Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9326393" data-attributes="member: 93670">It's not that simple.&nbsp; Back in 3.5 on phb166 you had [spoiler=&quot;these tables&quot;][ATTACH=full]359737[/ATTACH][/spoiler]Hardness was basically object DR (beat it or do zero).&nbsp; The DC's might look high, but taking 10 &amp; taking 20 were options to bypass the die if there was enough time(10-20x longer?) no consequence of failure &amp; such so the high DCs were really a matter of ensuring the situational problems (ie the guard, the ticking clock, etc) got handled before the check.&nbsp; The DMG had some rules that could extend &amp; modify that (potentially&nbsp; drastically).By having that page &amp; relevant rules it allowed players to at a glanceget an idea for what their character would probably intuit or know about an average door/rope/chain/manacle&nbsp; or whatever so they could put their heads together and come up with a plan that seems plausible even if the GM has modified this door/chain/etc beyond the baseline with a new dc/hp/hardness for $reason.&nbsp; Knowing that the GM describing things could potentially be a $reason&nbsp; type problem for the players also made it more likely that players listened to &amp; investigated with purpose when they had suspicions likely to be relevant</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9326393, member: 93670"] It's not that simple. Back in 3.5 on phb166 you had [spoiler="these tables"] [ATTACH type="full"]359737[/ATTACH] [/spoiler] Hardness was basically object DR (beat it or do zero). The DC's might look high, but taking 10 & taking 20 were options to bypass the die if there was enough time(10-20x longer?) no consequence of failure & such so the high DCs were really a matter of ensuring the situational problems (ie the guard, the ticking clock, etc) got handled before the check. The DMG had some rules that could extend & modify that ([I]potentially drastically[/I]). By having that page & relevant rules it allowed players to at a glanceget an idea for what their character would probably intuit or know about an [I]average[/I] door/rope/chain/manacle or whatever so they could put their heads together and come up with a plan that seems plausible even if the GM has modified [I]this[/I] door/chain/etc beyond the baseline with a new dc/hp/hardness for $reason. Knowing that the GM describing things could potentially be a $reason type problem for the players also made it more likely that players listened to & investigated with purpose when they had suspicions likely to be relevant [/QUOTE]

Verification