Is this DM adjudicating Sleight of Hand fairly? [Archive]

Jowgen

2014-01-27, 01:07 PM

I'm currently playing a level 7 campaign under a DM who (very rightfully) tries his best to make sure that skills don't get abused, but I'm wondering whether he is going a bit far with nerfing the Sleight of Hand skill of our new rogue.

The new rogue in the party has a sleight of hand modifier of +19. When we're in a city, he likes to go around and occasionally steal NPC purses. The other day we were walking around at night, and he rolled a 15, getting a 34 on his sleight of hand to take the purse of a random NPC we were passing. The DM rolled separate Spot checks for the target, the target's date, and the 8 guards who were in the vicinity. One of the guards noticed.

I understand not wanting a PC to be able to just steal whatever they please, but in order to notice the rogue's theft, the guard would have had to have a Spot modifier of at least 15 when rolling a natural 20; meaning he'd have to be around CR10, with decent wisdom and Spot maxed as a class skill. This is obviously discounting distance, lighting conditions, and random skill boosts for the guard.

I'm really torn on whether to bring this up, since creating NPCs is up to the DM's discretion, but on the other hand, random city guards with unmitigated + 15 to spot strike me as a touch excessive, especially considering that theses are the same city guards who couldn't take down a CR 8 creature just the day before.

Opinions on this, anyone? :smalleek:

Spore

2014-01-27, 01:10 PM

Spot modifier is tad bit too high. Also the amount of guards in the vicinity is astounding. Where do you have that amount of guards? Also if you try to steal in front of 8 police officers, you better be very good.

Zanos

2014-01-27, 01:12 PM

It is a bit excessive, yeah, and it's pretty unlikely that a guard anywhere would have +15 spot, especially if you take into account the penalties for distance and lighting.

I don't really think letting the rogue steal is a bad thing. I highly doubt any random NPCs carry more than 50 gp in valuables on them at any time. If your DM's NPCs actually care more wealth than that on them in raw coinage, that's more a problem with how he's building his campaign world than sleight of hand being overpowered or anything.

It is possible that your DM considers natural 20's automatic success on skill checks, and you should ask him about that. It is a very common misconception.

Zharradan Marr

2014-01-27, 01:14 PM

To be honest, the DM should have notified the player: "there are a lot of guards in the area, are you sure you want to do that?"

As for a random guard having +15, I've done worse. The nobles in my campaign tend to hire Rangers as their bodyguards, and those rangers have Favored Enemy to match the type of creature most likely to attack their lords. Spot +15 is achievable at level 5-6.

Grollub

2014-01-27, 01:24 PM

8 guards is rediculous, unless a platoon was happening to walk by at the same time. If not, just sound like the gm is trying to nerf him hard.

The player of the rogue, should just say to the gm, "okay , i get the hint". stop the random stealing of junky stuff.. i mean really how much is the random person actually going to carry..

He should plan out a few bigger scores using sleight, just to make the gm cry.. random targets should probably never yield any big scores, unless its an adventure hook ( "omg you found X in his purse" ). Way better in my opinion to look into higher yield targets/ scams ( poker anyone? ) to fleece a few people )

jedipotter

2014-01-27, 01:26 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2014-01-27, 01:37 PM

Yeah, that's a tad excessive. I really dislike such passive-aggressiveness in a DM. If he has a problem with random looting then he should just say so and be done with it instead of fudging such ridiculous NPC's into existence at -just- the right moment to screw the PC's.

Seriously, +15 and rolled a natural 20 on a random guard that just -happened- to be leading his squad down the street at that exact moment? Bull. Random town guards are level 1 and their squad leaders are -maybe- level 3. A level 6ish warrior (NPC class) is like a lieutenant to the town's chief of the guard and -still- shouldn't be sporting that high a modifier.

The only thing I can think of that -maybe- justifies this is if the DM is houseruling that natural 20's on skill checks are auto-successes. 20 as an auto-success is only for attack rolls and saving throws. This is a common enough mistake that it's forgivable but should be addressed and either corrected or formally made into a houserule.

Zanos

2014-01-27, 01:43 PM

Well if a player character can have a +19 in a skill why can't an NPC? The world should be full of powerful NPC's. Unless your in the Ebberon world where ''everyone is a nobody''. There should be high level guards.

And a guard that has optimized Spot is not so amazing. Guards use spot a lot. And 10 or so from ranks, 3 or 4 from ability, 2 from a feat, and a couple from a magic item can get to 15 no problem.

But having a ''+20" skill, while the whole world has like "+2" is game breaking. With that high of a skill no one could spot him, ever. So he could steal everything in the whole city, and not get caught.
OP specifically mentioned that the guards were incapable of defeating a CR 8 monster.

Even if they were exceptional, it is extraordinarily uncommon for a guard to be that high level. The general of an entire army might be level 8, and some people consider that to be pushing it. A city guard is probably level 2/3, and spot is not a class skill for warriors. People with levels in PC classes are exceptional by default, so unless everyone in the city is exceptional, +15 to spot is pretty ridiculous.

PotatoNinja

2014-01-27, 01:48 PM

When i run a campaign, there ARE certain areas in my world where there is not only a decent chance for an 8 guard patrol, but for that patrol to easily be semi optimized and a level or two higher than the PCs. It isn't unheard of for guards to run levels 10-20 in the more dangerous cities that have more mid to high level NPCs.

That being said, it depends completely on the context, if you were in a city of just 50,000 or less, i would generally only have a few mid level guards, as a city that big usually doesnt have a bunch of mid level characters floating around. In a city of a few millions though, characters beware.

If these guards couldnt take down a CR 8 critter before i would call hijinks though. It seems like the DM just has a simple problem with the issue itself. To be fair, i've had one player literally take an HOUR trying to pilfer **** from a destroyed city after an EF5 tornado rolled through. She completely derailed the night with her petty looting and the group was understandably mad at the time wasting/ethical implications. CONSTANT pilfering takes up time for usually nominal and very modest gains.

Rhynn

2014-01-27, 01:49 PM

The DM rolled separate Spot checks for the target, the target's date, and the 8 guards who were in the vicinity. One of the guards noticed.

DM unreasonable / out to get you. The guards should either have taken 10 or just gotten one roll between them (and why were there eight watching you, and why would your character not notice 8 guardsmen are watching him?)

The skill description says:
"When you use this skill under close observation, your skill check is opposed by the observer’s Spot check."
"If you try to take something from another creature, you must make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check to obtain it. The opponent makes a Spot check to detect the attempt, opposed by the same Sleight of Hand check result you achieved when you tried to grab the item."

By the rules, no Spot checks for the guards unless they were already closely observing you for some reason.

Khosan

2014-01-27, 02:26 PM

nyjastul69

2014-01-27, 02:28 PM

Does your DM house rule that a nat 20 on skill checks is an automatic success?

hymer

2014-01-27, 02:29 PM

If you bring it up in private and in a non-confrontational manner, maybe you can find out what the DM was thinking. I know I'd be annoyed if the first thing a new player did was something as unconstructive as that (I'm imagining spotlight-grabbing, self-enriching, story-derailing pickpocketing here). I'd have to fight my knee-jerk reaction of disciplining them.
You could point out that you don't know what's going on, but that by the numbers it looks a tad fishy. Invite the DM to share his reasons, but tell him you understand if he can't tell you something. Just pointing it out may make the DM think about it from a player perspective, even if he doesn't want to tell you about it.

erikun

2014-01-27, 02:40 PM

Fitz10019

2014-01-27, 03:23 PM

Maybe this is a case of natural 20=success. Either a houserule, or a misunderstanding of the actual rule. If that's the case, the guard didn't have +15 to spot. He could've had +3 or -1.

Telonius

2014-01-27, 03:24 PM

Yeah, let's say the Guard is an Urban Ranger, with Favored Enemy: Thieves. At level 5, with a 14 Wis, max ranks, and Skill Focus (Spot), that would be:
8 (ranks) + 2 (Wis) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Alertness) + 4 (Favored Enemy) = +19. (Add another 2 if he happens to be an Elf). Pretty reasonable build for somebody whose job it is to prevent theft. Anyway, just off the bat, he's succeeding 25% of the time on a DC 35. You have 8 guards, so just by the averages two of them are probably going to Spot successfully.

Kelb_Panthera

2014-01-27, 03:36 PM

8 skill ranks, +2 from 14 WIS, +2 Alertness, +3 Skill Focus. It's relatively easy to hit +15 on a check as early as 5th level. Hey, if the PCs can optimize skill checks, then what's to stop NPCs? (especially NPCs optimizing skills for their jobs)

It's a bit more suspect that 8 guards just happened to be walking nearby when it happened, though. Wandering groups of eight guards isn't that unusual, although having them pop up out of nowhere is. Still, if the rogue didn't bother to make his own spot checks to see who's nearby - or if the DM just wants to keep things exciting - it seems like a reasonable thing to happen.

Yeah, let's say the Guard is an Urban Ranger, with Favored Enemy: Thieves. At level 5, with a 14 Wis, max ranks, and Skill Focus (Spot), that would be:
8 (ranks) + 2 (Wis) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Alertness) + 4 (Favored Enemy) = +19. (Add another 2 if he happens to be an Elf). Pretty reasonable build for somebody whose job it is to prevent theft. Anyway, just off the bat, he's succeeding 25% of the time on a DC 35. You have 8 guards, so just by the averages two of them are probably going to Spot successfully.

There's nothing wrong with NPC's optimizing. The problem is the presumption of 5th level characters being even remotely common. They're not. Not by a long-shot. The number of 5th level characters in PC classes is even smaller. There are more 1st level warriors than there are characters of any level in PC classes combined in the default setting.

This becomes plain to see if you simply process the numbers from the DMG's demographic tables.

Zharradan Marr

2014-01-27, 03:49 PM

There's nothing wrong with NPC's optimizing. The problem is the presumption of 5th level characters being even remotely common. They're not. Not by a long-shot.Depends on location and context. If it's "you have run into the Duke and his entourage", then, hell yeah, the Duke will have higher level guards in his employ. If it's "bunch of random guards that happened to be nearby", it's another matter.

Spore

2014-01-27, 03:56 PM

Depends on location and context. If it's "you have run into the Duke and his entourage", then, hell yeah, the Duke will have higher level guards in his employ. If it's "bunch of random guards that happened to be nearby", it's another matter.

Correct. Same applies to a celebration in the noble quarter were lots of important and "expensive" people are standing together.

Zweisteine

2014-01-27, 04:14 PM

Unless there was someone of high importance, like a noble, and the campaign world is fairly high-poer (i.e. NPCs of level 10 are relatively common), no guard should be that powerful. anybody of that power is an adventurer, or a kingdom's champion, who would never serve guard duty.
If there was a noble with guards, the DM should have said "there is a man walking by, surrounded by guards; are you sure you want to pick someone's pocket right now?"

And if in a crowd, which is really the only place you should try pickpocketing, nobody would have been able to see it except the immediately adjacent people (I would assume three other party members, and up to 8 random NPCs with a spot bonus of 0). You wouldn't be moving in squares (crowds put a people far closer together than that), so there isn't a limit of 8 adjacent people.

This is what should probably have happened: the rogue should have had no problem stealing, but would have been dismayed to discover this tidbit of common knowledge: most people don't have lots of money, and most people leave their money somewhere safe. The absolute most a truly random NPC should be carrying is 50 gp, and most should be carrying some combination of smaller coins.

If it's a farming town, expect a random farmer (commoner 1) to be carrying something like 20sp as a maximum, and 7-13 as an average. In a larger town/city, with more skilled citizens (mostly commoners and experts of levels 1 to 3 in a standard game, likely, don't have books on hand to check), they might have significantly more. Expect them to carry slightly larger amounts, but still nothing that would measurably increase your wealth at level 7 (I'd say 5-10 gp, maybe something like 7-15 gp average, but at least half of it would be in smaller coins).

And if he starts picking every pocket he sees to get rich, they'll notice within a day or two, or someone will get a lucky spot/reach for pocket check, and he'll be caught, or everyone will keep their hands in their pockets at all times.

EDIT:
A mid- or high-ranked guard (level 3 warrior, half elf) could have a bonus as high as +10 (3 skill ranks, +1 racial, +3 skill focus, +2 alertness, +1 wisdom). I'm sure a few more points could be pushed in, and a specific, very rare breed of guard (Elf Ranger 3, which is not something in any human city's 9guard) could have a bonus as high as +15 (6 ranks, +2 racial, +3 skill focus, +2 alertness, +2 wisdom).

