Skill Rules Absurdities (or, "Do you really want to do that?")

[panaikhan]

This came up in the last session.
My Warforged Juggernaut wanted to jump a gap. A 5-foot gap.
Simple, isn't it?
No.

According to the rules, my Juggie takes a penalty for not having a 30-foot base movement. Because some of it's movement will be used in the jump, it doesn't have the required 'run-up' either, doubling the DC. Then there is the penalty for Adamantine Armour Plating (a requirement for Juggies).
Basically, with no actual ranks in Jump, a Warforged Juggernaut needs to roll a 21 (on a D20) to make a 5-foot jump... even though the character is taller than that, and could simply fall across the hole and drag themselves up the other side.

Any more wierdities that people have noticed?

[Vladislav]

No, you can make a 20' runup for the jump even if you don't have a 20' movement. There is no rule stating the runup and jump must be on the same round. Admittedly, then it's even more ridiculous (imagine jumping and freezing in midair as you run out of movement, to complete the jump on the next round), but works by the rules.

For something really absurd, check out the Faster-than-Light Horseback Travel:


Get a +19 Ride modifier. Line an arbitrarily-long row of horses, side to side. Mount one horse as a free action (DC 20 Ride check, achieved automatically), dismount as a free action on the other side (again, DC 20). Repeat as many times as needed, moving along the row of horses at arbitrarily high speed.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

You seem to have a very odd idea of what's trivial. A five foot standing jump is not something everyone can do and the character you described has numerous factors counting against him and may still be able to do it because of a most likely super human strength score.

Yes, your character could just fall across the gap, but then he'd need to make a climb check to scramble up the edge which the armor check penalty would still apply to. You'd more than likely succeed, but look lame doing it; the choice you made (or considered) leads to plenty of real world injuries.

[Crasical]

DC 5 normally for a 5-foot long jump. Double that for no running start, that's DC 10. -5 penalty for the Adamantine Body feat, equivalent to a DC 15. I assume that since you're a juggernaut, you also have a pretty good str score? That's nowhere near your numbers. What's the deal?

[KillianHawkeye]

DC 5 normally for a 5-foot long jump. Double that for no running start, that's DC 10. -5 penalty for the Adamantine Body feat, equivalent to a DC 15. I assume that since you're a juggernaut, you also have a pretty good str score? That's nowhere near your numbers. What's the deal?

Looks like he's also taking a -6 penalty for 20ft move speed. Still, I'd assume a character like that has a decent Str score.



As for the claim of that being absurd, I don't think so. I seriously doubt I could make a 5-foot jump without a running start, and my body isn't even made out of adamantine.

[erikun]

Any more wierdities that people have noticed?
Anything involving Diplomancy, Bluff, or Knowledge: Local as-written.


As for the claim of that being absurd, I don't think so. I seriously doubt I could make a 5-foot jump without a running start, and my body isn't even made out of adamantine.
I agree. I wouldn't assume it to be too hard for a person, but that is still assuming completely unencumbered.

Of course, just because you cannot jump five feet doesn't mean you couldn't just reach over the gap - or even simply step over it. I'd certainly assume that someone weighing close to a ton would have poor jumping ability, which naturally limits their mobility in some ways.

[Kazyan]

A classic skill check absurdity: seeing the moon requires a spot check of over 100 million.

[erikun]

A classic skill check absurdity: seeing the moon requires a spot check of over 100 million.
You do not need to make a spot check for something out in the open; plainly visible objects, especially light sources, are automatically seen.

Your required spot check is better for spotting, say, a specific lunar crater from under a forest canopy - something a bit more difficult.

[Airanath]

Things like:

How you can grab people who are climbing the same place as you without the need for an action (so even if its out of your turn, and without even needing a reflex save!).
How you can turn everyone into you best buddies ever with diplomacy. (Hitting a DC of 50 isn't that hard even before epic, epic just makes it not need work at all, and allows you to become a god by converting everyone into fanatics that worship you. Better god for a day per charisma than never god at all)
How only forgers can spot a forgery (Forgery is a resisted roll by a forgery check), so you can fake the king's seal and the king himself would be none the wiser.
How you can strip someone naked, in less than 6 seconds? (Sleight of Hand rules). That has a fixed DC 20 to happen, and the oponent gets a spot check to notice you are picking them clean, not to stop you. So even if they see you, you continue your dire work, strip them naked, and just need to run away. (After at most rolling initiative, might want to see about just droping the enemy pants, that might count as entangling them...)

[Necroticplague]

You do not need to make a spot check for something out in the open; plainly visible objects, especially light sources, are automatically seen.

Your required spot check is better for spotting, say, a specific lunar crater from under a forest canopy - something a bit more difficult.

The moon isn't a light source. Plus:



Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
plus

Per 10 feet of distance -1

[Eldonauran]

The moon isn't a light source. Plus:

:smallconfused: Thats just a technicality. For all intents and purposes, it is a light source, even if it is just reflected light.

Also:


The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding

Bolded for emphasis.

[Kazyan]

About spot: Huh, never noticed that clause.

About SoH: The DC 20 check carries a -20 penalty, to be precise, and, well...look up the Lightning Thief/Air Goblin Express stuff on this site.

[Eldest]

The moon counts as a colossal+++++++++++++++++... object (rules for larger than colossal objects from draconium) so the bonus from it's spot and penalty for distance largely cancel.

