the Jester
Legend
Well, a little off the subject, but I've given thought to giving a prestige class the ability to take 12 instead of 10 on certain skills. Never done it that I can recall, but it's a neat idea.
Taking 9.. or 8, or 7....
- Thread starter The Souljourner
- Start date
Thia Halmades
First Post
*sucks down coffee*
Actually, as DM, I would rule that you had to do extremely well to build in a flaw like that. Only the truly talented can effectively lie about their total abilities, and for them, it's difficult. Which likely puts me in the minority here, but... look at it this way.
You're going to craft an iron impression for the Royal Seal. You know exactly what the seal looks like and you have familiarity with the advisor who's going to be seeing it. It has to be good enough to get past inspection by your captor - a high roll, especially considering they ALSO know what the seal should look like - but must contain a specific flaw, a letter with an extra hook, a flags blowing the opposite direction, etc. - which has to be picked up by the advisor in question.
Both of these would require higher, rather than lower, rolls in my campaign. In the Robin Hood example, he doesn't want to roll low - he wants to roll incredibly high so he can hit the target in just such a way that he advances without lancing the bullseye directly. First he has to make a sense motive check to determine (roughly) the skill of the field. Then he has to make a check (attack) and declare it a called shot. THEN he has to bluff so no one notices that he can center his round nearly at will.
So no, under the system (note the caveat) I see no reason why you'd want to do poorly. I also (personally) don't like the idea of players succeeding by intentionally doing poorly. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can get more liberal with the rules, but higher generally equals better.
Actually, as DM, I would rule that you had to do extremely well to build in a flaw like that. Only the truly talented can effectively lie about their total abilities, and for them, it's difficult. Which likely puts me in the minority here, but... look at it this way.
You're going to craft an iron impression for the Royal Seal. You know exactly what the seal looks like and you have familiarity with the advisor who's going to be seeing it. It has to be good enough to get past inspection by your captor - a high roll, especially considering they ALSO know what the seal should look like - but must contain a specific flaw, a letter with an extra hook, a flags blowing the opposite direction, etc. - which has to be picked up by the advisor in question.
Both of these would require higher, rather than lower, rolls in my campaign. In the Robin Hood example, he doesn't want to roll low - he wants to roll incredibly high so he can hit the target in just such a way that he advances without lancing the bullseye directly. First he has to make a sense motive check to determine (roughly) the skill of the field. Then he has to make a check (attack) and declare it a called shot. THEN he has to bluff so no one notices that he can center his round nearly at will.
So no, under the system (note the caveat) I see no reason why you'd want to do poorly. I also (personally) don't like the idea of players succeeding by intentionally doing poorly. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can get more liberal with the rules, but higher generally equals better.
The Souljourner
First Post
Well, this has gone way off point, but that's fine by me. Let me put in my two cents about faking a low skill.
Most of the things you're talking about are craft skills (except for the archery). For those, I think you can easily fake a low skill. It's easy to make a crappy pie - forget an ingredient, screw up proportions, over bake, under bake, etc. I make a damn good pie, and I could easily make one that sucks. And yes, the process is as much a measure of a person's skill as the end result.. however, it's also easy to fake that. One of the things you learn when you become a cook is how *not* to do things. It's fairly trivial just to do them that way. Just because someone can crack an egg in each hand at the same time, doesn't mean they can't use both hands and crack it such that shells fall into the food.
Thia - your proposal is different than what other people are suggesting, and I agree that it would take a higher level of skill. But that's not really what we're talking about... we're talking about intentionally sucking.
Now, about the original question - I was really asking more to see if there was anything where, if you fail by a certain amount, there's a side effect which could be useful in some limited circumstances.
-The Souljourner
Most of the things you're talking about are craft skills (except for the archery). For those, I think you can easily fake a low skill. It's easy to make a crappy pie - forget an ingredient, screw up proportions, over bake, under bake, etc. I make a damn good pie, and I could easily make one that sucks. And yes, the process is as much a measure of a person's skill as the end result.. however, it's also easy to fake that. One of the things you learn when you become a cook is how *not* to do things. It's fairly trivial just to do them that way. Just because someone can crack an egg in each hand at the same time, doesn't mean they can't use both hands and crack it such that shells fall into the food.
Thia - your proposal is different than what other people are suggesting, and I agree that it would take a higher level of skill. But that's not really what we're talking about... we're talking about intentionally sucking.
Now, about the original question - I was really asking more to see if there was anything where, if you fail by a certain amount, there's a side effect which could be useful in some limited circumstances.