So a guard captain, formerly a private investigator (Half Elf Urban Ranger 4, which could be found in some large human settlements, could have a bonus as high as +16 (7 ranks, +1 racial, +3 skill focus, +2 alertness, +3 wisdom), before you consider any items such a character might have. The problem with this is that such a focused NPC (with the elite array, no less), would normally only appear as a named NPC, placed by the DM for a specific purpose. Though if the rogue had been stealing long enough, he would eventually come across someone who might notice.
Captain Toran "Spots" Kestar, former private investigator
Half-elf Urban Ranger 4
Ability scores: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 10 (4th level boost went to wisdom
Feats: Skill Focus (spot), Alertness
Skill ranks: Spot 7 ranks, Search 7 ranks, Listen 7 ranks, Gather Information 7 ranks, Sense Motive 7 Ranks, Bluff 7 ranks, Knowledge (local) 7 ranks.
Skill bonuses: Spot +16, a bunch that aren't important here
Items: some that boost spot, and some other stuff, too

Barstro

2014-01-27, 04:30 PM

... we were walking around at night, and he [decided to] take the purse of a random NPC we were passing.

I realize I'm applying real world instead of RAW, but anyway.

The guards are presumably trained to look for pickpockets and thieves. It isn't too hard to believe that they would take special notice of one stranger getting well within the personal space of another stranger. This doesn't strike me as a random Spot check, this is a Spot check that the guards are trained to do.

The above is based only on my assumption that the streets are otherwise rather empty. If it's crowded or the guards have some other reason to not be on their toes, then I might feel different.

Boci

2014-01-27, 04:33 PM

The above is based only on my assumption that the streets are otherwise rather empty. If it's crowded or the guards have some other reason to not be on their toes, then I might feel different.

Its also based on the assumption that a trained thief with +19 SoH wouldn't know to make a comment or ask of question of their target, if the streets were empty enough that he couldn't conceivably bump into them.

Hurnn

2014-01-27, 05:00 PM

Short answer yes, way over the top. On the flip side if your rogue has been doing this "ALOT" then maybe it's not such a bad thing. It will bog down your game.

Zharradan Marr

2014-01-27, 05:04 PM

Speaking of bogging down your game, I can't help but feel that letting one of the guards notice the theft distracted the game from the path planned by the DM, and put the rogue into the focus of the situation. In other words, if the DM was seeking to prevent the rogue from bogging down the game, he did just the opposite.

A better way to handle it without distractions was for the DM to just deadpan "you stole a purse with 2d4 silver pieces", then return to his scheduled broadcasting.

Ydaer Ca Noit

2014-01-27, 05:08 PM

Also keep in mind that spot takes -1 penalty for every 10ft the guard is away, and -5 if he is not focusing on observing the area.

That said, it depends on the amount of money the person had, if there were any reasons for the high level guards to be there, etc. It is not hard to imagine that the guards in a marketplace would have magical assistance to help them spot pickpockets.

dascarletm

2014-01-27, 05:11 PM

I think this really depends. It could be the DM likes his world to have lots of "powerful" people. The average level almost becoming round 5-6. Or perhaps, the guards are aiding one another.

As for the DM being obliged to say "there is a group of guards coming are you sure???" I don't agree. If the PC asked what was around, and they were obvious then he should tell them. If the PC didn't then his character didn't check the surroundings, eyes on the prize and all. Normally things like a large guard patrol would be standard when the DM describes the area, but it is likely that he wasn't expecting much to happen in the area and skipped it. (This is purely conjecture on my part). I would say it would be good form to secretly roll a spot for the PC against DC 5-10 depending on how many other people there are, and add a modifier due to how much the character is salivating over the prospect of his ill-gotten-gains.:smalltongue:

I'm surprised the guards by RAW don't actually get a check (he just needs to beat a DC 20). Interesting.

EDIT:
On second thought, I should say that if I was DMing and a PC kept asking if he could pickpocket people in a crowd I'd eventually stop detailing it and just have him roll a few SoHs. If all beat 20 then I'd roll 4 opposed (with a random mod based on the specific area) and give him like 1d6xlvl cp, sp, gp, or pp based on how wealthy the area is.

I'd get detailed if he was trying to steal something specific from a mark instead of just getting some spending money

Deophaun

2014-01-27, 05:14 PM

A better way to handle it without distractions was for the DM to just deadpan "you stole a purse with 2d4 silver pieces", then return to his scheduled broadcasting.
Exactly. Slight of Hand used this way should really be handled along the lines of a Bard's Perform check.

Naanomi

2014-01-27, 05:19 PM

If we go with the 'they were all aiding on guy's roll' model it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have a masterwork Spot tool for another +2

Calimehter

2014-01-27, 05:43 PM

If there really is a full squad of 8 guards hanging around, its quite possible that the captain of such a squad has some levels, and could hit +15. How high a level one might "expect" the city guards to be is very dependent on the setting and the circumstances of the particular settlement. Even if the campaign setting uses the DMG population charts as a baseline (and that's not guaranteed) and the average roll says the captain should be lower level, there are always possible setting outliers and/or high rolls on those charts.

All we really know about the city guard from the OP is that they couldn't defeat a CR 8 encounter, and that said encounter didn't massacre them, either. That could easily describe a Level 5-6 captaing and a handful of Level 1-2 underlings, esp. if they've optimized for guard duty (i.e. Alertness and Skill Focus Spot) instead of adventuring.

Another possibility is that if the PCs are well-known, its possible that one or more of the guards was actually gawking at the PCs as they came into view, since he recognized them as famous local heroes. That could grant a fairly high circumstance modifier to the Spot check. The OP did imply that the PCs had defeated a CR 8 monster that the cityguard had been unable to handle. As some real life folks could attest to, its harder to successfully shoplift if you're a celebrity. :smallwink:

--------------------

All that said, its really hard to say if the DM was adjudicating "fairly". If he was just cheesed about the town getting auto-looted and rolled some dice and said "someone's high enough to spot you", then no. If the player was being smarmy about it and/or bogging the game down, then maybe an OOC chat would work better than just declaring a player fail on the spot and throwing some justifications on it after the fact (if any justifying was even done).

To answer the OP's question: It is at least possible that it was done fairly. Hard to say w/o more info, preferably from the DM himself or a disinterested observer.

Boci

2014-01-27, 05:50 PM

If we go with the 'they were all aiding on guy's roll' model it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have a masterwork Spot tool for another +2

That awfully contrived though. The PHB says you should exercise common sense on whether or not aid another is applicable to a given skill check, and also that you should cap how many extras can help a single individual. So how are 7 people going to meaningfully increase someone's spot check?

Nihilarian

2014-01-27, 05:53 PM

If we go with the 'they were all aiding on guy's roll' model it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have a masterwork Spot tool for another +2I am now imagining a troop of guards marching down the streets with spyglasses held up.

It seems excessive but you should talk to the DM and hear what he has to say.

Kristofthegreat

2014-01-27, 06:18 PM

It seems excessive but you should talk to the DM and hear what he has to say.

I'll be honest, I didn't read all the responses, but this one seems like the best idea. I've been playing D&D for just shy of 20 years, and the rules work both ways. Bending the rules works both ways. If you're not making progress in your story because or otherwise wasting the time of everyone in the party, it's the DM's responsibility to motivate those characters to move forward using tools available....at least if they're good. There's always the supernatural "you overcome your need to compulsively steal" approach.

I also play Shadowrun, which has a "rule" written in that is: "Ulitmately it's GM's discretion. If you propose doing something overly propersterous, the GM can just say 'no.'"

Personally, I'm all for good role playing, but if you're wasting time, there are consequences. Whether it's a guard noticing or something more dire (randomly poisoned purses, for example).

Zweisteine

2014-01-27, 06:22 PM

I also play Shadowrun, which has a "rule" written in that is: "Ulitmately it's GM's discretion. If you propose doing something overly propersterous, the GM can just say 'no.'"

This is also a rule in D&D. Rule 0 in its simplest form: The DM makes makes the rules.

The DM has the right to veto anything a player does, the right to fudge rolls, the right to change the rules where appropriate, and, technically, when inappropriate. This is a large reason as to why theoretical optimization is generally strictly theoretical, and never put into play in the game.

Zanos

2014-01-27, 06:28 PM

I'll be honest, I didn't read all the responses, but this one seems like the best idea. I've been playing D&D for just shy of 20 years, and the rules work both ways. Bending the rules works both ways. If you're not making progress in your story because or otherwise wasting the time of everyone in the party, it's the DM's responsibility to motivate those characters to move forward using tools available....at least if they're good. There's always the supernatural "you overcome your need to compulsively steal" approach.

I also play Shadowrun, which has a "rule" written in that is: "Ulitmately it's GM's discretion. If you propose doing something overly propersterous, the GM can just say 'no.'"

Personally, I'm all for good role playing, but if you're wasting time, there are consequences. Whether it's a guard noticing or something more dire (randomly poisoned purses, for example).
That's the kind of situation where you talk to the player, not arrest them and make up rolls because you feel like it.

(Usually) players aren't children, and creating a petty situation to teach them a lesson is not a good way to handle anything.

Osiris

2014-01-27, 06:31 PM

It is possible that your DM considers natural 20's automatic success on skill checks, and you should ask him about that. It is a very common misconception.
Yup, Natural 20's aren't auto-sucesses, and 1's aren't auto-failures. Your DM may have a houserule though. It is kinda ridiculous, both on the guard's part and the spot checks. I'd say, bad luck, next time do it invisibly.

Kristofthegreat

2014-01-27, 06:53 PM

That's the kind of situation where you talk to the player, not arrest them anit make up rules when you feel like it.

(Usually) players aren't children, and creating a petty situation to teach them a lesson is not a good way to handle anything.

Sorry if I made that seem harsh or meant to create in-fighting. It wasn't. There are consequences to actions, which is a valuable or of game lesson. This situation is a good vehicle to convey that. People are having their passes cut and have alerted the city guard who are on high alert...keep it up and You get caught is logical. Our maybe the local thieves guild has a problem and they send someone to address the situation politically or not. My point is that there are ways in game to deal with it, without metagaming.

icefractal

2014-01-27, 08:58 PM

... the guard would have had to have a Spot modifier of at least 15 when rolling a natural 20; meaning he'd have to be around CR10, with decent wisdom and Spot maxed as a class skill.
While this story does sound somewhat fishy (Eight guards? Did the DM mention this before the attempt was made?), you don't need to be anywhere near 10th level to have a +15 in Spot.

For example:
Expert 4, Wisdom 16 (Elite array, and +1 at 4th level)
Feats: Alertness, Skill Focus (Spot)
Item: Headband of the Vigilant Guard: +3 Listen and Spot
Total Bonus: +18

Now IMO, a 4th level guard with the elite array would count as definitely above typical. Not implausible as a veteran sergeant in a rich city though.

Jowgen

2014-01-29, 12:19 PM

KorbeltheReader

2014-01-29, 02:10 PM

This sounds to me like you're really asking: "is my GM being passive aggressive and screwing us on rolls for things he doesn't want us to do, and what do I do about it?"

Which is a great question, but not really answerable based on this one roll.

Have you tried talking to your GM in private about this? I've known GMs who did this sort of thing, and it can really toxify the table environment. If you think he is, you should talk to him about it privately. Maybe hearing your concerns will get him thinking more clearly about what the problem is and how to solve it more amicably, i.e., by he and the rogue working something out to preserve the game balance.

Trasilor

2014-01-29, 02:20 PM

As a DM who finds himself using the DMG to create the NPC population on his towns, I was very surprised on how the DMG handles NPC levels.

In this situation - it really depends on the size of the town. If the adult population is greater than 2000 people, it is considered a large town.

Living in this town your highest level NPC warrior would be 2d4+3 ranging from level 5 (min) to a max of 11. After that, there are 2 times as many NPC's at half level (rounded down).

So if there is one level 10 warrior, there would also be 2 level 5, and 4 level 2 warriors. (Level 1 is 5% of the population). And yes, they would have all the gear appropriate to their level.

Experts are even worse. Highest level expert would be 3d4+3.

So is it possible that a mid to high level expert or warrior - was part of this 8 man patrol? Yes, the numbers support such a case. Likely? Probably not - then again, these are a group of level 7 PCs. Perhaps the guards were on duty to follow the PCs. Perhaps one of the guards is actually a ranking member of the local thieves guild who infiltrated the guards and he doesn't like it when people steal on his turf. Or these 'guards' are actually body guards of a local lord just about to go on duty and consists of PC classes. Ultimately, you made two assumptions: All guards are warriors and all warriors are low level. In the end, there are just too many factors...

Now, I know some of you will argue that these guards couldn't handle a CR 8 monster and therefore must be low-level. I would counter that they might have been able to hand such a creature, but the risk of death was too great. Cheaper to hire outsiders than risk the cost of a resurrection.

Of course, talking to your DM is never a bad idea, but you might want to ask yourself why it bothers you?