[erikun]

The moon isn't a light source. Plus:

Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
plus

Per 10 feet of distance -1
If we wish to get all technical and rules-lawyer-y, such penalities only apply to spot checks made to determine distance at the beginning of an encounter. SRD formatting isn't technically RAW-legal, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, and the penality is not mentioned anywhere else.

[Edit] You can also say the moon is an object without a dexterity score, and thus automatically fails all dex-based skill checks... such as a hide check. Unless there is something blocking line-of-sight, any spot check result will end up succeeding.

Also, where are you getting the idea that the moon isn't a light source? If you are basing it off the list of light sources, then that would mean the sun isn't a light source either. If you are basing it off common sense, then of course it is.

[Necroticplague]

Also, where are you getting the idea that the moon isn't a light source? If you are basing it off the list of light sources, then that would mean the sun isn't a light source either. If you are basing it off common sense, then of course it is.

I have no clue what list of light sources you are referring to, but I'm applying real world logic here:

The moon reflects light, not generate it, thus it is a light source in the same way that a mirror is.

[Crasical]

Things like:

How you can grab people who are climbing the same place as you without the need for an action (so even if its out of your turn, and without even needing a reflex save!).
How you can turn everyone into you best buddies ever with diplomacy. (Hitting a DC of 50 isn't that hard even before epic, epic just makes it not need work at all, and allows you to become a god by converting everyone into fanatics that worship you. Better god for a day per charisma than never god at all)
How only forgers can spot a forgery (Forgery is a resisted roll by a forgery check), so you can fake the king's seal and the king himself would be none the wiser.
How you can strip someone naked, in less than 6 seconds? (Sleight of Hand rules). That has a fixed DC 20 to happen, and the oponent gets a spot check to notice you are picking them clean, not to stop you. So even if they see you, you continue your dire work, strip them naked, and just need to run away. (After at most rolling initiative, might want to see about just droping the enemy pants, that might count as entangling them...)


.... I don't know what you're trying to say with the first one, and I know the second is true, but I want to ask about the other one....

1. Forgery is not a trained-only skill. The king himself might not be able to tell the difference, but one of his trained sages or a high int court-wizard might.
2. ... Hoooooow? Yes, you can make sleight of hand checks at DC 40 as a free action, but you can only take 'small objects' from a person, not their clothing or weapons.

[LadyLexi]

Spot checks, they make very little sense with a -1 every 10ft rule. I have a DM who sticks to that pretty close. Longbow has a range increment of 110ft, or a -11 spot check. Who's making that at low level? I have a total of a 14 before roll for spot but things that are 340 ft away are invisible to me if they would normally be a DC 0 to spot.

In real life, I need glasses or contacts to see clearly , but I can still make out people walking along a path at a thousand feet, even if I can't see what they look like.

That's always really bugged me about the system and why I don't use the -1 for every 10 ft rule when I run game.

[Sucrose]

.... I don't know what you're trying to say with the first one, and I know the second is true, but I want to ask about the other one....

1. Forgery is not a trained-only skill. The king himself might not be able to tell the difference, but one of his trained sages or a high int court-wizard might.
2. ... Hoooooow? Yes, you can make sleight of hand checks at DC 40 as a free action, but you can only take 'small objects' from a person, not their clothing or weapons.

The weapons might be a bit tricky, but you could take armor from them a link/piece at a time, and anything made of cloth a thread at a time. Granted, that does make it difficult for you to use for your own purposes, so might not want to do it to enemy loot...

[KillianHawkeye]

The weapons might be a bit tricky, but you could take armor from them a link/piece at a time, and anything made of cloth a thread at a time. Granted, that does make it difficult for you to use for your own purposes, so might not want to do it to enemy loot...

I'm pretty sure the Sleight of Hand skill does not give you free reign to dismantle another persons equipment piece by piece.

[Salanmander]

This came up in the last session.
My Warforged Juggernaut wanted to jump a gap. A 5-foot gap.
Simple, isn't it?
No.



As others have mentioned, this seems completely reasonable. I want to add one anecdote to point out that this does make sense from a simulationist perspective, at least.

An elephant can not jump a 5 foot gap. In fact, and elephant can't jump a ONE foot gap. Elephants, it turns out, can't jump at all. They are incapable of getting all their limbs off the ground at the same time.

As for weird skill things, my personal favorite is how large a variance there is in the physical skills. A commoner is running away from a zombie, and tries to make a long jump to clear a pit (as far as he can, because he doesn't know how wide the pit is). He will sometimes jump as far as 20 feet, and sometimes will jump only a single foot. Have you ever tried to jump only 1 foot while running? It's bloody hard!

[Sucrose]

I'm pretty sure the Sleight of Hand skill does not give you free reign to dismantle another persons equipment piece by piece.

Probably wouldn't be permitted as a reasonable extrapolation by a DM, but I'd say that it's a possible reading of the rules. Was mostly joking in any case, given that this thread's all about stupid ideas involving skills.:smalltongue:

[Arbane]

By RAW, most farmers won't have enough ranks in Knowledge: Nature to have any idea what those large mooing creatures on their farm are.

[Vladislav]

Just remembered my favourite one: Wolves can't survive in the wild

It's a DC 10 Survival check to get along in the wild, +2 for each additional character. A wolf with 4 cubs will have to make a DC 18 Survival check each day. In which she is unlikely to succeed, since wolves only have +1 Survival.

[kardar233]

An elephant can not jump a 5 foot gap. In fact, and elephant can't jump a ONE foot gap. Elephants, it turns out, can't jump at all. They are incapable of getting all their limbs off the ground at the same time.

