1d20, adds no skill ranks because Krusk doesn’t have
the Search skill, and adds –1 because that is Krusk’s Intelligence
modifier. His roll fails. Now the player declares that Krusk is going
to search the cavern high and low, taking as long as it takes. The DM
takes the original time of 1 minutes and multiplies it by 20, for 20
minutes. That’s how long it takes for Krusk to search the whole cave
in exacting detail. Now Krusk’s player treats his roll as if it were 20,
for a result of 19. That’s good enough to beat the DC of 15, and
Krusk finds an old, bronze key discarded under a loose rock.
Similar Threads