Crazysaneman

2014-01-29, 03:07 PM

I didn't see anyone make any remark about this so here goes

8 guards, 7 of the making aid another checks =+14, plus wis, skill, modifiers, etc... Also, I give my "sergeants" of the guard skill focus perception, he could be too.

Boci

2014-01-29, 03:14 PM

8 guards, 7 of the making aid another checks =+14

Except the PHB says to use common sense when determining if a, a skill use can benefit from aid another, and b, a sensible cap on how many individuals can help. So how are 7 individuals going to help you make a spot check?

Crazysaneman

2014-01-29, 03:24 PM

Except the PHB says to use common sense when determining if a, a skill use can benefit from aid another, and b, a sensible cap on how many individuals can help. So how are 7 individuals going to help you make a spot check?

They are town guards. They are all watching constantly, fluff it however you want it is legitimate. In my world, the town guards actually communicate with one another, instead of being cookie cutters. If a guard or two notice that someone is suspicious, all the guards in the area are notified, and the sergeant takes special care to watch him. All of the guards are aiding the sergeant at all times to keep the law.

*EDIT*
Though, I will admit, 8 guards in an area is a lot excessive. Unless you were in the main bazaar of the merchants quarter.

Piggy Knowles

2014-01-29, 03:25 PM

A Totemist could easily have a Spot check that high by second level. Did the guard have a bunch of blue soul stuff peeking out from under his armor?

(In the campaign I'm running, the ECL 3 party DID run into a member of the city watch with a Spot that high. I don't think anyone complained. Except maybe the guard - the party killed her and had her reincarnated, and she came back as a half-orc. That's cruel punishment.)

Boci

2014-01-29, 03:27 PM

They are town guards. They are all watching constantly, fluff it however you want it is legitimate. In my world, the town guards actually communicate with one another, instead of being cookie cutters. If a guard or two notice that someone is suspicious, all the guards in the area are notified, and the sergeant takes special care to watch him. All of the guards are aiding the sergeant at all times to keep the law.

That doesn't work. What you are describing is each guard making a spot check, and then talking to each other. That's not aid another, because the guards helping the one spot don't see anything themselves, so it cannot be that they are pointing out something suspicious. That would have required a successful spot check from them. So how are helping him?

Crazysaneman

2014-01-29, 03:34 PM

That doesn't work. What you are describing is each guard making a spot check, and then talking to each other. That's not aid another, because the guards helping the one spot don't see anything themselves, so it cannot be that they are pointing out something suspicious. That would have required a successful spot check from them. So how are helping him?

No, it does work. Each guard makes a general spot, notices something, reports it to his superior, the superior then has the rest of the guardsmen notified and they aid their superior in a second spot check. Just because the PC was noticed with one spot check doesn't necessarily mean it was the only check made since he entered the area. This is exactly how it worked at the clubs I have worked as security, and since it works IRL it works in my game.

Boci

2014-01-29, 03:45 PM

No, it does work. Each guard makes a general spot, notices something, reports it to his superior, the superior then has the rest of the guardsmen notified and they aid their superior in a second spot check. Just because the PC was noticed with one spot check doesn't necessarily mean it was the only check made since he entered the area. This is exactly how it worked at the clubs I have worked as security, and since it works IRL it works in my game.

Its twisted. I get what you are describing, but aid another simply isn't the way represent this.

Rather, each makes a spot. This already increases their chances of noticing a pick pocket. Furthermore, a guard will usually be detracted, since they need to look at multiple places, preferably at once. With multiple guards however, you can justify neither of them taking that penalty, as they can devide the street into regions and each focuses on one.

Spot is simply not one of the skills that lends itself to aid another. It makes no sense. I can stomach one guard using aid another on another, but even then its silly. Anymore and it just gets worse.

Let me put it this way. 8 guards are looking for an assassin. The sergeant of them has been paid off by the assassin, but the guards do not know this. So the other 7 guards use the aid another action to help him spot the assassin, and he does, but lies, because he was paid off.

Now mechanically, the guards have no idea the assassin is there (assuming they don't see through the lie). So how did they just make their sergeant see the hiding assassin that he otherwise wouldn't have, when they have no idea he's there?

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 03:51 PM

I would specifically ask the DM why he ruled the way he did because there are several factors I can think of that would lead to this circumstance.

How did you describe what you were doing? If you only said something along the lines of "I steal the purse from a random NPC...", that leaves a lot open for error.

If somebody were to say this to me while I DM, I would roll up a random circumstance based off the population of the town and general location within the town taking into account other factors such as time of day.

If however, you said something along the lines of "I slyly look around before attempting to steal the purse from a random NPC; waiting until just the right moment to act...", that takes a lot of the guess work out.

Something like that should have prevented you from being spotted by almost any random person of no consequence (non scripted). It also has the added bonus of making your character more aware of your surroundings, thus the DM would hopefully either mention the guards or rule that your character waited until they pass.

Boci

2014-01-29, 03:54 PM

Thrair

2014-01-29, 04:17 PM

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies to this. :smallsmile:

I'll probably ask the DM how he handles NPC levels and skill distributions, just so that us players are aware of how likely any given strategies we develop based on the DMG demographic rules will actually apply in his campaign.

A good idea. This DM might not go with the idea that most civilians are level 1 warriors or commoners. (If they are, feral housecats probably kill several dozen people per year in a decent size city).

I know I generally run it is as: "Most average joes are level 2-5, experts/veterans are 6-8, and truly impressive NPCs are 9-12. Any higher and you start getting into "Heroic" territory, where there's only a few in a given continent.

That could inflate the skill checks a fair bit. Although it could just be a version of rule 0 (DM ruling it's hard to steal from under the nose of that many guards), which is somewhat reasonable, if a little heavy-handed in how he applied it.

It might also just be a simple mistake (Assuming Nat 20 on skill check passes, or just estimating the NPC skillcheck for expedience and highballing it).

Either way, you should ask so you all have a good baseline to make guesses on NPC capabilities for average commoners/guards. After all, a professional cutpurse probably has a fairly good idea of how much he can generally get away with safely. Much like how an average joe probably has a fair guess as to who he can beat in a bar brawl.

Ultimately, I think a lot of people have the right of it: Where the guards came from is more of the issue than the spot check. Pulling up 8 guards out of nowhere is a more egregious example of DM fiat than a high skill check.

If they were known to be there, then it's on the player for taking the risk with so many witnesses. If they were suddenly "just there" out of the blue, the DM's not exactly being all that fair. A professional pick-pocket should get a spot check to notice that many guards, even if the player doesn't think to ask. (DMs playing spot checks that literally is one reason some games devolve into "I make a spot check" every 2 seconds, because players are afraid they have to specify every moment or have their character assumed to be spacing out).

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 04:19 PM

Alternatively the player could have been trying to save time on what they judged was an inconsequential detail to the story and so assumed that the DM would fill in the blanks (look around before attempting, wait for right opportunity).

At this point we are both just speculating. I was simply providing a reasoning as to why the DM may have ruled the way he did to further drive the point that the player should speak with him. I suggest to all my players that they provide some details to their actions. If there isn't enough to go off of, I ask questions. But, that is just how I run the game.

Also when you are about to snatch a purse, don't look around "slyly". Look around nonchalantly, or something else less likely to alert others.

Again, this is just an example that can be used to clue the DM into the players intent. Nitpicking at irrelevant things.

Boci

2014-01-29, 04:24 PM

At this point we are both just speculating. I was simply providing a reasoning as to why the DM may have ruled the way he did to further drive the point that the player should speak with him. I suggest to all my players that they provide some details to their actions. If there isn't enough to go off of, I ask questions. But, that is just how I run the game.

But even if that is the case, its still a problem, because as you note, if you want to DM in that manner, you should ask the PCs for clarification.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 04:57 PM

But even if that is the case, its still a problem, because as you note, if you want to DM in that manner, you should ask the PCs for clarification.

The DM wouldn't really need to ask for clarification. Roll up scenario and play it out based on what the PC stated. Obviously there should be some checks to determine what the PC and NPCs notice. But the statement "I steal the purse from a random NPC." is enough to go off of.

I have a very strong hands-off approach in assuming what my players intend. Maybe they want to steal that money in full view of the guards... just to show how much their character doesn't care about the town guard.

Boci

2014-01-29, 05:00 PM

The DM wouldn't really need to ask for clarification.

They don't need to, but they probably should.

I have a very strong hands-off approach in assuming what my players intend. Maybe they want to steal that money in full view of the guards... just to show how much their character doesn't care about the town guard.

Maybe they do, which is why you should ask them.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 05:20 PM

[QUOTE=Boci;16891614]They don't need to, but they probably should.[QUOTE]

Maybe the DM thought that little detail was a waste of time to ask about and figured the PC will provide that information if it was important.

Anyhow, in this situation, it could simply have been the luck of the dice. DM rolls up scenario where guards are present and then rolls to see if character notices guards. Going off what the PC said, they would probably receive no circumstance modifier. If the roll is low, the character doesn't see the guards until it is too late. The guards then roll high and see what the character did.

This is just a vague description of what may have happened which is why I echo what most everyone else said and recommend the PC ask their DM.

Boci

2014-01-29, 05:23 PM

Maybe the DM thought that little detail was a waste of time to ask about and figured the PC will provide that information if it was important.

Maybe that was his logic. And the fact that it spawned some bad will between DM and player, enough so that this thread was made, could be taken as evidence that better approaches are possible.

Anyhow, in this situation, it could simply have been the luck of the dice. DM rolls up scenario where guards are present and then rolls to see if character notices guards. Going off what the PC said, they would probably receive no circumstance modifier. If the roll is low, the character doesn't see the guards until it is too late. The guards then roll high and see what the character did.

Maybe, but that in itself is problematic. Unless the guards are plainclothes or hiding, you shouldn't need to make a spot check to see them, it should be automatic. Especially if there are 8 of them.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 05:31 PM

Maybe, but that in itself is problematic. Unless the guards are plainclothes or hiding, you shouldn't need to make a spot check to see them, it should be automatic. Especially if there are 8 of them.

We could debate circumstances all day (esp since to the best of my knowledge we don't really know them). But I think we both can agree that the PC should speak with his DM. I would specifically ask why the situation went down the way that it did. Were the guards in plain clothes? Was it crowded and the PC missed a Spot check? Maybe the DM was just trying to stop that behavior (though this would not be such a good method to use imo).

Boci

2014-01-29, 05:37 PM

We could debate circumstances all day (esp since to the best of my knowledge we don't really know them). But I think we both can agree that the PC should speak with his DM. I would specifically ask why the situation went down the way that it did. Were the guards in plain clothes? Was it crowded and the PC missed a Spot check? Maybe the DM was just trying to stop that behavior (though this would not be such a good method to use imo).

We don't know what happened, that's true, but I'm having a hard time imagineing how such a situation could present itself that doesn't paint the DM in a bad light. The only three justifications offered have all involved bad DMing.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 05:44 PM

We don't know what happened, that's true, but I'm having a hard time imagineing how such a situation could present itself that doesn't paint the DM in a bad light. The only three justifications offered have all involved bad DMing.

You made the remark that using plain clothes would require a Spot check. Maybe they were off duty and just hanging out together. I don't see how this signifies bad DMing.

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-29, 05:50 PM

You made the remark that using plain clothes would require a Spot check. Maybe they were off duty and just hanging out together. I don't see how this signifies bad DMing.

Because unless that was already intended from the start, this action stinks of DM fiat to screw a player over from playing his character in a fairly harmless way. Sure maybe there's an explanation, but anything can be explained, even something poorly done. If the guards were just off duty and not specifically looking for theives, they wouldn't get a spot check to notice the sleight of hand at all. The rules state that sleight of hand is only opposed by spot if the action is being closely observed. And closely observing something is something that should merit a spot check as the guards go from shooting the breeze to focusing on one person. That's something a trained thief should be able to spot.

Why were the guards closely observing the thief in the first place? Maybe he did something suspicious, we don't know, but unless he was being obvious, why would they single out the thief when possibly suspicious things happen all the time. Even the trained military people I hang out with aren't that suspicious. And even if they were they'd probably ask the subject if something was up instead of immediately assuming that all of them needed to focus completely on the thief.

It's just bizarre and non-sensical from what we've been told. There could be another side, or it could be worse than presented. We don't know, I can only comment on what I've been told not speculate on the DM's motives.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-29, 05:58 PM

Because unless that was already intended from the start, this action stinks of DM fiat to screw a player over from playing his character in a fairly harmless way. Sure maybe there's an explanation, but anything can be explained, even something poorly done. If the guards were just off duty and not specifically looking for theives, they wouldn't get a spot check to notice the sleight of hand at all. The rules state that sleight of hand is only opposed by spot if the action is being closely observed. And closely observing something is something that should merit a spot check as the guards go from shooting the breeze to focusing on one person. That's something a trained thief should be able to spot.