That's an entirely different issue. The way elephant legs are shaped preclude them from making proper jumps. A Warforged Juggernaut can jump just fine, he's just heavy and unwieldy.

[TuggyNE]

Just remembered my favourite one: Wolves can't survive in the wild

It's a DC 10 Survival check to get along in the wild, +2 for each additional character. A wolf with 4 cubs will have to make a DC 18 Survival check each day. In which she is unlikely to succeed, since wolves only have +1 Survival.

Wolves hunt in packs. For the Aid Another bonus. Specifically, both mates hunt for half their litter, 8 mated wolves with four litters and two older wolves that can still hunt means 8 checks with 9 aid anothers each; an average of five of those will work, giving a +10 to the check, which at DC 14 is not all that difficult.

And Now You Know!

The next question is, what about foxes?

[Cespenar]

Just remembered my favourite one: Wolves can't survive in the wild

It's a DC 10 Survival check to get along in the wild, +2 for each additional character. A wolf with 4 cubs will have to make a DC 18 Survival check each day. In which she is unlikely to succeed, since wolves only have +1 Survival.

A survival check isn't the only means of survival in the wild. A wolf can wander around, find something, hunt it and bring it back to its cubs easily enough without using the skill. The skill is there for streamlining.

Likewise, you don't need a Profession skill to earn money in a job. It's there for quickening otherwise boring and mundane parts of the game.

[CTrees]

Let's not forget about using Knowledge checks to predict the future!

Skill Focus (Speak Language) is more of an odd feat, but is skill related, so may qualify.

Forget farmers not being able to identify their herds - Knowledge (local) being trained only, and not a class skill for many classes, means that your average human may well not be able to identify other humans! This may explain the exceptional quantity of half-human hybrids.

[Tyndmyr]

Survival Check DC 60 - Identify race/kind of creature(s) by tracks.

That's directly from the SRD. That's right, you've got to be epic to go "hmm, that looks like a bear track".

[ThiagoMartell]

Survival Check DC 60 - Identify race/kind of creature(s) by tracks.

That's directly from the SRD. That's right, you've got to be epic to go "hmm, that looks like a bear track".

Actually, with a DC 60 you know it was a black bear. Not a brown bear, not a dire bear, not an owlbear. A black bear.
60 is still very high, though.

[Novawurmson]

Knowledge (local) being trained only, and not a class skill for many classes, means that your average human may well not be able to identify other humans! This may explain the exceptional quantity of half-human hybrids.

Can I sig this?

[CTrees]

@Novawurmson: Haha, absolutely!

[Novawurmson]

I'd heard the old "The average person in D&D can't identify their own race," but I'd never heard it given as a reasonable explanation for two core races before XD

[TuggyNE]

Survival Check DC 60 - Identify race/kind of creature(s) by tracks.

That's directly from the SRD. That's right, you've got to be epic to go "hmm, that looks like a bear track".

Wow. That is unconscionable. None of the listed epic Survival DCs should be anywhere near that high. :smallmad:

[willpell]

I would think it's fairly obvious that identifying your own race is an automatic success with no need to roll. I mean, you don't roll a ranged attack to have your character toss a kernel of popcorn into his own mouth. Rolls are only for tasks that have some chance of failure. As for whether a human needs to identify a dwarf, that's up to the DM; if dwarves are as common in his campaign as they are generally assumed to be, everyone has probably taken 20 on that check during their childhood when their parents were telling them about the world in general. But if dwarves have never emerged from their tunnels before, then it's completely appropriate for a Knowledge roll to be required for a character to have heard about dwarves from someone who's been down in those tunnels (and likewise for the dwarves to know about anything that lives on the surface if they've never been there before).


Let's not forget about using Knowledge checks to predict the future!

Can you explain this one? I do not comprehend.

[Network]

I mean, you don't roll a ranged attack to have your character toss a kernel of popcorn into his own mouth. Rolls are only for tasks that have some chance of failure.

I think there are, but that does not matter...

Anyway, about the knowledge check, it can't be true. You can always identify your own race at see.

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

[sreservoir]

Can you explain this one? I do not comprehend.

right. this is more a pathfinder thing, because pf actually specified uses of the knowledge skill. for knowledge (history), the uses are "Know recent or historically significant event", "Determine approximate date of a specific event", "Know obscure or ancient historical event".

now, the first one must necessarily be in the past -- both "recent" and "historically significant" require that the thing happened in the past.

the third is less clear, but it's reasonable to think that it must be a historical event, which is obscure or ancient; because it is historical, then, the third use likewise must be in the past.

the second use never implies that the "specific event" is in the past. to be sure, you need to be able to identify a "specific event", and the date is only approximate -- but nothing prevents this from being a specific event in the future. if you are absolutely sure that something will happen in the long term, but don't know when, you can use knowledge (history) to approximate.

for that matter, nothing about the second use requires significance, either; it can be ridiculously obscure -- "when did the universe begin?" is answered with a DC 15 knowledge (history) check.

"when will the universe end?" is also approximated by a DC 15 knowledge (history) check.

"when will the sun stop shining?"? likewise.

"when will I die?" is not too difficult a question for someone with knowledge (history).

the limitation in the granularity of "approximate date".

[TuggyNE]

I would think it's fairly obvious that identifying your own race is an automatic success with no need to roll. I mean, you don't roll a ranged attack to have your character toss a kernel of popcorn into his own mouth. Rolls are only for tasks that have some chance of failure.

