Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

[CapnZapp]

My thought is that a secret doir being a 10 dc or 15 dc makes perfect sense even for tier2 and 3 if its representing the type of secret doir thats not well hidden ot not well maintained by anyone who knows what they are doing (dc10) or someone with a little skill or little aptitude (dc 15) regardless of tier (based on the dmg) which discusses assigning dc based on those factors.

While previous editions o DnD just raised skill checks difficulty by "tier" to keep "an orc treasure secret door" hard to find as you level up, this verdion seems to take a different approach.

The key difference between us, it seems, is you seem to want it to be that those secret doirs remain dramatic challenges, while for me, i am absolutely fine with then not being - as that shows a sign of advancement.

It still allows for them to be drama, if the nature of the situation means taking the time to investigate is problematic.

An orc can run into a corridor, thru a secret door he knows, pursued by the pcs and lose them for a time while they search. That is true even if the investigate checks/search are DC10.

Its especially true if they are being bushwhacked or every moment they lose is good for the other guys.

The difficulty can remain consistent and easy but still the scene can provide drama and stress - since it may well be that all the pcs start searching, or most if they are under threat of fire.

So now its not one specialist with every buff they can throw.

To be honest, i dont recall game systems ever making what they classed as easy and moderate difficulty checs with time and resources to apply to them "challenging" just on their own.

3.x had take 10 and take 20, didn't they? Hero had circumstantial adjustments to skill checks which oncluded favorables and time.

So, see, to me having tier-2 and tier-3 not challenged by serious risk of failure on easy and moderate skill tests (with prep and buff) seems like a well planned thing, a reasonable expression of the setting - not some broken mechanic.

I am sure their are some out there, but i dont think we ever spent much time playing games where by the time you were slaying dragons and saving the world you were having trouble with routine doors and their locks.





I don

Nah, a DC 10 "secret door" is... a door.

What any commoner will automatically find with passive Perception is a door slightly behind a pillar or bookcase. Not something that deserves the moniker "secret".

 

[5ekyu]

Nah, a DC 10 "secret door" is... a door.

What any commoner will automatically find with passive Perception is a door slightly behind a pillar or bookcase. Not something that deserves the moniker "secret".

I tend not to get that hung up on people's personal preferences for choices of adjectives so... You dont want "secret" thats just dandy in my book.

But in dim light or lightly obscured situations one scene's automatic may be another scenes's race against time.

BTW, i dont make normal doors DC10 to spot. Normal doors are in my games treated as base scenery, spotted automatically at reasonable ranges with no check required for sighted types even those with slightly lower wisdoms or disadvantage.

Making 9 wisdom folks roll to see "doors" in a room (deciding dc 10 equals door) is certainly a creative choice tho.

So, kudos to that.

It also helps set context for the whole "what you want from skill dc" discussion tho.

So, thx.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nah, a DC 10 "secret door" is... a door.

What any commoner will automatically find with passive Perception is a door slightly behind a pillar or bookcase. Not something that deserves the moniker "secret".

Passive perception isn't a basic, all aware radar. It's the score you use when performing repeated tasks. Unless the player has declared their PC is looking for secret doors, then their passive perception isn't looking for secret doors. It's assumed that the default is that PCs and NPCs are alert for dangers, but not looking for secret doors, traps, treasure, or whatnot. DC 10 passive absent a 'searching for secret doors' or similar declaration will detect a sneaking goblin that rolls a 9- DEX (Stealth) check, but not that DC 10 secret door.

If you're prefer that passive scores be always on and always doing everything they possibly could detect, well, the game is delivering exactly the kind of experience you've declared you want. Problem solved.

 

[CapnZapp]

Passive perception isn't a basic, all aware radar. It's the score you use when performing repeated tasks. Unless the player has declared their PC is looking for secret doors, then their passive perception isn't looking for secret doors. It's assumed that the default is that PCs and NPCs are alert for dangers, but not looking for secret doors, traps, treasure, or whatnot. DC 10 passive absent a 'searching for secret doors' or similar declaration will detect a sneaking goblin that rolls a 9- DEX (Stealth) check, but not that DC 10 secret door.

If you're prefer that passive scores be always on and always doing everything they possibly could detect, well, the game is delivering exactly the kind of experience you've declared you want. Problem solved.

What on earth are you talking about.

In what universe does the Rogue player NOT say "are there any secret doors in this room?"

Please stop reflexively defend the indefensible. Why someone would go to the trouble of making a "secret" door that everybody finds... it makes no sense. In truth, it makes you wonder if the writer understands how the game rules work.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What on earth are you talking about.

In what universe does the Rogue player NOT say "are there any secret doors in this room?"

Please stop reflexively defend the indefensible. Why someone would go to the trouble of making a "secret" door that everybody finds... it makes no sense. In truth, it makes you wonder if the writer understands how the game rules work.

If the rogue says that, and takes the time to look, then they found the DC 10 door. But he doesn't find it if he doesn't look for it, unless normal doors. Seems like it's working as intended: a door that isn't immediately noticeable but isn't well hidden from even a cursory search -- an "easy" to find secret door. Even your hypothetical peasant can't find it without looking for it.

If your giving successes out for actions the players haven't declared, it's going to seem broken. A DC10 secret door still requires a declared action to look for it. And, if your rogue is looking for secret doors, they aren't looking for traps or enemies or treasure. Either your party cam stand there for the time it takes for the rogue to search for all the things or they're gonna make some checks, too.

CapnZapp, your game seems increasingly broken because you give tremendous latitude to yor players to do al the things and then complain it's the game's fault.

 

[5ekyu]

What on earth are you talking about.

In what universe does the Rogue player NOT say "are there any secret doors in this room?"