Why were the guards closely observing the thief in the first place? Maybe he did something suspicious, we don't know, but unless he was being obvious, why would they single out the thief when possibly suspicious things happen all the time. Even the trained military people I hang out with aren't that suspicious. And even if they were they'd probably ask the subject if something was up instead of immediately assuming that all of them needed to focus completely on the thief.

It's just bizarre and non-sensical from what we've been told. There could be another side, or it could be worse than presented. We don't know, I can only comment on what I've been told not speculate on the DM's motives.

Which is why I said to ask the DM. Specifically what circumstances lead up to the situation where the 8 guards happen to be there and noticed the character stealing. I don't see why this is even an argument.

Boci

2014-01-29, 06:03 PM

Which is why I said to ask the DM. Specifically what circumstances lead up to the situation where the 8 guards happen to be there and noticed the character stealing. I don't see why this is even an argument.

Because you seem determined to speculate context that vindicate the DM to a degree, and then say "speculation is pointless" whenever someone speculates something you don't like.

Based on what we have been told, the DM is at fault. There is a small chance there is a valid explanation and a non-negligible chance we aren't seeing the ful story, but I'm going with that man's razor and saying the DM made a bad call. Any attempt to justify the 8 guards and how they spotted the PC just doesn't work.

Sylthia

2014-01-29, 06:19 PM

Boci

2014-01-29, 06:27 PM

Once the party reaches around the double digits, city guards in my campaign come in two flavors "you win" and those that scale. It's not unreasonable for the mayor or king or whatever to have some elites to deal with PCs if need be.

Yes, but this was down to chance. Of course there are generally NPCs in a city of equal or higher level to the PCs, but you shouldn't be running into one of them by by chance when you attempt to pickpocket.

RegalKain

2014-01-29, 06:28 PM

Our group always plays with the houserule of Nat20 (On anything) and Nat1 (On anything) are crit successes and fumbles in both directions, sometimes it makes absolutely no sense for it to be so, but it's more amusing for us personally in this way. That said, The guy currently DMing and myself, both run equal power campaigns. The PCs are not beautiful snowflakes unique in everyway, they are just some average joes who are doing jobs and saying "yes" when others are saying "Why the hell would I risk my life for you?" I usually run most NPCs one or two levels behind the player, and they stop around level 10 (For commoners/guards) others you meet (Merchants, adventuring people, sergeants etc) can very well have Class levels and be higher level then you, it's also a running joke, never ever in anyway screw with a Bartender, we usually run them as 20th level characters who just got bored of adventuring and they run the tavern so they can still get a feel for the old life through stories etc.

That's us though, as others have said talk to your DM, for that matter, if your DM feels this player is really taking from the game with their constant pilfering, make one of the random marks a much higher, much better Rogue, I've done that before (We had aplayer who would take 10 minutes or so pilfering in a city everytime we went.) I threw a Rogue/Assassin six levels above them as the random mark they picked. (NPC was given a disguise check to blend in with the crowd, and he did so quite well.) Needless to say the player in question "picked" the pocket of the mark, but failed their own spot check and lost their much heavier coin purse. I'm of the belief players should feel powerful, but not unstoppable, then again I don't run my NPC towns by the DMG, because let's face it D&D has no concept of balance (That continues in their making of towns in most cases.)

dascarletm

2014-01-29, 07:19 PM

Boci

2014-01-29, 07:35 PM

If they don't have such a method, then it is up to the DM to envision the setting. That is his job. When it comes down to making the setting it is the DMs job to make it interesting.

8 guards suddenly being there and capable of making a ridiculously high spot check is not "interesting". Its "DM fiat to screw a player". There's a difference.

I think it is important to remember this whenever anyone complains about a situation being unlikely.

Yes, so you want to minimize how many times plot convenience strikes. For example not using it when a player is just cutting a purse in a throwaway scene that will not add anything to the plot.

Maginomicon

2014-01-29, 08:01 PM

Another thing that might be relevant here is a "passive spot check" to represent what they'll get when passively looking around. It's essentially a DC equal to 10+modifiers (taking 10 on spot checks). The Rules Compendium actually has rules about essentially this on ... I think page 8? (AFB ATM)

Anyway, if he says that they are assumed to be taking 10, then you can ask to have him count out the bonuses that go above taking 10. Even so, he should account for lighting, distance, and line of sight in a crowded street and apply those factors as penalties to his numbers.

Otherwise, yeah, it's basically a "screw you for your bad behavior" punt.

What would CERTAINLY be unfair would be him getting away with stealing someone's PANTS without the person noticing (I had a rogue "ally" PC try this on me and succeed because the GM was an asshat). The sleight of hand rules explicitly call out that it has to be a small object (such as a purse).

HaikenEdge

2014-01-29, 08:06 PM

What would CERTAINLY be unfair would be him getting away with stealing someone's PANTS without the person noticing (I had a rogue "ally" PC try this on me and succeed because the GM was an asshat). The sleight of hand rules explicitly call out that it has to be a small object (such as a purse).

But pants are small, when they're folded up. :smalltongue:

Boci

2014-01-29, 08:10 PM

But pants are small, when they're folded up. :smalltongue:

But that would only be relevant if they were folded up when you were wearing them. After all the target has to meet the requirements at the time the action is initiated. :smalltongue:

Maginomicon

2014-01-29, 08:10 PM

But pants are small, when they're folded up. :smalltongue:
Try to fold up my pants when I'm wearing them and I'll break your face. :smallamused:

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-29, 09:00 PM

To everyone saying things to this effect:

"The situation is borked because it is very unlikely that there would be 8 guards at that moment. This is bad DMing."

To that I say:

It is the DMs job to create a setting, and some are more "free form" in their world building. If they've built guard density charts to accurately calculate the percent change of their being a guard in a certain area at a certain time then more power to them, but almost every DM I've ever met doesn't get into this kind of detail. Usually they can't spend that kind of time commitment for such a minor detail.
If they don't have such a method, then it is up to the DM to envision the setting. That is his job. When it comes down to making the setting it is the DMs job to make it interesting. Perhaps he thought it would be more interesting if a guard patrol happened to be coming at that time, and he has every right to make that happen. If the player really wanted to not have guards there he should have asked, and if he saw some, could/should have waited.

I think it is important to remember this whenever anyone complains about a situation being unlikely. (In both DnD, and I also say this about movies/TV shows as well) Of course something unlikely/interesting happened to the main character/PCs, that is kinda the point. It's their story and the world revolves around them.

I don't actually have a problem with there being 8 guards, even there being an exceptional guard. If it's apart of a well-crafted story. What we're being told, however, makes that unlikely.

In a good story the guards would be an important group who would interact with the NPCs in some way beyond being punishment for using sleight of hand. He could've been the captain of the guard be some sort of important NPC that is willing to cut a deal with the NPCs for the minor offense.

The situation painted by the OP tells a different story, however; the GM was making spot checks for apparently passive observers despite the rules for sleight of hand not requiring them unless someone is watching carefully (I mean, was the target's date really focusing that much on whether his date was being pickpocketed by a high-level adventurer?). Then the seemingly random guards just happen to roll high enough to see the act, that just sounds fishy.

I use random here because the most important person in this debate, the OP, also used that term. One of my favorite analogies is that a story is like a magic act, if the magician knows his stuff the audience will buy this despite the most ridiculous of statements or even if the performance has a few holes in it; because in the end they want to be entertained. If, however, the audience isn't entertained, then the ridiculous statements are groan-worthy and even the minor mistakes are much easier to see. I feel that RPGs are very similar, the audience here (the OP) saw through what he feels to be an obvious trick on the DM's part to nerf sleight of hand. That's not good DMing, at least as far as we've been told.

tldr; my problem isn't the 8 guards, it's the random guards that seem to have appeared from nowhere and not meant anything beyond this one situation. It's the RPG equivalent of a Big Lipped Alligator Moment.

Deophaun

2014-01-29, 09:21 PM

Maybe the DM was just trying to stop that behavior (though this would not be such a good method to use imo).
Why is he even trying to stop it? Is saying "you get 8 pieces of silver" too disruptive to the game?

Maybe they were off duty and just hanging out together.
So you're taking the -5 penalty for being distracted into account then, as well as likely distance penalties and line-of-sight issues, right?

Spuddles

2014-01-29, 09:31 PM

OP specifically mentioned that the guards were incapable of defeating a CR 8 monster.

Even if they were exceptional, it is extraordinarily uncommon for a guard to be that high level. The general of an entire army might be level 8, and some people consider that to be pushing it. A city guard is probably level 2/3, and spot is not a class skill for warriors. People with levels in PC classes are exceptional by default, so unless everyone in the city is exceptional, +15 to spot is pretty ridiculous.

The general of an entire army could also be a pitlord with 20 gestalt levels of wizard and some war weaver to round things out nicely.

What's your point?

Spuddles

2014-01-29, 09:35 PM

It's possible the guards were aiding one guy to beef up his spot check. 7 guards means potentially +14 (on average, probably more like +10) to the one guy's spot check. He'd still need a decently high Spot check on his own and roll pretty high to shore up the difference, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

This. In a world where there are lots of low level creatures and high level ones can totally out match them, aid another is invaluable.

I really, really like using mobs of very low level creatures using highly optimized buffing routines to give PCs who poo-poo fireball and great cleave a hard time. Bardic inspiration on a hobgoblin warleader and a bunch of orc throwers/goblin crossbow snipers with flaws, potions, and partially charged wands. No xp, no loot encounters. :)

I hate my players.

Boci

2014-01-29, 09:44 PM

The general of an entire army could also be a pitlord with 20 gestalt levels of wizard and some war weaver to round things out nicely.

What's your point?

That it is unlikely guards in a city that struggle with a CR: 8 monster would be able to make such a high spot check.

This. In a world where there are lots of low level creatures and high level ones can totally out match them, aid another is invaluable.

The rules specifically tell you to consider whether that particular skill should benefit from aid another, and to put a sensible cap on how many can assist a single individual. The rules pretty much tell you not to do this, and it makes no sense in game.

I really, really like using mobs of very low level creatures using highly optimized buffing routines to give PCs who poo-poo fireball and great cleave a hard time.

Congratulations. You can make encounters that subvert the expectation of which abilities are more effective. Do you want a medal?

Spuddles

2014-01-29, 10:06 PM

That it is unlikely guards in a city that struggle with a CR: 8 monster would be able to make such a high spot check.

In a metagamey sense, sure. And einstein should have had like 40hp and had the BAB of an army private.

The rules specifically tell you to consider whether that particular skill should benefit from aid another, and to put a sensible cap on how many can assist a single individual. The rules pretty much tell you not to do this, and it makes no sense in game.

Not letting everything get stolen in town by some random ******* seems pretty sensible.

Congratulations. You can make encounters that subvert the expectation of which abilities are more effective. Do you want a medal?

I want your tears. Sweet, sweet player tears.

Boci

2014-01-29, 10:12 PM

In a metagamey sense, sure.

Also in a verisimilitude sense. High level people will not be on every street corner.

Not letting everything get stolen in town by some random ******* seems pretty sensible.

That doesn't change the fact that stacking aid another on spot checks doesn't really work, either mechanically or fluffwise.

I want your tears. Sweet, sweet player tears.

And are perfectly willing to metagame to get them.

TuggyNE

2014-01-29, 10:18 PM

I don't understand how you can Aid Another on automatic Spot or Listen checks. Here's the different mechanical representations I can think of, and what they act like:
Each guard makes a single Spot check at -5: Going on routine unrelated patrol, discipline a bit lax.
Each guard makes a single Spot check: Going on careful anti-thief patrol.
Roll 1d8, selected guard rolls Spot at +2 or +4: Each guard is scanning a given field of view and ignoring the rest.
One guard rolls Spot, all others roll Spot against DC 10 to Aid: ??? They aren't actually seeing anything, and if they did spot something suspicious there wouldn't be enough time to alert the one Spotting for the Aid Another to actually work before the Sleight of Hand was done.

Eulalios

2014-01-29, 10:24 PM

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-29, 10:26 PM

Maginomicon

2014-01-29, 10:36 PM

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-29, 10:54 PM

While aiding another in that fashion is patently ridiculous, the "Combining Skill Attempts" section in Complete Adventurer spells out how a particularly skilled person (a guard squad captain) can grant a benefit to multiple people at once through active coaching.

Exactly, coaching, which would have required obvious communication, that would have been obvious to anyone watching or at least give the option of a spot or listen check to notice. Since neither of these appear to be true, that can probably be ruled out.