The point of the extreme case is to show how much fudging is required to make sense; it's impossible to identify your own race without either cross-class skill ranks or random fudging.


As for whether a human needs to identify a dwarf, that's up to the DM; if dwarves are as common in his campaign as they are generally assumed to be, everyone has probably taken 20 on that check during their childhood when their parents were telling them about the world in general. But if dwarves have never emerged from their tunnels before, then it's completely appropriate for a Knowledge roll to be required for a character to have heard about dwarves from someone who's been down in those tunnels (and likewise for the dwarves to know about anything that lives on the surface if they've never been there before).

As Network mentioned, though, identification checks start at DC 11. They cannot therefore be made untrained, and it is therefore impossible for a dwarf Fighter to identify a duergar, an elf Warrior to identify a pixie, a human commoner to recognize a half-orc, and so on. Not merely unlikely: impossible.

At some point, you have to recognize the absurdity of that and fix the rule as a whole, rather than monkey-patching every instance you run across.

[Roguenewb]

I would think it's fairly obvious that identifying your own race is an automatic success with no need to roll. I mean, you don't roll a ranged attack to have your character toss a kernel of popcorn into his own mouth. Rolls are only for tasks that have some chance of failure. As for whether a human needs to identify a dwarf, that's up to the DM; if dwarves are as common in his campaign as they are generally assumed to be, everyone has probably taken 20 on that check during their childhood when their parents were telling them about the world in general. But if dwarves have never emerged from their tunnels before, then it's completely appropriate for a Knowledge roll to be required for a character to have heard about dwarves from someone who's been down in those tunnels (and likewise for the dwarves to know about anything that lives on the surface if they've never been there before).



Can you explain this one? I do not comprehend.

This thread isn't about common sense fixes. There are a lot of stupid things in the rules, and that's what we're talking about. Yes, we all agree a human should know what humans are, but *technically* they don't.

My favorite skill insanity is the stupidity of Spot and Listen checks getting a -1 per ten feet. It gets so hard to hear things, so quickly it's laughable. 1 out of 20 times, ten thousand armored men and horses clashing 120 feet away goes unheard. HOW?!

[Doug Lampert]

The moon counts as a colossal+++++++++++++++++... object (rules for larger than colossal objects from draconium) so the bonus from it's spot and penalty for distance largely cancel.

Let's look at that claim that the two cancel, it's easy enough to check.

The moon's size is roughly 3,476 km in diameter. Which is roughly 11404200 feet, which is at the bottom end of 21 size categories above medium for a +84 to spot.

This cancels the first 840 feet of distance penalties.

Shame about the other roughly 1,261,154,016 or so feet and the resulting NET PENALTY of -126,115,401 to spot.

The problem is that increasing the size category has size go up exponentially (double for each change), while range penalties are linear.

This is a problem ANY TIME you look at spotting ranges and different sized objects, it's just made absurdly obvious by looking at the moon.

DougL

[Eldonauran]

I don't know... Considering the moon* isn't actively trying to hide from you, I don't think a spot check is justified in order to see it.

*=That pesky new moon however... Good luck with THAT! :smallamused:

[Doug Lampert]

I don't know... Considering the moon* isn't actively trying to hide from you, I don't think a spot check is justified in order to see it.

*=That pesky new moon however... Good luck with THAT! :smallamused:

New moon, high thin cirrus clouds, whatever. The INSTANT you decide a roll MIGHT, possibly be called for you hit that minus 125,000,000 or so penalty and can't see it at all. It's either automatic success or failure, there's never any middle ground, and the same goes for seeing features on the moon (where it's quite clear that different people have different abilities).

The same thing happens for seeing a city several miles off, or hearing an army passing a few hundred feet away, or seeing a tree on a mountain, or....

Anything big and far away is effectively invisible the instant you decide to get out dice, it's either ALWAYS seen by anyone with eyes, or it's effectively impossible.

Double size is +4 to spot, double range SHOULD BE -4 to spot. If that were the case the moon's bonus and penalty WOULD almost exactly cancel out.

But double size is +4, and double range is anything from -1 at 5' doubled to 10' to -arbitrarily large number at arbitrarily large range in increments of 10'.

This is bad, the system breaks anytime you leave the "sweet spot" where double range is at least vaguely close to -4 (say at more than 160').

[Eldonauran]

I see your point. Glad there's DM fiat and common sense to go around. :smallbiggrin:

[Kallisti]

I see your point. Glad there's DM fiat

Frequently.


and common sense to go around. :smallbiggrin:

All too rarely.

[Doug Lampert]

I see your point. Glad there's DM fiat and common sense to go around. :smallbiggrin:

Which is how most rules absurdities are dealt with. But it's still a rules absurdity and it almost certainly leaves the GM saying either "you can automatically spot that" or "you can't see that" with the character skill having no input.

A dragon flying high overhead is either invisible (because it's trying to hide by being high up and flying through any available clouds and the GM thus uses the spot rules) or it's automatically seen. As a practical matter no skill roll is possible.

The existence of a bad rule should, IMAO, suggest that you use a good rule, not that you DM fiat the bad rule (DM fiat should be for odd edge cases, not for something as simple and obvious as every spot roll for something more than half a football field away).