-The Souljourner
Infiniti2000
First Post
Well, if you come up with a situation, let us know. Such situations should be houseruled away such that they do not come up again. Failure should not be success in discuss (bluffing incompetence aside).The Souljourner said:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
The only time where rolling a certan result and not a general good result is preferable in D&D would be when the check in question can call different effects.
Maybe a magical item that can only be activated by a certain skill - Let's assume "Leomunds all you can eat machine" that despite it's name can only be used once per day - activated by a Profession (Cook) roll - a roll of 10 only creates a hotdog, a roll of 15 a cake, and a roll of 20 a pizza. You want something sweet, so you want to go for cake, but with your +10 modifier on Profession (Cook), taking 10 would mean you'd create a pizza, but that's not what you want...
Obviously, such a magical item is silly - you should always get the lower effects of a skill use or roll if you want to - unless it is an actual random roll (like a percentile roll) that you can't influence by your skill or experience...
Maybe a magical item that can only be activated by a certain skill - Let's assume "Leomunds all you can eat machine" that despite it's name can only be used once per day - activated by a Profession (Cook) roll - a roll of 10 only creates a hotdog, a roll of 15 a cake, and a roll of 20 a pizza. You want something sweet, so you want to go for cake, but with your +10 modifier on Profession (Cook), taking 10 would mean you'd create a pizza, but that's not what you want...
Obviously, such a magical item is silly - you should always get the lower effects of a skill use or roll if you want to - unless it is an actual random roll (like a percentile roll) that you can't influence by your skill or experience...
darthkilmor
First Post
The Souljourner said:
I think it was mentioned, but a situation where this might be handy is when you want to do soemthing quickly, but then for soemthing other than 10 you could just have the player roll till they get it.
The only other situation I can think of that hasnt(i dont think it has) been mentioned, is situations where you can "take 10" even if rushed or threatened. maybe monsters can for instance "take 10" on climb checks regardless of whats going on. Maybe soemthing where you're "good" but not "spidey-good". Say you've got a monster that has somewhat sticky hands, enough that he can "take 5" anytime, but no more.
Infiniti2000
First Post
Not silly at all! That would be a great item to have and you've just made me hungry.Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Marius Delphus
Adventurer
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I think this is the important bit. After all, how does one succeed at a task in 3.0/3.5? One beats a target DC.
What's the DC of an incredible, unbelievable, brings-tears-of-joy-to-the-judge pie? High.
What's the DC of a very good, prize-winning, gets-thumbs-up-from-the-judge pie? Not as high.
What do I have to roll to make the incredible pie? High or higher.
What do I have to roll to make the very good pie? Not as high... *or anything higher.*
I do agree with requiring a Bluff check to appear incompetent while being observed (the DC might be very low if the observer(s) is (are) untrained). But I think you can willingly achieve a result that's lower than your "peak" just by not trying so hard (aiming at a task that has a lower DC). And it only makes sense that you should be able to fail even the simplest of tasks if you want to (instead of baking any sort of pie, I feel like throwing the ingredients in the air and seeing how fast they fall).
Jury's still out on the archery contest: is it a higher AC because you're specifically aiming, but not at the bullseye? or is it a lower AC because all you want is one of the non-bullseye inner rings? or is it the same AC because you do want to hit a bullseye, just not the painted bullseye?
As far as forging a seal with a specific, meaningful flaw, I agree that this is a higher DC than merely copying the real seal. Maybe a "DM's Best Friend" situation: +2 to the DC for incorporating the flaw, another +2 for making it subtle enough to sneak past suspicious eyes... something like that.
Anyway, FWIW, that's probably how I'd rule these things if they came up in game (they never have, but it's an interesting thought experiment).
Last edited:
Jdvn1
Hanging in there. Better than the alternative.
In that case, I don't know why you quoted me, as this has nothing to do with what I was saying.Pielorinho said:
The Bluff check I mentioned can't make the pie better and it can't make people think the pie is better than it is. The Bluff check is trying to pass yourself off as a worse cook than you actually are. You're saying that the problem with the Bluff check is that a worse cook could beat a better cook, which is quite the opposite.
Now, that's one way a masterful chef could try to make a worse pie, since he knows how to mess it up, but I'd think that someone watching him would be able to realize that he's sabotaging his pie. I don't think that'd necessarily take a P:Baker roll (not saying that it wouldn't be a P:Baker check), although it could. I'd say it falls under "Choosing to fail a check."Pielorinho said:
If you want to argue who could make a worse pie, that's a different story.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Jdvn1 said:
Profession. Baker. Roll.
Comedy gold.
