Mearls on Balance in D&D

[hong]

Well, there are to hit penalities. Plus, there are additional penalties. One might open themselves up to AoAs from either their target or everyone around them, suffer an AC penalty, etc.

Btw, anyone curious should check out montecook.com. There is cheat sheat which shows how to build maneuvers as well as a web enhancment containing eighteen prebuilt sample maneuvers.

Yes, yes. People should buy the last major project Mearls did, before moving to WotC.

And then check out my hacks for it!

 

[DaveyJones]

Ah... you mean cast spells. All without training.

or pick a lock with a chisel and sledgehammer.

edit: meaning having the right tools for the job. which these obviously are not even together.

ergo i agree.

 

[Greg K]

Yes, yes. People should buy the last major project Mearls did, before moving to WotC.

And then check out my hacks for it!

I disagree. They should check out the Book of Iron Might. The classes, the umbrellas skills and other stuff turn me off to Iron Heroes

 

[Mallus]

There's something to not forget here though.

I didn't

That Int check actually forces the player to play the character in front of him. Something I heartily agree with.

See, I don't. At least not a hard and fast rule. I'm interested in having engaged players at my table. I'm less concerned with them maintaining character verisimilitude for its own sake.

I dislike the idea that adventures should be about me and not my character. If my PC is a 6 Int orc barbarian, I probably shouldn't be answering riddles.

If a guy playing a dumb-as-mineral-deficient-dirt barbarian is enjoying solving a puzzle, or suavely sweet-talking information out of a noblewoman, or devising a brilliant strategy to overthrow the correct king, I'm not going to discourage them. When you've got an engaged, actively participating player is not the time to enforce some standard of character 'realism', IMHO...

And the adventure is always, ultimately, about the player, since they're the ones making the decisions. To what extent a player likes to pretend their not in control and making choices 'in-character' is up to each individual player, but what it amounts to is a game you're playing with yourself.

At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?

I don't understand what you're saying. You should enjoy what you enjoy. There are no conditions involved.

Bravo, you're playing the game as it is intended to be played.

Except that I was talking about situations where the task resolution system is temporarily suspended, and the outcomes are arived at solely by player input and DM's judgement.

 

[Henry]

...If my PC is a 6 Int orc barbarian, I probably shouldn't be answering riddles. OTOH, if my PC is a 400 year old elf with a 22 Int, then I probably could answer most riddles posed to me without really trying.

The problem is, in real life, I'm neither of these. At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?

Well, for me, part of this is in the one unquantifiable thing, the "contract" between DM and player. If the player isn't great at puzzle-solving, but the PC should be, the DM has several options to make it happen: The other players can contribute, but one could say the answer actually came from the appropriate PC; The DM could make a secret INT check (or other relevant check) and give the player a hint to the correct answer, the bigger the hint for the denser the player; he could even go the straight "roll and you get it" method that you mentioned. In other words, a wide range of solutions. Conversely, the other part of that contract is that the players of the 6 INT orc barbarian don't have the orc acting out of character, with masterful puzzle solving, eloquent speeches, etc.

 

[Voadam]

Sorry, Plane, but that is just not true. From the DMG, page 32, "General Versus Specific":


Quote:

However, in the second example, the character has specialized knowledge of the situation. She's asking specific questions. In such cases, always award the character a +2 bonus for favorable conditions. It's good to reward a character who has knowledge that allows her to ask specific questions.

If a player tells me "I search the room", the DC to find the hidden scroll case in the bedpost might be 20 or more. If he tells me "I search the bedpost for a secret scroll case", the DC might drop to 10 or less.

Sorry Klaus, but from the rule you quoted, when a PC uses knowledge to ask "do I find a secret scroll case in the bedpost?" The DC does not get lowered by 10, the character gets only a +2 circumstance bonus on his search check for favorable conditions.

 

[DaveyJones]

Sorry Klaus, but from the rule you quoted, when a PC uses knowledge to ask "do I find a secret scroll case in the bedpost?" The DC does not get lowered by 10, the character gets only a +2 circumstance bonus on his search check for favorable conditions.

and your response to the player that says fine. i destroy the bedpost until i find something.

breaking apart every part of the room until it is completely searched. even tho taking 20 with the 6 int 6 wis PC would never find it.

 

[Voadam]

At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?

Right now. Your character sheet is just a piece of paper. If it it is fun for you to try to answer the riddle, then I give you permission to try to answer the riddle. You should do it.

The character sheet tells you your character's mechanics. By the RAW there is no mechanic for handling riddles. A DM can ad hoc apply an int check to grant hints or solve the riddle, but there is no rule explicitly applicable here. The DM would have to come up with DCs and what happens on success or failure.

 

[Voadam]

and your response to the player that says fine. i destroy the bedpost until i find something.

breaking apart every part of the room until it is completely searched. even tho taking 20 with the 6 int 6 wis PC would never find it.

My response? I'm one of the ones who prefers to avoid dice rolling in favor of active player participation so I'd probably have given it to him for saying he checked the bedpost. However assuming it was so well hidden he couldn't find it (say a magical disguise) and he breaks everything apart looking for it?

When they break apart the bedpost I'd have to decide what happens to the hidden scroll. Whether it is ripped or whatnot from the method they used to "destroy the bedpost". So my response would be "How do you destroy the bedpost?"

 

[DaveyJones]

My response? I'm one of the ones who prefers to avoid dice rolling in favor of active player participation so I'd probably have given it to him for saying he checked the bedpost. However assuming it was so well hidden he couldn't find it (say a magical disguise) and he breaks everything apart looking for it?

When they break apart the bedpost I'd have to decide what happens to the hidden scroll. Whether it is ripped or whatnot from the method they used to "destroy the bedpost". So my response would be "How do you destroy the bedpost?"

oh, i'm with you there. i'm just saying that is a real response in cases where i've gamed.

players bust up the whole room just to make sure they searched everything. even tho, 99.9% of the time nothing was there.