Consider if the range penalty table were something like the table below:
Distance: Spot Modifier
5': +3
10': +2
15': +1
20': +0
25': -1
30': -2
35': -3
40': -4
50': -5
60': -6
70': -7
80': -8
100': -9
120': -10
140': -11
160': -12
200': -13
240': -14
280': -15
320': -16
400': -17
480': -18
560': -19
640': -20
800': -21
960': -22
1120': -23
1280': -24
1600': -25
...
5120': -32 (roughly 1 mile, old rule this is -512 to spot)
ext... (x2 range for -4 to spot, about x1000 range for -40 to spot)

With the above table you CAN spot the moon, or a city, or a town, or an army, or a dragon flying overhead. And you CAN spot them when the character SHOULD spot them with the skills actually being used.

If I were rewriting the 3.x rules I'd also use the above table as an absolute minimum penalty to ranged attacks (use this or the increment based penalty, whichever is worse, and this includes ranged touch attacks). It's mildly absurd that a spell that has to be targetted is perfectly accurate out to 1200' or whatever (after a certain point a flat trajectory doesn't help, you still need to aim more accurately at longer range).

[Vegan Zombie]

I can't remember where I read it, but I believe the DCs for Listen checks to hear other people talking in the room are absurdly high

[NamelessNPC]

Just 10, which means a commoner understands 50% of what it is said to him

[TuggyNE]

Just 10, which means a commoner understands 50% of what it is said to him

10 only at 0-9' away; a take 10 would fix that, but what about 20' away?

[NamelessNPC]

Taking 10 in a conversation is asking "what?" 9 times in a row

[TuggyNE]

Taking 10 in a conversation is asking "what?" 9 times in a row

You're thinking of taking 20. Taking 10 doesn't work that way; it just gives you the average result in the same amount of time as a normal attempt.

[Lord.Sorasen]

The point of the extreme case is to show how much fudging is required to make sense; it's impossible to identify your own race without either cross-class skill ranks or random fudging.



As Network mentioned, though, identification checks start at DC 11. They cannot therefore be made untrained, and it is therefore impossible for a dwarf Fighter to identify a duergar, an elf Warrior to identify a pixie, a human commoner to recognize a half-orc, and so on. Not merely unlikely: impossible.

At some point, you have to recognize the absurdity of that and fix the rule as a whole, rather than monkey-patching every instance you run across.

Now I guess RAW might not necessarily support this, but "common knowledge" doesn't really seem to be specifically defined as anything in particular. To say a dwarf wouldn't know what a dwarf is would actually, in my mind, be against RAW, because what a dwarf is certainly qualifies as common knowledge to dwarves.

Actually, to go a bit further: I imagine you don't have to roll knowledge checks on things you already have been told before, no? I mean, if someone told me that the wall was red, I wouldn't have to roll to know the wall is red, right? Not knowing what a dwarf is would be to assume that no one ever told your dwarf character what a dwarf is.

Some might argue that this is different than RAW because it involves assumptions and common sense. Yet I'd argue that a lot of the time, the rules are in fact made with such notes as "common knowledge" written as a direct rule stating you need to use sense when applying skill checks.

OK, so to actually provide to the original topic: Speak Language is pretty fun, because you don't ever get any better at languages. You go from "not speaking a language" to fluency all at once. And once you know it you are done.

[Mithril Leaf]

Now I guess RAW might not necessarily support this, but "common knowledge" doesn't really seem to be specifically defined as anything in particular. To say a dwarf wouldn't know what a dwarf is would actually, in my mind, be against RAW, because what a dwarf is certainly qualifies as common knowledge to dwarves.

Actually, to go a bit further: I imagine you don't have to roll knowledge checks on things you already have been told before, no? I mean, if someone told me that the wall was red, I wouldn't have to roll to know the wall is red, right? Not knowing what a dwarf is would be to assume that no one ever told your dwarf character what a dwarf is.

Some might argue that this is different than RAW because it involves assumptions and common sense. Yet I'd argue that a lot of the time, the rules are in fact made with such notes as "common knowledge" written as a direct rule stating you need to use sense when applying skill checks.

OK, so to actually provide to the original topic: Speak Language is pretty fun, because you don't ever get any better at languages. You go from "not speaking a language" to fluency all at once. And once you know it you are done.

Plus, you can (for a really smart wizard or a rogue) pick up a half dozen different languages in however long it takes you to level up. That's right, you can go from complete ineptitude to total understanding of 6 different languages in 5 minutes or overnight in your sleep. Wish I had those skillpoints back in high school spanish.

[willpell]

OK, so to actually provide to the original topic: Speak Language is pretty fun, because you don't ever get any better at languages. You go from "not speaking a language" to fluency all at once. And once you know it you are done.


Plus, you can (for a really smart wizard or a rogue) pick up a half dozen different languages in however long it takes you to level up. That's right, you can go from complete ineptitude to total understanding of 6 different languages in 5 minutes or overnight in your sleep. Wish I had those skillpoints back in high school spanish.

I've often bemoaned the absurdity of how levels work in D&D; all of a sudden you learn 10 different spells, a feat, several new skills, and a class feature or two which you never had before, all at once. I'm in favor of the idea of revising D&D rules to break everything that you get from any particular level into an extended progression where you pick up one thing at a time through training or the like, but it'd be an intense quantity of work, especially given that you'd have to adjust for differing attribute amounts for every possible character.

[Mnemnosyne]

the second use never implies that the "specific event" is in the past. to be sure, you need to be able to identify a "specific event", and the date is only approximate -- but nothing prevents this from being a specific event in the future. if you are absolutely sure that something will happen in the long term, but don't know when, you can use knowledge (history) to approximate.

for that matter, nothing about the second use requires significance, either; it can be ridiculously obscure -- "when did the universe begin?" is answered with a DC 15 knowledge (history) check.