Maginomicon

2014-01-29, 11:14 PM

Exactly, coaching, which would have required obvious communication, that would have been obvious to anyone watching or at least give the option of a spot or listen check to notice. Since neither of these appear to be true, that can probably be ruled out.
Not quite. A skilled watchman can give non-verbal cues to his men.

Boci

2014-01-29, 11:18 PM

Not quite. A skilled watchman can give non-verbal cues to his men.

But isn't that the reverse of what was being proposed? I.e. rather than a skilled leader buffing his allies, several less skilled underlings buffing their leader's spot by...something, something...

Maginomicon

2014-01-29, 11:33 PM

But isn't that the reverse of what was being proposed? I.e. rather than a skilled leader buffing his allies, several less skilled underlings buffing their leader's spot by...something, something...Actually, what it DOES is mean that each individual guard would get a spot check, which is what the OP was talking about in the first place. My original point was that the aid another use that was described in the context of buffing up a single person was ridiculous BUT that there are rules for improving the spot check of multiple people at once.

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-29, 11:34 PM

Not quite. A skilled watchman can give non-verbal cues to his men.

That should at least give a spot check to detect. Now, if that's true that might be an interesting thing to give the guard some flavor, but again this still just feels too random.

Maginomicon

2014-01-29, 11:38 PM

That should at least give a spot check to detect. Now, if that's true that might be an interesting thing to give the guard some flavor, but again this still just feels too random.
Drow Sign Language is a language, and thus is not subject to spot checks. It's easy to stretch that to apply to other forms of sign language.

RegalKain

2014-01-30, 12:10 AM

The OP himself admitted to not reading most of what we've been saying, while I understand the need to theorize, wouldn't it be better to ask the OP to clarify what he meant and maybe give us some more insight as to the matter at hand? Cause right now we're going on very little information, for that matter. OP when/if you speak to your DM about it, let us know his thoughts and answer?

TuggyNE

2014-01-30, 12:37 AM

Drow Sign Language is a language, and thus is not subject to spot checks.

Read lips usage of Spot. :smalltongue: What, it's a language, it counts! :smallyuk:

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 01:03 AM

8 guards suddenly being there and capable of making a ridiculously high spot check is not "interesting". Its "DM fiat to screw a player". There's a difference.

Not necessarily...

1. A guard spotting you stealing something isn't an instant screw-over. It's the risk that comes with the job. It's a chance to use all those tasty tumbles, jumps and other such skills to go assassins creed style parkouring through the town. Which to me sounds more interesting than, "you get 4gp... alright next scene." Granted if it happens everytime, sure, but sounds like this a thing that just happened, not something that has been happening per the OP. I'd be more inclined to expect it was an attempt at a small side plot.

Yes, so you want to minimize how many times plot convenience strikes. For example not using it when a player is just cutting a purse in a throwaway scene that will not add anything to the plot.

Where did anyone say this was happening all the time. The OP's situation is one time. In fact it is implied that the rouge has been able to do this without problem previously.
It's really up to the DM if the scene is a throwaway scene or not, and if anything it is an opportunity for character development.

Here is an explanation of using aid another on spot for this scenario(Hint: think abstraction):

7 privates and a sergeant are making patrols. The sergeant has seen some things, and naturally has a keen eye. Surrounded by his men, the guard is prioritizing by watching only "targets of interest." While his men each are focusing on an area around the formation, pointing out suspicious activity, allowing the sergeant to focus his attention.

Deophaun

2014-01-30, 01:08 AM

Not necessarily...

1. A guard spotting you stealing something isn't an instant screw-over. It's the risk that comes with the job. It's a chance to use all those tasty tumbles, jumps and other such skills to go assassins creed style parkouring through the town. Which to me sounds more interesting than, "you get 4gp... alright next scene."
Question: What is the rest of the party doing while the pick-pocketer is off parkouring around town? Are we going to stop the game for thirty minutes every time the bard sings for his meals as well?

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 01:17 AM

Question: What is the rest of the party doing while the pick-pocketer is off parkouring around town?

Not knowing the party I can't say specifics, but as a player personally I never had trouble taking a side seat while the rogue gets to do rogue things, or the wizard gets to do wizard things. The other players can do whatever they would do in the situation.

Are we going to stop the game for thirty minutes every time the bard sings for his meals as well?

To that I reiterate

Where did anyone say this was happening all the time. The OP's situation is one time. In fact it is implied that the rouge has been able to do this without problem previously.

and

Granted if it happens everytime, sure, but sounds like this a thing that just happened, not something that has been happening per the OP.

Deophaun

2014-01-30, 01:22 AM

Not knowing the party I can't say specifics, but as a player personally I never had trouble taking a side seat while the rogue gets to do rogue things, or the wizard gets to do wizard things. The other players can do whatever they would do in the situation.
I just don't see the point of playing a game with multiple other players when everyone's off in their own little world.

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 01:40 AM

I just don't see the point of playing a game with multiple other players when everyone's off in their own little world.

Neither do I. Where did I imply this was what I was saying?

To be clear:

I'm talking about a specific scenario. The whole game is not like this. If you can't handle a player doing anything by themselves ever in a game then I hope the rest of the party feels the same way. I'd get annoyed if anytime I wanted to seduce yonder barmaid my party member was all up in my business wanting to contribute to my seduction.

Your implication is far from what I'm saying.

Deophaun

2014-01-30, 02:00 AM

If you can't handle a player doing anything by themselves ever in a game then I hope the rest of the party feels the same way.
Apparently the OP feels this way, as he didn't want a slight of hand check to pilfer random goods to turn into a solo adventure involving 8 guards with optimized spot checks.

And unless the campaign is including the BoEF, whatever adventures you have with a barmaid should probably stay with "you get crabs" to the thief's "you get 4 gold" in terms of descriptive length.

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 02:24 AM

Apparently the OP feels this way, as he didn't want a slight of hand check to pilfer random goods to turn into a solo adventure involving 8 guards with optimized spot checks.

Actually he didn't say anything of the sort.

And unless the campaign is including the BoEF, whatever adventures you have with a barmaid should probably stay with "you get crabs" to the thief's "you get 4 gold" in terms of descriptive length.

Some people like everything to succeed with no chance of a poor situation occurring. You can like that, but I don't think it's poor DMing. In fact if every personal goal/personal character stick got handwaved I'd be bored.

Setting aside the seducing (I was thinking more in terms of flirting instead of BoEF stuff) any other situation seems really... clingy.

If you're not fine with anybody getting a focus during any part of the game, fine. However it is a far cry from bad DMing.

Optimator

2014-01-30, 02:40 AM

Everything that needs to be said has been said so far, so I'll just give my two copper pieces and say that this is just bad DMing.

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-30, 03:46 AM

Like I've said before, I have no problem with the basic premise of the scenario, only what we know of it's execution from the OP.

I want to try and craft a situation that makes the OP's experience make for a fun, enjoyable story that I myself might use as a small side-plot that the whole party can enjoy.

The eight guards notice the thief's sleight of hand as described, however, as they attempt to arrest the thief, the leader 'eagle eye Joz' (a particularly cunning half-elf 6th level Ranger who would fit the buddy cop staple of 'badass who bends the rules for the betterment of the city') will whisper that he has a proposition for the thief and would like to talk privately.

If the thief goes quietly, Joz explains that the city keeps a close eye on any adventurers that come into the city; and that when he happened to run into the thief while they were off duty, he recognised him immediately (explaining why the guard was paying special attention). He then offers to ignore this little incident and even give a not-insignificant reward if the thief and his party agree to help him catch another thief who's also apart of whatever main plot happens to be going on.

This way the party is brought into the side-plot, the side-plot is tied into the main plot and a minor conflict becomes something bigger and even allows an introduction to another character. Now I realize that not everyone would like the kind of side-plot (I myself would only do something like it if I knew the party could get into it), and that I haven't fleshed out a whole bunch of the scenario.

It's just a possible jumping off point, and it could be the kind of thing that the DM is intending to make. I don't know, I'm just making the best guess I can and I think that saying that this is definitely bad dming is being a bit hasty. We don't know, though I strongly suspect that at the very least it isn't good dming (I'm a bit of a cynic that way). However, I do think that there is a legitimate complaint here, and it could be addressed in a satisfactory way by a DM willing to communicate and make a strong story. The way the OP presents it, that hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Boci

2014-01-30, 05:47 AM

Not necessarily...

1. A guard spotting you stealing something isn't an instant screw-over. It's the risk that comes with the job.

No it really isn't. Once you make a mid 30s SoH check, a town guard incapable of handling a CR: 8 monster really shouldn't be spotting you. That is how D&D works. It would be like expecting a high level character to be intimidated by mob of torch wielding peasants.

Where did anyone say this was happening all the time. The OP's situation is one time. In fact it is implied that the rouge has been able to do this without problem previously.
It's really up to the DM if the scene is a throwaway scene or not, and if anything it is an opportunity for character development.

1. Mandatory mocking you for typingf rouge instead of rogue (insert make up joke). Kinda ironic comic from me, but forum rules are forum rules).

2. Even if it did happen just once, its still makes no sense. Maybe it is an opportunity for character growth, but so are many things contrived and annoying to the PCs.

Here is an explanation of using aid another on spot for this scenario(Hint: think abstraction):

7 privates and a sergeant are making patrols. The sergeant has seen some things, and naturally has a keen eye. Surrounded by his men, the guard is prioritizing by watching only "targets of interest." While his men each are focusing on an area around the formation, pointing out suspicious activity, allowing the sergeant to focus his attention.

That doesn't work. "Seeing something suspicious" is an successful spot check, not a successful AA on someone's spot check. If the sergeant is being paid off to ignore the PCs crimes and does so, the privates under him have no reason to be suspicious, which does fit with the scenario you just described.

Pan151

2014-01-30, 06:41 AM

Once you make a mid 30s SoH check, a town guard incapable of handling a CR: 8 monster really shouldn't be spotting you. That is how D&D works. It would be like expecting a high level character to be intimidated by mob of torch wielding peasants.

If we are talking strictly about DnD mechanics then probably yes. If however we are talking about making an actual believable universe, where blacksmiths are not necessarily the toughest guys in town and where teachers don't need to be able to casually fight wyverns in order to get enough Knowledge ranks to teach at high school, then no.

The guards may be too low level to fight off CR 8 encounters, but that's not their job. Their job is to patrol the city and keep the order. The DM is perfectly justified, if he so desires, to give them a +10 competence bonus to any checks relevant to their job, because they've been doing it for 10+ years and should by now be bloody good at it.

Zanos

2014-01-30, 07:50 AM

If we are talking strictly about DnD mechanics then probably yes. If however we are talking about making an actual believable universe, where blacksmiths are not necessarily the toughest guys in town and where teachers don't need to be able to casually fight wyverns in order to get enough Knowledge ranks to teach at high school, then no.

The guards may be too low level to fight off CR 8 encounters, but that's not their job. Their job is to patrol the city and keep the order. The DM is perfectly justified, if he so desires, to give them a +10 competence bonus to any checks relevant to their job, because they've been doing it for 10+ years and should by now be bloody good at it.
1. Believable Universe
2. D&D 3.5

Pick one. It's a fantasy game. Level 10+ characters kill dragons in their sleep, and have shattered and rebuilt kingdoms by the end of the day. High level characters are physical gods that have entire planes cowering for fear of their wrath.

Anyone above level 4 or 5 has far exceeded the capabilities of real world humans. A level 7 rogue is not a "believable" character, because they are capable of feats that are beyond any human in our world.

Also, there's a difference in being justified in doing something and being capable of doing it. Sure, you could give your guards a +10 to some skill check because you said so, or you could fudge your dice rolls, or make custom spells and weapons and restrict them to NPCs, or a hundred other things. Breaking the rules to screw over players is in extremely bad taste, and if you make a habit of it are likely to find yourself without anyone to DM.

Dalebert

2014-01-30, 08:14 AM

Also, there's a difference in being justified in doing something and being capable of doing it. Sure, you could give your guards a +10 to some skill check because you said so, or you could fudge your dice rolls, or make custom spells and weapons and restrict them to NPCs, or a hundred other things. Breaking the rules to screw over players is in extremely bad taste, and if you make a habit of it are likely to find yourself without anyone to DM.

In particular, rogues need to be nerfed because they're so over-powered.

If the guards have been guards for that long and they have skills comparable to a high level character, then... they're high level characters. Or they're not. Decide. Them being especially competent enough to nullify a rogue's skills in particular means you've decided somewhat arbitrarily that your city is overrun with particularly high level rogues (or how were they challenged to develop it so high) such that they've developed a skill in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules for everyone else. But then, it seems when they try to arrest the rogue that is many levels higher than them, they'd be handily dispatched and they'd have to start training new guards to excel in one skill in a manner inconsistent with how everyone else does.