Please stop reflexively defend the indefensible. Why someone would go to the trouble of making a "secret" door that everybody finds... it makes no sense. In truth, it makes you wonder if the writer understands how the game rules work.

"That everybody finds"

So is now everybody a rogue searching for secret doors in your campaign world? Is every rogue looking for secret doors even during fights, chases or always fully lit?

Also, that secret door may once have been a DC15 or 20 door, back in the day when the palace was kept up, maintained and cleaned but now after decades or centuries of abandoned decrepitude things have changed. Maybe water has seeped in from the storms and so with a little bit of searching the stains easily give it away to those who bother at more than a passive glance.

Dont folks ever go into ruins, abandoned temples or that kinda thing in your games?

Its not hard to imagine inconsistencies between a DC, the game results and a given described circumstance or scene you conjure.

Thats why the GM sets the DC based on assessment of difficulty and circumstance and such.

So, really, all saying DC10 secret door is wrong is doing is describing what to you is a mismatch between a scene and a DC.

So, just set that DC for the scene or pick an appropriate scene for **your game** in play.

 

[5ekyu]

"Why someone would go to the trouble of making a "secret" door that everybody finds... it makes no sense."

Imagine...

"Hey, look, thats one slack secret door if ever i saw one. What kind of idiot... Just look here..."

**click** **splash**

"Whats that?"

"That is one well concealed trap in front of that poorly concealed door."

"IT BURNS IT BURNS MAKR IT STOP IT BURNS "

"Thats gonna leave a mark."

 

[Tony Vargas]

"In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers."

Yep, and Thief is a Rogue sub-class, so at 1st level your character may have a criminal background, but he'll be an apprentice Rogue, aspiring to become a thief, with skills to match, not a master thief (even if the band if dwarves hiring him make that assumption).

There's also the question of to whom they're apprenticed to,

The DM. It's like the Sith Rule of Two: one holds the power, the other craves it.

Except, of course, DMs blow it all the time by having multiple players.

and the examples in character creation which make it seem like being a high up in the thieves guild and a master assassin still plonk you as a starting character. I don't think a lot of thought went into the name.

Oh, that's just the ubiquitous dissociation of mechanics from fiction that's always been part of D&D, you just get used to it.

No, narrating success or failure is the most successful and straightforward bit of the skill system, and it also happens to be intrinsic to all RPGs.

In the trivial sense, perhaps, but 5e places it front & center as the first line of resolution, for all player actions.

The actual D&D specific bit where you use proficiencies and stat modifiers and a roll just ruins that elegant simplicity, while adding confusion and toil for all involved

Yep, so minimize exposure to it by "engaging with the fiction" (or whatever else it takes) to persuade the DM to narrate success as much as possible.

"looking closely at things exposes their flaws"..

5e wears it's flaws proudly on its sleave, like colors that proclaim it's D&D pedigree...

This typically means that those best at skills are those that fail them the most simply by virtue of nobody else even trying them.

Not so much under 5e BA. Typically, everyone has a shot if they roll well, so why not, and there's plenty of unimportant failing going on while the expert mostly succeeds, and, on occasion, when he does fail, some amateur pulls it off more or less by accident, there are some uncomfortable chuckles, and the game moves on.
Plus, of course, the expert should get a narration if success on actions that would call for a roll from others.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not so much under 5e BA.

BA?

Typically, everyone has a shot if they roll well, so why not, and there's plenty of unimportant failing going on while the expert mostly succeeds, and, on occasion, when he does fail, some amateur pulls it off more or less by accident, there are some uncomfortable chuckles, and the game moves on.

Except that players tend to not simply try to do everything, but base the actions they attempt on how they would describe their character, which tends to feed into their stats and skills. So the difficult climb is attempted by the strong, athletic barbarian in the group while the wizard finds another way.

And that means strong athletic barbarians tend to die trying to climb. And wizards tend to die trying to decipher arcane secrets.

Plus, of course, the expert should get a narration if success on actions that would call for a roll from others.

Isn't that effectively giving proficiency a sizable bonus? Except instead I have to say "you, you and you all succeed automatically, but you need to roll a DC 10. Yes, I know that they only have +5 on their rolls, but they're 'experts'. No, having a total of +4 plus advantage doesn't make you an expert. No, not even if you're allowed to reroll. No, having a class feature that gives you a bonus on all rolls that you don't have proficiency in doesn't count..."

and so on. Or I could just up the bonus for being proficient and be done with it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Another way of looking at it might be the the mechanics are set up to feed back into the basic conversation of the game and contribute to the goals of play. If a player knows that the fickle d20 combined with a relatively high chance of failure can lead to bad results, we might reasonably expect to see players trying to avoid rolling. How does one avoid rolling? By removing the chance of failure and/or the meaningful consequence of failure. How does one do that? By describing what you want to do in a clear, cogent manner that achieves one or both of the things that negates the roll. And considering that the goals of play are everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story by playing, players being encouraged to think about the game more to avoid rolling and describing their actions better - as in an actual story - we might reasonably conclude that the system is working as designed.

"The system is incredibly bad... and it's deliberate so that the game is better". The problem is that it takes a high level of system mastery on the part of players and DM for this to work, since it's not really made clear in the rulebooks. There's no advice to "avoid rolling if you can" for either party. It also means that high level rogues (amongst other roll boosters) are designed to break the fun of the game.

Finally - why would you bother having such a detailed proficiency system and DCs if this were the case? Like I pointed out above, have a list of things you're supposed to be good at and just flip a coin if things become uncertain.

So for those reasons, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. It might be how you've made the game work, but if the game was designed to work like that, then the designers utterly failed to convey that in what they wrote down.