"when will the universe end?" is also approximated by a DC 15 knowledge (history) check.

"when will the sun stop shining?"? likewise.

"when will I die?" is not too difficult a question for someone with knowledge (history).

the limitation in the granularity of "approximate date".
Actually, given the knowledge that some event will happen in the future, and sufficient understanding of historical trends and the like, it is not unreasonable that one could determine an approximate date. If it's a fixed DC, that's somewhat problematic (clearly the DC should increase the further away from the current date the information is), but the idea that with sufficient knowledge you can identify an approximate date for things that will happen isn't unusual. Otto von Bismarck's numerous predictions about european events, including World War I, are good examples.

As for the spot check issue, that table is often used out of context. The relevant text actually says:

The Dungeon Master may call for Spot checks to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).
Those penalties therefore apply only on checks to determine the distance of an encounter beginning, and not on spot checks to see a target. In fact, according to the rules as written, there are no penalties based on distance for spot checks just to see a thing.

[TuggyNE]

Now I guess RAW might not necessarily support this, but "common knowledge" doesn't really seem to be specifically defined as anything in particular. To say a dwarf wouldn't know what a dwarf is would actually, in my mind, be against RAW, because what a dwarf is certainly qualifies as common knowledge to dwarves.

Sure. But does a dwarf similarly auto-identify a human? Is that common knowledge? What about a horse? What about an elf? What about ...? and so on. That's why all my examples were things that were related, but not identical; it's logical for an elf to know what a pixie is, even if they've never seen one.

The rest of this discussion should probably go into a new thread, though.

[SowZ]

10 only at 0-9' away; a take 10 would fix that, but what about 20' away?

If he had 9 wisdom he couldn't even do that. 9 Wisdom and no ranks in listen means lots and lots of people have serious hearing impairments. Until they get old, that is.

[Curmudgeon]

I would think it's fairly obvious that identifying your own race is an automatic success with no need to roll.
If you're English, are you guaranteed to distinguish that some stranger is also English and not Welsh? Since most D&D Humanoid races can interbreed, they're equivalent to our existing ideas of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29), which are pretty much biologically nonsense.
Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. It's not obvious at all.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you're English, are you guaranteed to distinguish that some stranger is also English and not Welsh? Since most D&D Humanoid races can interbreed, they're equivalent to our existing ideas of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29), which are pretty much biologically nonsense. It's not obvious at all.

In this case, I think the difference in accent would give it away. :smallbiggrin:

[willpell]

If you're English, are you guaranteed to distinguish that some stranger is also English and not Welsh? Since most D&D Humanoid races can interbreed, they're equivalent to our existing ideas of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29), which are pretty much biologically nonsense. It's not obvious at all.

Er, no. You might not be able to nail a person's exact country of origin, but you can still tell whether they have long pointy ears or a flat square head. D&D races are really more like species, albeit species so closely related that they can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Maybe the best analogy would be dog breeds, and nobody could mistake a Great Dane for a chihuauha; the difference in D&D "races" is just as broad.

[ThiagoMartell]

Er, no. You might not be able to nail a person's exact country of origin, but you can still tell whether they have long pointy ears or a flat square head. D&D races are really more like species, albeit species so closely related that they can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Maybe the best analogy would be dog breeds, and nobody could mistake a Great Dane for a chihuauha; the difference in D&D "races" is just as broad.

I don't even know what a great dane is, so your example is a bit flawed.

[willpell]

I don't even know what a great dane is, so your example is a bit flawed.

Huh. St. Bernard? German Shepherd? Labrador Retriever?

[Curmudgeon]

In this case, I think the difference in accent would give it away. :smallbiggrin:
People from the urban south of Wales (around Cardiff) generally don't have a pronounced Welsh accent. And England has so many different accents (regional, class-associated, & c.) that recognizing them all is quite an accomplishment.

Can you tell Texas and Oklahoma accents apart? Or Maine and Massachusetts? Even some local to those places can't.

[willpell]

Can you tell Texas and Oklahoma accents apart? Or Maine and Massachusetts? Even some local to those places can't.

Not to mention that it's perfectly possible for someone to intentionally speak without an accent, or even to learn how to accurately fake an accent unlike their native one, in order to keep people from making assumptions about them.

[Doug Lampert]

Now I guess RAW might not necessarily support this, but "common knowledge" doesn't really seem to be specifically defined as anything in particular.

Eh? It's SPECIFICALLY and CLEARLY stated to be anything with a DC of 10 or less.

And the DC for identifing a level one dwarf is DC 11. It's NOT common knowledge.


To say a dwarf wouldn't know what a dwarf is would actually, in my mind, be against RAW, because what a dwarf is certainly qualifies as common knowledge to dwarves.

Why is it common knowledge? It's DC is higher than 10 so it requires training, that's in RAW in black and white.

[willpell]

Why is it common knowledge? It's DC is higher than 10 so it requires training, that's in RAW in black and white.

One of the adjustments that the DM is permitted to make, instead of a +2 circumstance bonus, is to reduce the DC by 2. Any DM who doesn't choose to apply that reduction to this particular roll has some explaining to do.

[Quietus]

Huh. St. Bernard? German Shepherd? Labrador Retriever?

Don't worry about him, he's just not gotten around to putting ranks in Knowledge (Nature) yet. :smalltongue:

[ahenobarbi]

I don't even know what a great dane is, so your example is a bit flawed.


Don't worry about him, he's just not gotten around to putting ranks in Knowledge (Nature) yet. :smalltongue:

Or google-fu (https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&q=great+dane).