Zanos mentioned that the most random NPCs are likely to have is 50gp. It will depend on how big of a city you're in, but I imagine even that's going to be rare. You can use the guidelines for how many high level characters are in a city based on size to get an idea how many people have much more than that. Wealthy nobles would probably be comparable. If you're rogue is picking pockets randomly all the time, I would expect he'd get less than a gp from most people. It should be something that's just tedious and not worth his trouble for the rogue's current level. For most random NPCs, I'd be rolling to see how many copper and then a chance of sp and an even smaller chance they might have gp. A lvl 10+ rogue should have better plans in the works.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-30, 10:27 AM

Because you seem determined to speculate context that vindicate the DM to a degree, and then say "speculation is pointless" whenever someone speculates something you don't like.

8 guards suddenly being there and capable of making a ridiculously high spot check is not "interesting". Its "DM fiat to screw a player". There's a difference.

I have only been speculating to provide instances where the DM may NOT have actually been trying to "screw a player" as you put it. All of it has been in an effort to convince the OP to not crucify his DM BEFORE finding out what actually happened. It is quite possible there is no legit reason for the outcome of the scenario (I don't feel the need to argue that side because so many have already taken up the cause). But, I wouldn't start raising the torches and pitchforks against the OP's DM before finding out what happened which seems to be the opposite of what many other people are suggesting.

Also, the OP did not say the 8 guards were suddenly there. It almost seems to me that the player knew the 8 guards were there, but he didn't say that either.

Why is he even trying to stop it? Is saying "you get 8 pieces of silver" too disruptive to the game?

I have no idea, I'm not the DM. You are asking the wrong person.

So you're taking the -5 penalty for being distracted into account then, as well as likely distance penalties and line-of-sight issues, right?

Sure, whatever.

Boci

2014-01-30, 10:48 AM

If we are talking strictly about DnD mechanics then probably yes. If however we are talking about making an actual believable universe, where blacksmiths are not necessarily the toughest guys in town and where teachers don't need to be able to casually fight wyverns in order to get enough Knowledge ranks to teach at high school, then no.

You're wrong. To make a D&D setting believable, you need to account for the leveling system. A 20th level character, PC or NPC, can slaughter a small town if the settlement has no high level characters to defend it. That is how the setting works. Making it so they cannot does not makes the universe more believable, it makes it less so.

The guards may be too low level to fight off CR 8 encounters, but that's not their job. Their job is to patrol the city and keep the order. The DM is perfectly justified, if he so desires, to give them a +10 competence bonus to any checks relevant to their job, because they've been doing it for 10+ years and should by now be bloody good at it.

No, that is not how the setting works. PC do not get +10 to a skill for doing it for years, neither should NPCs. Obviously if it is their job (and I do wonder why you don't think defending the town would be part of the towns guard job, its kinda in the name), they should have the necessary skills and feats to make them good at it, but no, the DM is not perfectly justified arbitarily handing out +10 unexplained skill bonus to low level characters "because its their job".

All of it has been in an effort to convince the OP to not crucify his DM BEFORE finding out what actually happened.

I don't think the OP should crucify the DM either, but I do think they should be prepared for the fact that there is no good reason for what the DM did.

Flickerdart

2014-01-30, 10:54 AM

If it's a farming town, expect a random farmer (commoner 1) to be carrying something like 20sp as a maximum, and 7-13 as an average. In a larger town/city, with more skilled citizens (mostly commoners and experts of levels 1 to 3 in a standard game, likely, don't have books on hand to check), they might have significantly more. Expect them to carry slightly larger amounts, but still nothing that would measurably increase your wealth at level 7 (I'd say 5-10 gp, maybe something like 7-15 gp average, but at least half of it would be in smaller coins).

In a farming town, the random farmer would be carrying no money at all, since there's nothing he does during the day that requires hard cash. If he came out to make a purchase or sell something, he'll have exactly that much money, which isn't likely to be more than a few coppers because things peasants buy and sell tend to be cheap.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-30, 10:58 AM

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-30, 11:01 AM

I don't think the OP should crucify the DM either, but I do think they should be prepared for the fact that there is no good reason for what the DM did.

That is definitely a possibility.

Calimehter

2014-01-30, 11:11 AM

Anyone above level 4 or 5 has far exceeded the capabilities of real world humans. A level 7 rogue is not a "believable" character, because they are capable of feats that are beyond any human in our world.

Its worth mentioning that an NPC guard captain of near-7th level will have the same potential to 'far exceed the capabilities of the real world' as a 7th level PC rogue does.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-30, 01:13 PM

Is saying "you get 8 pieces of silver" too disruptive to the game?

Actually, if it happens often enough, it can be very annoying and not just for the DM. If this was happening frequently, I could even see the other players getting annoyed and asking the DM outside of the game to takes steps to address the issue.

This is why I have another person who is suppose to help keep us on track when I DM. I have a tendency to allow side actions to get out of hand.

Dalebert

2014-01-30, 01:44 PM

Okay. The call seems really unrealistic. Find out what the particular issue for the DM (and maybe players?) is. Is it just tedious when the rogue interrupts the game frequently for this trivial thing? Depending on how frequently and randomly he does it, he's going to get an extremely trivial amount of cash. The average person is dirt poor compared to PCs. If giving him a realistic amount (almost always a few copper if he's doing it to a lot of people) doesn't discourage him in a while, maybe the DM can talk to him and come to an agreement to handle it offline:

"Let's just say you're indulging your kleptomania all day and are good enough to be successful almost all the time. Instead of rolling every time, I'm just going to say you pick 50 pockets in an average day and the average take is 5 cp (leniently) so you make an extra 25 sp a day. Now let's get on with the game."

Of course, if a nobleman walks by of particular note, the DM an alert him. "Ahem... You see an extremely well-dressed woman accompanied by two guards on either side in masterwork plate who are looking around, seemingly on high alert to keep her safe. What do you do?" Who has her money? She may not be carrying it. Maybe one of the guards is.

Meanwhile, he could be rolling randomly each day for the odds that one of the apparently poor-looking folks he robbed is a clever high level character on the down low and has a better chance of spotting his attempt and causing some meaningful trouble:

"The purse seems heavier than usual and has a nice jingle to it! Then a mouth on the side of the purse screams 'thief!' and you drop it realizing there are now rabbit paws where your hands were and the world around you suddenly seems gigantic."

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 02:22 PM

No it really isn't. Once you make a mid 30s SoH check, a town guard incapable of handling a CR: 8 monster really shouldn't be spotting you. That is how D&D works. It would be like expecting a high level character to be intimidated by mob of torch wielding peasants.

I bet if you tried you could make a character that can easily handle that spot check, yet can't handle all CR8 monsters.

(I ignore the distance penalties. I've never met anyone who doesn't)

Here's a build for a level 5 guard:

Elf expert 5:
Bonuses to spot:
Wisdom: 13 +1 from level=14 (+2)
Racial: +2
Alertness: +2
Skill Focus (Spot): +3
Ranks: +8
Total Bonus: +17 to spot.

To get a 34 that guard needs to roll a 17 or higher. 20% of the time this guard will make that 34 even without the aid another of his privates (which didn't seem like what actually happened).

If he's a Human he'll have a 10% chance.

1. Mandatory mocking you for typingf rouge instead of rogue (insert make up joke). Kinda ironic comic from me, but forum rules are forum rules).

Who says I wasn't PaOing as a wizard? :smalltongue:

2. Even if it did happen just once, its still makes no sense. Maybe it is an opportunity for character growth, but so are many things contrived and annoying to the PCs.

Some people get annoyed when something they want to succeed and expect to succeed doesn't. I'm not in that boat. I don't see why people should feel entitled to have guards at a certain level with a certain spot modifier.

That doesn't work. "Seeing something suspicious" is an successful spot check, not a successful AA on someone's spot check. If the sergeant is being paid off to ignore the PCs crimes and does so, the privates under him have no reason to be suspicious, which does fit with the scenario you just described.

You speak with such conviction when there is no actual rules governing the issue specifically. It's a matter of interpretation which we seem to have different opinions on.

By your logic however, seeing anything is a successful spot check. A DC 10 spot (aid another) is the process of the private weeding out people he sees as a non-issue. That is the reasoning behind it. It's valid enough, you may not think so, but it makes sense to me and the people I play with.

If you don't like it, get creative I'm sure you can come up with a multitude of ways that could work.

Boci

2014-01-30, 02:42 PM

I bet if you tried you could make a character that can easily handle that spot check, yet can't handle all CR8 monsters.

That proves nothing (and even if it did, see below). Guardsmen would not be build like that, because they have so many other duties.

Some people get annoyed when something they want to succeed and expect to succeed doesn't. I'm not in that boat. I don't see why people should feel entitled to have guards at a certain level with a certain spot modifier.

Because its unbelievable. Would 8th level PCs be town guards on a street corner? Sure NPCs don't all have to go down the adventuring path, but if they can reliable make a DC: 30 spot check, they belong in the house of someone important.

You speak with such conviction when there is no actual rules governing the issue specifically. It's a matter of interpretation which we seem to have different opinions on.

Er no, I have been referring the mechanics on why aid another spot checks do not work.

By your logic however, seeing anything is a successful spot check. A DC 10 spot (aid another) is the process of the private weeding out people he sees as a non-issue. That is the reasoning behind it. It's valid enough, you may not think so, but it makes sense to me and the people I play with.

Doesn't work because it requires feedback and is non-instantaneous, whilst a spot check is instantaneous. For this reason I have no problem with aid another on search checks.

If you don't like it, get creative I'm sure you can come up with a multitude of ways that could work.

I can't. The mechanics of spot just don't seem to make it compatible with AA>

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 02:57 PM

That proves nothing (and even if it did, see below). Guardsmen would not be build like that, because they have so many other duties.

They could be built like that easily. Noticing stuff like this is one of their main duties. The other is apprehending said criminals. (Fighting high power PCs is it's own topic and I won't delve into it too much, but basically any low level guard is going to have a problem with that.) I don't see why different guards could be specialized for different aspects of their duties.

You can't just say all guardsmen in all games forever can or can't be built any way.

Because its unbelievable. Would 8th level PCs be town guards on a street corner? Sure NPCs don't all have to go down the adventuring path, but if they can reliable make a DC: 30 spot check, they belong in the house of someone important.

1. Mandatory "are you bringing believability into a DnD discussion" comment. Seriously though any DM can make any world how he/she wants. Neither you nor I are the arbiters of how they do this.

2. Mine was a 5th level in an NPC class. Would they be on every street corner? No, but they would be patrolling. Is it unlikely that they would be there? Maybe, but that is the trope of RPGs and both TV shows/movies alike.

Er no, I have been referring the mechanics on why aid another spot checks do not work.

Doesn't work because it requires feedback and is non-instantaneous, whilst a spot check is instantaneous. For this reason I have no problem with aid another on search checks.

I can't. The mechanics of spot just don't seem to make it compatible with AA>

Eh, neither one of us will sway the other. Agree to disagree.

Boci

2014-01-30, 03:07 PM

They could be built like that easily. Noticing stuff like this is one of their main duties. The other is apprehending said criminals. (Fighting high power PCs is it's own topic and I won't delve into it too much, but basically any low level guard is going to have a problem with that.)

Also keeping order and guarding the town. You know, bandits, animals, low CR monsters. Or do you assume only adventurers do that?

They I don't see why different guards could be specialized for different aspects of their duties.

I never said they couldn't. I said someone that specialized would not be on a street corner, but in a noble's court, a merchant princes house. Ect. Again, would a 5th level PC be a common town guard?

They 1. Mandatory "are you bringing believability into a DnD discussion" comment.

No, someone else did and I addressed that.

Seriously though any DM can make any world how he/she wants. Neither you nor I are the arbiters of how they do this.

That's a cop out. Technically neither of us can say "A DM cannot rule that all bunies in his world have 18 intelligence and 20 levels of the wizard class" but I think we can still agree it would be weird.

2. Mine was a 5th level in an NPC class. Would they be on every street corner? No, but they would be patrolling. Is it unlikely that they would be there? Maybe, but that is the trope of RPGs and both TV shows/movies alike.

Yeah for plot key details. Not to magically catch a misbehaving PC.

Eh, neither one of us will sway the other. Agree to disagree.

I'd prefer if you addressed my arguments like I have addressed your points, refer back to the mechanics of the game (i.e. not my opinion but something we can both read and comprehend). But I cannot compel you to continue this debate.