[Ashtagon]

For this apocrypghal human trying to tell a dwarf from his sister, there are three different questions we need to distinguish, namely:

* "That's a dwarf!"
* "That's not a human!"
* "That's not like me!"

[Randomguy]

It's not completely absurd for someone to not know his own race. An elf living among elves would know that he's an elf (because other elves told him), but it's possible that an elf that was adopted by a human single parent in an all human or mostly human society would think that he was a half elf, for example. And some people might have trouble telling an orc from a half orc, and an ogre might not be able to tell a half orc from a human.

And it might be hard for a commoner that's never seen a dwarf before to realise that he was talking to a dwarf, and not a very short, stocky, hairy human.

[Azernak0]

Profession is kind of silly. It makes it seem as if every single job needs some kind of training. I would like to see the three week course that the delivery boys need to go through to learn how to deliver stuff.

Spot, as most people have said, is insane. 210 feet away from you and I am invisible basically. I can only imagine how we all manage to drive on the highway without killing everyone...

Hiding another person is incredibly hard. Because when I was a kid hiding in the bushes after (allegedly) toilet papering a house, it was SOOOO much harder to get my friend in the bushes.

The disguise rules pretty much make it to where only REALLY optimized people could ever be part of special effects. Basically it is nearly impossible to make a 150 pound man look like he is 225 pounds, silicone fat suits be damned!

Open Lock. Apparently, virtually no one is possible of opening a lock that only requires a q-tip to open. Or it takes them 20 minutes to do it.

Craft. Give someone the components to make a complex lock and with no training, no instructions, and in 20 minutes you have a lock!

Handle Animal. It is impossible for the average person to tell a dog that already knows the trick to roll over.

[Craft (Cheese)]

How only forgers can spot a forgery (Forgery is a resisted roll by a forgery check), so you can fake the king's seal and the king himself would be none the wiser.

This isn't all that absurd, really. If you stamped dozens of documents every day, would you remember every last one of them?

[TuggyNE]

It's not completely absurd for someone to not know his own race. An elf living among elves would know that he's an elf (because other elves told him), but it's possible that an elf that was adopted by a human single parent in an all human or mostly human society would think that he was a half elf, for example. And some people might have trouble telling an orc from a half orc, and an ogre might not be able to tell a half orc from a human.

And it might be hard for a commoner that's never seen a dwarf before to realise that he was talking to a dwarf, and not a very short, stocky, hairy human.

There's a qualitative difference between "a somewhat tricky check that might fail" and "cannot legally make the check at all"; the latter, as Doug Lampert reiterated, is unfortunately actually the case, so most characters are utterly incapable of identifying any common race.


For this apocrypghal human trying to tell a dwarf from his sister, there are three different questions we need to distinguish, namely:

* "That's a dwarf!"
* "That's not a human!"
* "That's not like me!"

I would add one more to the list: "That's a dwarf, and they are unusually stable, very hardy, resistant to all kinds of magic, and quite skilled with stone."


Craft. Give someone the components to make a complex lock and with no training, no instructions, and in 20 minutes you have a lock!

... not really? They have to meet DC 20, and it takes a week to make an average lock (unless they greatly surpass the DC). It's non-trivial to hit that DC, and you certainly can't take 20 on it.


Handle Animal. It is impossible for the average person to tell a dog that already knows the trick to roll over.

I'm not seeing it; the skill allows an untrained person to handle or push domestic creatures, which works out fine at DC 10. (A little high, but whatever; just take 10 and you're OK.) Now, requiring a rank of Handle Animal just to raise a puppy is pretty silly, of course. At least Commoners get it as a class skill, though.


This isn't all that absurd, really. If you stamped dozens of documents every day, would you remember every last one of them?

Remember (or even be able to read) the document? No, probably not. Recognize the seal? You betcha.

[panaikhan]

Going along with rules absurdities... and back to the tank vs gap that started it.
OK, given, RAW the Juggernaut is going to have a tough time 'jumping' the gap.
How about Bull-Rushing a (possibly willing) target across said gap, and moving with them?
Are there any other possible RAW interpretations of combat manoevres (however absurd) that would cross this 5' gaping chasm?

[Duke of URL]

I have no clue what list of light sources you are referring to, but I'm applying real world logic here:

The moon reflects light, not generate it, thus it is a light source in the same way that a mirror is.

This is D&D. Real-world logic doesn't apply. D&D explicitly calls out moonlight as a source of light for characters with low-light vision, e.g.:


Low-Light Vision: An elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. She retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.

[Neek]

How you can grab people who are climbing the same place as you without the need for an action (so even if its out of your turn, and without even needing a reflex save!).

(I cut out the stuff I agree with--no need in additionally harping in extra, "Man, these rules have such horrible oversights.")

I would justify it as the same mechanic as how you can make an extra melee attack when someone walked beside you--count it as an AoO.


How you can strip someone naked, in less than 6 seconds? (Sleight of Hand rules). That has a fixed DC 20 to happen, and the oponent gets a spot check to notice you are picking them clean, not to stop you. So even if they see you, you continue your dire work, strip them naked, and just need to run away. (After at most rolling initiative, might want to see about just droping the enemy pants, that might count as entangling them...)

Sleight of Hand attempts provoke an attack of opportunity. Spot would be simultaneously made with the Sleight of Hand attempt (or at least, when the object is lifted); this would more than likely provoke an AoO. At least, as a DM, I would give it to the poor sap who's getting his pants stolen. Of course, the rules call for DC 20 for lifting a small item--anything larger than "small" (not size, just description) would be impossible to SoH. I'd rule lawyer it an impossibility to steal someone's pants.


.... I don't know what you're trying to say with the first one, and I know the second is true, but I want to ask about the other one....

1. Forgery is not a trained-only skill. The king himself might not be able to tell the difference, but one of his trained sages or a high int court-wizard might.
2. ... Hoooooow? Yes, you can make sleight of hand checks at DC 40 as a free action, but you can only take 'small objects' from a person, not their clothing or weapons.


Well said on 2. For 1--correct. Forgery is non-trained, which means anyone can make an attempt to determine its accuracy and legitimacy. Moreover, the rules imply that the people looking over the document are not the people who would possess the seal in question, or would have written it--an interesting oversight. The rules aren't written for the King to be fooled that he signed his kingdom over to the party's thief, rather the mark for a forgery (a guard, a cleric, the tax collector) are the targets of the Forgery attempt.

A little sidenote: The game always give favor to the individual making the roll (that is, attack rolls always hit when the result is equal to the AC, spot checks always succeed when the result is equal to the Hide check result, &c.). This means that the authority of the attempt always maintains precedence over the roll. The alleged authority of the document (that is, in the previous example, the alleged scribe of the decree that gives the kingdom to the thief) automatically succeeds on the check, if only because the rules state "a document that contradicts procedure, orders, or previous knowledge, or one that requires sacrifice on the part of the person checking the document can increase that character’s suspicion (and thus create favorable circumstances for the checker’s opposing Forgery check)." That is, "favorable circumstances" are virtually undefined outside of the limited circumstance modifiers, which makes zero attempt to adjust for the content of the document. A good forgery may impress the authority of the document, but would not actually pass any true scrutiny if the material in it is obivously contradictory to the alleged authority--however, such a decree may influence the guard to look the other way or follow your orders, but not the King himself (who would be the alleged authority of such a document).


Spot checks, they make very little sense with a -1 every 10ft rule. I have a DM who sticks to that pretty close. Longbow has a range increment of 110ft, or a -11 spot check. Who's making that at low level? I have a total of a 14 before roll for spot but things that are 340 ft away are invisible to me if they would normally be a DC 0 to spot.

In real life, I need glasses or contacts to see clearly , but I can still make out people walking along a path at a thousand feet, even if I can't see what they look like.

That's always really bugged me about the system and why I don't use the -1 for every 10 ft rule when I run game.

Spot isn't used to see something, but to notice something--you don't need it to see the moon at night (as people are arguing) or see a person you are obviously perceiving a quarter mile down the way. But you should be using it to notice someone standing in that crowd of people just staring down you down that quarter mile of a way.

Of course, the range increments for firing a weapon are fairer than compared to the range increments of the human eyeball--that is, a woefully clumsy and inaccurate object hurtling through the air has greater accuracy than the human eyeball. So no, I'm not arguing against your decision on not using the Spot check modifier (I never do either, if only because I already wrote the Spot DC check based on the circumstances I'd already designed for the encounter long before the game session.) Rather, I'm merely arguing that limiting the useages of Spot to anything approaching, even to the strictest definition of the word, obvious might still predicate the distance modifier of Spot.

[willpell]

Well said on 2. For 1--correct. Forgery is non-trained, which means anyone can make an attempt to determine its accuracy and legitimacy.

What's absurd about Forgery is that not only is it a usable-untrained skill, but it automatically gives substantial bonuses to the forger, and potential penalties to the forgery-spotter. That means that a 12-INT level 1 commoner with no Forgery ranks can write a set of military orders (no signature), give them to the 16-INT Level 5 field commander with 4 cross-class ranks in Forgery, and if none of the table modifiers apply, the commander needs to roll higher than you did to detect the forgery. So Bob the farmer has a half chance of successfully commanding a platoon of imperial legionnaries to perform a search-and-destroy mission on the chickens in his neighbor's barn, as long as the document and handwriting are only "somewhat" well-known to the commander. Celestia help the commander if he "only casually reviews the document".

Even at absolute best, the forgery-spotter gets only +4 on his roll, and the forger gets the same bonus as long as he only needs to copy a signature, so if they have the same Intelligence bonus and neither one is trained, the odds are again 50/50. With Forgery as a maxed-out class skill, you can write an entire novel by the realm's most famous bard (he leaves "large samples" of his handwriting all over the place, after all), and even fellow experts will have to have above-average familiarity and scrutinize the writing carefully, or they'll be as likely as not to accept the manuscript as genuine (and probably pay you a goodly sum for this "unpublished masterpiece recently unearthed from his estate").

[Sutremaine]

People from the urban south of Wales (around Cardiff) generally don't have a pronounced Welsh accent.
So what kind of accents do they have? Cardiff accents? In that case, nobody in Wales has a Welsh accent, because their local accent overrides the generic Welsh one.

[willpell]

When they were generating the list of skills a barbarian can't use while Raging, they seem to have forgotten that Heal and Profession are WIS-based.

[The Random NPC]

When they were generating the list of skills a barbarian can't use while Raging, they seem to have forgotten that Heal and Profession are WIS-based.

I think that was intentional.
Barbarian: *rage* I'M SO ANGRY! WOULD YOU LIKE FRIES WITH THAT!?!

[Worira]

Or possibly

HULK GRUGNAK CLEANSE PUNY WOUND CANAL BEFORE APPLYING PUNY GAUZE