Maginomicon

2014-01-30, 03:15 PM

Actually, if it happens often enough, it can be very annoying and not just for the DM. If this was happening frequently, I could even see the other players getting annoyed and asking the DM outside of the game to takes steps to address the issue.
If that was the case, the GM could easily convert his actions so that they use the perform skill rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/perform.htm) but apply it to sleight of hand checks instead of perform checks. He gets the feel of being a cutpurse without interrupting flow.

RegalKain

2014-01-30, 04:33 PM

Also keeping order and guarding the town. You know, bandits, animals, low CR monsters. Or do you assume only adventurers do that?
I'm very sorry, but all of your responses are going on the basis that all NPCs everywhere are weak, frail insignificant fools who can't tie their own shoe laces and are terrified by the single goblin who rolls an intimidate check. Why do you think once you've reached level 15, you aren't being asked constantly to take care oft hose CR 8 creatures anymore? Probably because the guards have gotten much better, or they have adventuring types on the payroll now. This serves the in-game mechanic of not wasting time killing stuff with no XP gain, but it makes a campaign more "believable" in the long run, stop assuming everyone runs their D&D world strictly 100% by how the DMG SUGGESTS you do so. That's not the case, here's an idea, go pick pocket in Sigil see how that works for you, then complain when the guards have a high enough spot to catch you.

I never said they couldn't. I said someone that specialized would not be on a street corner, but in a noble's court, a merchant princes house. Ect. Again, would a 5th level PC be a common town guard?

In my campaign? Yes they would, I've addressed this before, we have no idea how this DM runs his normal game worlds, my PCs know that I run a world where they are not the most powerful people in exsistence, that Cleric who has a nice large pouch of silver on his side, who is handing out food and water to the poor? Probably NOT a good idea to try to steal from him, especially seeing as he's in a bad part of town and doesn't seem to have a care in the world about being in such a "dangerous" place. Specifici example? Sure, but I could see an Elf with 5 levels of Ranger for that matter acting as a town-guard for awhile to make some extra cash and help out.
I currently have a level 2 Barbarian who has 28 Strength (Pre-rage), you know what he does in his "down-time" (The time our Rogue spends stealing while in town.) helps out at the animal shelter, and at construction sites, to use his strength and his (absurd ranks of Handle Animal) to better help the town. Is this unbelievable? No because that's how my character acts, are you then telling me I'm playing D&D wrong? That's just ABSURD we have fun, so we're playing right. You make the assumption that the PCs are the ONLY PEOPLE IN EXSISTENCE who are at all, in any way shape or form powerful or strong. If that's how your group plays? That's fine and dandy, don't force that way of thinking onto others though. Remember as well, I forgot where it is (I'll try to find it afterwork) there's a thread somewhere that tells you how much "in-game" time goes by to average getting to level 15, it was something like 6 months. Yes that's right in just a half a year, you can have WORLD MELTING POWERS Yaaaay 3.5 as per RAW it makes little sense, but it's possible. Why assume you're the only strong person? This to me sounds like a constant ego trip for you.

Boci

2014-01-30, 04:46 PM

dascarletm

2014-01-30, 05:04 PM

Also keeping order and guarding the town. You know, bandits, animals, low CR monsters. Or do you assume only adventurers do that?

I never said they couldn't. I said someone that specialized would not be on a street corner, but in a noble's court, a merchant princes house. Ect. Again, would a 5th level PC be a common town guard?

Common? maybe not, but in my opinion a level 5 guard would be part of patrols in larger cities. In large cities we could have even higher level people. If there are unflinching rules on guard levels let me know.

No, someone else did and I addressed that.

Dang forum hipsters, making jokes before they were cool.

That's a cop out. Technically neither of us can say "A DM cannot rule that all bunies in his world have 18 intelligence and 20 levels of the wizard class" but I think we can still agree it would be weird.

That's quite an exaggeration. Your example is vastly different than a campaign world with NPC demographics that fall outside of the DMG's recommended demographics in the town building guide. If your experience is that your DMs stick to that rigorously then sure, but that has not been my experience.

Yeah for plot key details. Not to magically catch a misbehaving PC.

If you pay attention to these media you'll notice the "wrong place at the wrong time" trope happens outside of main story arcs.

I don't see it as punishment. It's hard to gauge intention based on one incident.

I'd prefer if you addressed my arguments like I have addressed your points, refer back to the mechanics of the game (i.e. not my opinion but something we can both read and comprehend). But I cannot compel you to continue this debate.

If by adressing my points you mean saying, "no it doesn't work like that."
:smallsigh: fine.

per the SRD

In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

This is open ended and doesn't call out spot specifically. Thus we are making an interpretation. You have your interpretation I have mine. Your argument is purely on RAI, which isn't universally true amongst people.

Pan151

2014-01-30, 05:12 PM

No, that is not how the setting works. PC do not get +10 to a skill for doing it for years, neither should NPCs. Obviously if it is their job (and I do wonder why you don't think defending the town would be part of the towns guard job, its kinda in the name), they should have the necessary skills and feats to make them good at it, but no, the DM is not perfectly justified arbitarily handing out +10 unexplained skill bonus to low level characters "because its their job".

PCs do get better at things for doing it for a long time. It's called "getting more character levels due to fighting mosters, so that you can fight monsters better".

The problem with the leveling system however is that it only works for adventurers, because that is what it is designed for. Unfortunately, it does not work with common npcs. You cannot make a merchant better at his trade without at the same time giving him ridiculous amounts of hp for no reason. You cannot make a teacher better at his job without at the same time giving him amounts of BAB he should by no mean have.

That is why I think bonus feats/stats should be awarded, irrespective of leveling, for long training and other appropriate circumstances. PCs are obviously not excluded from this, if appropriate, but most of what they do is adventuring, and the base leveling system has got this covered. It's not like it's directly violating the rules of DnD either - need I remind you splatbooks document various ways you can gain bonus stuff not through leveling but through specific social interactions? (Otyugh hole, various rituals etc) It's not exactly a big stretch to houserule some extra training feats along the lines of the existing ones.

PS. Just when did we decide that lv5+ guards should be uncommon? Because that may be true in some settings, but if you take a stroll down a big city of, say, Faerun, you better be damn well sure you'll find some guards that are higher level than you...

3WhiteFox3

2014-01-30, 05:25 PM

I'm very sorry, but all of your responses are going on the basis that all NPCs everywhere are weak, frail insignificant fools who can't tie their own shoe laces and are terrified by the single goblin who rolls an intimidate check. Why do you think once you've reached level 15, you aren't being asked constantly to take care oft hose CR 8 creatures anymore? Probably because the guards have gotten much better, or they have adventuring types on the payroll now. This serves the in-game mechanic of not wasting time killing stuff with no XP gain, but it makes a campaign more "believable" in the long run, stop assuming everyone runs their D&D world strictly 100% by how the DMG SUGGESTS you do so. That's not the case, here's an idea, go pick pocket in Sigil see how that works for you, then complain when the guards have a high enough spot to catch you.

In my campaign? Yes they would, I've addressed this before, we have no idea how this DM runs his normal game worlds, my PCs know that I run a world where they are not the most powerful people in exsistence, that Cleric who has a nice large pouch of silver on his side, who is handing out food and water to the poor? Probably NOT a good idea to try to steal from him, especially seeing as he's in a bad part of town and doesn't seem to have a care in the world about being in such a "dangerous" place. Specifici example? Sure, but I could see an Elf with 5 levels of Ranger for that matter acting as a town-guard for awhile to make some extra cash and help out.
I currently have a level 2 Barbarian who has 28 Strength (Pre-rage), you know what he does in his "down-time" (The time our Rogue spends stealing while in town.) helps out at the animal shelter, and at construction sites, to use his strength and his (absurd ranks of Handle Animal) to better help the town. Is this unbelievable? No because that's how my character acts, are you then telling me I'm playing D&D wrong? That's just ABSURD we have fun, so we're playing right. You make the assumption that the PCs are the ONLY PEOPLE IN EXSISTENCE who are at all, in any way shape or form powerful or strong. If that's how your group plays? That's fine and dandy, don't force that way of thinking onto others though. Remember as well, I forgot where it is (I'll try to find it afterwork) there's a thread somewhere that tells you how much "in-game" time goes by to average getting to level 15, it was something like 6 months. Yes that's right in just a half a year, you can have WORLD MELTING POWERS Yaaaay 3.5 as per RAW it makes little sense, but it's possible. Why assume you're the only strong person? This to me sounds like a constant ego trip for you.

This is all anecdotal evidence, and weak anecdotal evidence at that. I don't care how you play your game, if you have fun, that's fine with me. I don't think anyone's attacking the way you play the game like you seem to think they are. Playing your game the way you want to isn't a bad thing (as long as you aren't hurting anybody) but then you go and attack others by claiming that they have ego trips and taking very small portions of the argument and making broad assumptions. The only person I see trying to force their viewpoint on someone else, is you. You keep presenting how you do things as inherentely more believable and better than the other alternatives.

No one said that a powerful Barbarian volunteering is wrong or stupid. In fact the only one to say that it's unbelievable is you. The only stated problem with the OP's scenario is that it was not presented in a way believable to him. And that's what most people here are commenting on. Something being unbelievable to them, as presented. Presentation is often far more important than the actual logic of a situation in speculative fiction. We buy into the fantasy staples of magic and monsters not because of it's logic or realism, but because it's presented in an appealing, internally consistent way. (I'm not saying that because it's fantasy or D&D we can throw believability out the window, I'm just saying that there's a reason suspension of disbelief exists.)

Believabilty (as defined as working in a manner consistent with reality) plays second fiddle to verisimilitude (being able to buy into the situation and fiction as described by the storyteller) and in this situation verisimilitude was lost for the OP. He shared his story and asked the playground for their advice and opinions. The majority of responses agreed with his perspective but also recommended that the DM be consulted to clear away any misconceptions and to preserve quality of communication. The rest of the thread is merely speculation (IMO, interesting speculation) using the facts we have to put out opinions on the situation as presented.

Boci

2014-01-30, 05:26 PM

Common? maybe not, but in my opinion a level 5 guard would be part of patrols in larger cities. In large cities we could have even higher level people. If there are unflinching rules on guard levels let me know.

Maybe, but then they should be able to take out a CR 8 monster.

That's quite an exaggeration. Your example is vastly different than a campaign world with NPC demographics that fall outside of the DMG's recommended demographics in the town building guide. If your experience is that your DMs stick to that rigorously then sure, but that has not been my experience.

Fair enough. Except the DMs decision had a negative impact on the PCs fun. Plus horses, not zebras.

If you pay attention to these media you'll notice the "wrong place at the wrong time" trope happens outside of main story arcs.

Yeah, but the OP mentioned nothing about plot development hinging on it.

If by adressing my points you mean saying, "no it doesn't work like that."
:smallsigh: fine.

No, by "address" I mean "no that doesn't. here's why based on the mechanics of the spot skill and aid another". You just keep clipping where I talk about mechanics. Second time by my count.

This is open ended and doesn't call out spot specifically. Thus we are making an interpretation. You have your interpretation I have mine. Your argument is purely on RAI, which isn't universally true amongst people.

Except I reference mechanics. Your RAI, does not stand up to how the mechanics play out. Its a standard action to aid another, yet the spot check to oppose a SoH attempt happen out of turn.

PCs do get better at things for doing it for a long time. It's called "getting more character levels due to fighting mosters, so that you can fight monsters better".

The problem with the leveling system however is that it only works for adventurers, because that is what it is designed for.

Do you tell your PCs this is how you run the game?

PS. Just when did we decide that lv5+ guards should be uncommon?

When it was established that the town guard cannot take out a CR 8 monster.

Pan151

2014-01-30, 05:32 PM

When it was established that the town guard cannot take out a CR 8 monster.

Can they not take out a CR8 encounter because they're too low level or can they not take it out because their equipment is too crappy? Because in the case of #2 they can easily be lv5+. Hell, they could be lv10, but if the encounter had DR 10/+1 they would not be able to take it on with the rusty shortswords the town council gave them...

Boci

2014-01-30, 05:34 PM

Can they not take out a CR8 encounter because they're too low level or can they not take it out because their equipment is too crappy? Because in the case of #2 they can easily be lv5+

To encounter a 5th level+ town guard by chance means there will be a fair few of them. Enough that they should be able to take out a CR 8 monster. The OP didn't their equipment to be worthy of mention, only that they could take it out. Also NPCs have wealth by level.

Pan151

2014-01-30, 05:38 PM

To encounter a 5th level+ town guard by chance means there will be a fair few of them. Enough that they should be able to take out a CR 8 monster.

Enough to take out a CR 8 monster without taking more casualties than the monster would inflict if left to its own devices?

Boci

2014-01-30, 05:42 PM

Enough to take out a CR 8 monster without taking more casualties than the monster would inflict if left to its own devices?

OP mentioned no such fact. Are we really going to play 21 question. What if the whole campaign is simply an illusion and this was clue for the PCs, a glitch in the matrix? What if the OP accidentally stole the DMs significant other and this is their revenge? Did the DM accidentally roll a d100 for the spot check?

Nihilarian

2014-01-30, 05:55 PM

That's a cop out. Technically neither of us can say "A DM cannot rule that all bunies in his world have 18 intelligence and 20 levels of the wizard class" but I think we can still agree it would be weird.
And amazing. Don't forget amazing.

Calimehter

2014-01-30, 06:12 PM

To dredge up some RAW and toss it out there as food for thought:

Per the tables on pages 139 of the DMG, a small town has a 1 in 8 chance of having an 8th level fighter, and a concurrent 1 in 16 chance of having a 8th level warrior. If you set your sights a tad lower, the odds of getting a level 5+ fighter are 1 in 2, and the (again concurrent) odds of getting a level 5+ warrior are 5 in 8.

Per page 138 of the DMG, the captain of the town guard has an 80% chance of being either the highest level warrior or the highest level fighter in town.

Boci

2014-01-30, 06:17 PM

Calimehter

2014-01-30, 08:12 PM

dascarletm sort of acknowledge that, in that he discards it because everyone he knows does. Like distance penalties.

That's very fair. When I DM, I tend to think of those tables as more like guidelines than actual rules [/pirate voice]

What it all means, though, is that its pure DM fiat to say that there's no realistic chance of there being a high(ish) level guard captain in a village or small town.

Boci

2014-01-30, 08:15 PM

What it all means, though, is that its pure DM fiat to say that there's no realistic chance of there being a high(ish) level guard captain in a village or small town.

Except nobody said that, at least by my count. Now I do recall saying that there is no realistic chance of a guard being able to make a DC: 35 spot check just happening to be on the street corner at the exact moment.

RegalKain

2014-01-30, 09:59 PM

Snip

Actually, the point of my post, was to play off of my previous post in this thread, more to the point of, Boci has absolutely no idea how OP's DM runs their campaign (As the OP has STILL not told us much about the Campaign at all.) the OP was not infact surprised by 8 guards (At least that's how I'm reading it.) More the fact that a guard had a high enough spot, to catch the Rogue, the OP also ASSUMES the guards would have to be CR 10 to spot said Rogue. As others much better at optimizing then I have already pointed out, they can get an equal to or higher spot check at level 3 or 4, let me demonstrate my point with an example.

Rogue: Ok I'm gonna go try to pick some pockets
Dm: Uhhh ok sure, give me some rolls, who are you aiming for?
Rogue: Anyone really, might try to avoid guards, if the target isn't tempting enough.
Dm: Ok give me a roll.
Rogue: I got 34 total on my SOH
Dm :Rolls behind screen a percentile (To see who he picked as a target) then rolls that person's spot: You tried to pick the pocket of a large barrel-chested man thinking him a slow and meandering person, he has made his spot check give me initiative.

The DM could very well, and very easily be talking about my Barbarian there, now if my Barb was level 7 (Same as PCs) he'd still be doing the same thing in his downtime, his spot if I continued as I went now, would have a relatively high modifier. Suddenly the Rogue is in a lot of trouble as he has a much stronger (And by class features faster) opponent who caught him, my point was we don't know how the OP's DM runs his campaign, he could use towns (both large and small) as hubs for other "adventuring" parties to stop off in, in which case there's a very real chance not only are the guards of a higher caliber at catching thieves (Though perhaps not equipped as there are simply to many guards in a city of X size to warrant giving them all magicially enchanted gear.) we don't know, for all we know that guard could be a 20th level Fighter, who is a guard in a city as retirement because he's bored of two-shotting dragons. Why didn't he kill the CR8 Creature? Who knows why is there any issues of starvation in a game where infinite food is viable?

I'm not saying they are playing wrong, or I am playing right, I'm saying there is no wrong or right way to play, the OP isn't surprised by 8 guards, he's surprised by the fact one had a high enough spot to catch the rogue who has an optimized SOH check, because he much like Boci, is assuming guards are all low-level mooks and are completely unoptimized. Which is why I asked the OP to give us an idea of how his DM runs their world, and what they run into more often then not, especially seeing as the Rogue is new to this DM and world (From what the OP said.) we usually pre-face and warn new players either when I, or my roommate DMs "We're very brutal with wording, just because you got a nat20 on your diplo check, you still have to do a decent job convincing me, a roll only gets you so far." "Our campaigns are very high-risk, be careful doing anything to willy nilly as it might wind up in your death, NPCs are generally of decent level, with merchants and bartenders etc being of high-level just so you have a head's up as this is common knowledge." Boci says "Strawman" argument, I say no, without knowing how the OP's DM runs, we should not assume he is running a cookie-cutter 100% DMG-RAW city, as that's just making assumptions without much info to go on. The OP has already been given his answers, speak to his DM see why it was done, further more, Guards can have an equal to spot check at levels as low as 4.

I wasn't assuming anyone was attacking the way I play my game, you all are however attacking the way his DM plays his game. (Not all of you, but many are in saying it's DM fiat and cannot happen such as Boci) I was more trying to prove the point that, depending on the DM and player's playstyle it's quite possible. The table obviously has some level of optimization to it, to have a Rogue with a +19 SoH at level 7. I'm not saying it's a lot of optimization but some. Until the OP (If ever he does, which I doubt he will since he's already admitted to not reading most of the posts.) Gets back to us and lets us know how his DM runs the world, or what the deal was, we're just speculating and have 0 evidence to go on. Anecdotal evidence? That's all anyone is throwing around, because everyone is assuming the city was built on RAW, and even that is loose because others have proven you can have a guard with a high spot at lower level then the DMG tells you to put in a town. Eithier way I'll remove myself from the conversation until the OP posts, I don't want to stir the pot, cause trouble etc, that was never my intent.

Boci

2014-01-30, 10:30 PM

(Not all of you, but many are in saying it's DM fiat and cannot happen such as Boci) I was more trying to prove the point that, depending on the DM and player's playstyle it's quite possible.

You're missing my points. So let me hit the reset button and restate my main points and explain why I feel that way:

1. It is possible the scenario above happened for legitimate reasons and the DM made no mistake
2. On balance, I think that is not the most likely scenario
3. Generally, a guard force that cannot take out a CR: 8 monster should not be making DC: 35 checks.

Let's look at what we do know for sure:
1. The OP was surprised the guards were able to beat the SoL check
2. The OP on balance does not feel the guards being able to beat the SoL check was good

So at the very least we have a DM who has made a mistake. They didn't tell OP what the guards were capable of, which is weird, you generally have an idea of what law enforcement is capable of. They also apparently misjudged how thew OP would have responded to such an aspect of the game.

RegalKain

2014-01-30, 11:03 PM

2. On balance, I think that is not the most likely scenario
Balance of what though? This is what I'm trying to see, based on what? The DMG? Personal experiences in the past? Other then the fact the OP was suprised such a check was beaten, we have 0 information to go on, other then that these same guards can't beat a CR 8 monster, which isn't much.

3. Generally, a guard force that cannot take out a CR: 8 monster should not be making DC: 35 checks.
I think this wholly depends on the creature at hand? Which again we have no idea what it is, a Destrachan is something that I could see warranting hiring adventurer's to take care of, especially as it can shatter metals etc in a rather large area, for that matter an Erinyes could also be something that almost no guards in that city could take care of (Based on what we've seen from people who optimize spot. Infact let's assume the guards are level 5s higher then the lowest level optimization for spot ot beat the SOL) with a fly of 50ft good, she'd tear the guards apart in short order, especially with two attacks a range and DR 5/Good, but we know nothing at all of the guards, because the OP hasn't filled us in, which is my point, we don't know what the monster even was. Hell there are monsters that are CR 7 and 8 that a party that level would be hard-pressed to win against, the Gorgon springs to mind as being something that alot of parties who don't use topmization would be hard-pressed to fight, now imagine a bunch of guards fighting one as they are being turned to stone.

1. The OP was surprised the guards were able to beat the SoL check
2. The OP on balance does not feel the guards being able to beat the SoL check was good
Again, he feels they shouldn't be able to beat the spot check, this is where I'll say I don't know him, or the DM, or how long they've known each other, all of which come into play. I'm not saying you're wrong in what you're saying, I'm simply pointing out that you, much like I am, are making assumptions and accusations without any evidence to go on at all, because the OP hasn't provided any good evidence.

So at the very least we have a DM who has made a mistake. They didn't tell OP what the guards were capable of, which is weird, you generally have an idea of what law enforcement is capable of. They also apparently misjudged how thew OP would have responded to such an aspect of the game.
Errr...this is you making assumptions again? I'm sorry but it is. Wouldn't that sort of thing be a Knowledge "Local" check? Or is that something that players are assumed to simply know at every new town they stop in? This is where it is based on the players and how the DM runs his game, I don't assume my players know anything at all about a town unless their characters started in that place. This is what Knowledge checks are for most often. If you go to a completely new area, eithier in-game or IRL for that matter (Though I am loathe and terrified to touch any subject relating to IRL on these forums.) you have no way of knowing how law enforcement is going to act, except through heresay (In-game that's a knowledge local, or a gather information check.) something I'd assume (Because my Rogues do it at every new town.) The rogue would do, if they didn't? Then no they have no idea what the law is capable of. There are places in Florida where people have been shot because they reach for their wallet without saying as much, the same goes in Detroit, if a cop stops you, you tell them what you're doing and slowly do it, otherwise there's a very real chance of being shot because they think you're pulling a weapon. Extreme? Perhaps, the point stands it happens, where as other places I've seen people get pulled over with guns on them with nothing happening, because it was a back-water town where everyone knew, everyone else (Myself included.) This is just a fact of life and regions, the same can be exactly true in a D&D world. Again, unless we're told the Rogue didn't make a Gather Info check, or a Knowledge Local check, I won't assume they did.

Boci

2014-01-30, 11:15 PM

Again, he feels they shouldn't be able to beat the spot check, this is where I'll say I don't know him, or the DM, or how long they've known each other, all of which come into play. I'm not saying you're wrong in what you're saying, I'm simply pointing out that you, much like I am, are making assumptions and accusations without any evidence to go on at all, because the OP hasn't provided any good evidence.

The difference between you and me though, is I'm not playing 21 question of "What if". Yes I am making the assumption, the assumption that we have been given all relevant information pertaining to the incident. Its entirely possible we have not been, the OP could come back and clarify something or DM could give his side of the story. If that happens and new information is given, then I may reevaluate my initial assumption. But until that does happen, I am not going to play 101 "what ifs".

Errr...this is you making assumptions again? I'm sorry but it is. Wouldn't that sort of thing be a Knowledge "Local" check?

For specific sure, but if the guards of a town can make a DC: 35 check, I kinda expect to get the impression that they are pretty uber beforehand. That is a very impressive feat, and if a DM doesn't convey that to me, either out of character (this is the norm in my setting, people don't find it noteworthy) in or in character (this town is special so it has rumors, a reputation).

I'm not asking for their character sheets, just a "they are incompetent/ average/very well trained/ capable of super human feats".

ZamielVanWeber

2014-01-30, 11:23 PM

TuggyNE

2014-01-31, 02:30 AM

I just want to point out that a warrior with 16 Wis and both spot boosting feats (Alertness and Skill Focus) would need to be level 14 to make that DC 35 spot check (the samr goes with fighter). It seems odd they could make it but not beat a cr 8.

But who makes town guards that are straight Warriors? Obviously they should be Elf Factotum 1/Marshal 1/Dungeoncrasher Fighter 2! 18 Cha, 18 Wis, and 18 Int, with +2 items for each and a MW tool of spot, makes a nice tidy +26, which can hit DC 35 by taking 10.

Dalebert

2014-01-31, 09:12 AM

Obviously they should be Elf Factotum 1/Marshal 1/Dungeoncrasher Fighter 2! 18 Cha, 18 Wis, and 18 Int, with +2 items for each and a MW tool of spot, makes a nice tidy +26, which can hit DC 35 by taking 10.

LOLed!

I would suggest the DM and players have a little friendly chat with this rogue. Give him an analogy for a rogue of his caliber picking the pockets of random people. Imagine a modern master thief on the level of movies like Ocean's Eleven. In modern times, he'd probably have equipment for cracking the most advanced of safes. He knows the alarm system and how to disable it and how long the local response time is for security to arrive. He's done bank heists several times and made millions.

Imagine that guy picking wallets all day that have maybe 50 bucks in them. It's not rational behavior. It's beneath him.

KorbeltheReader

2014-01-31, 11:08 AM

LOLed!

I would suggest the DM and players have a little friendly chat with this rogue. Give him an analogy for a rogue of his caliber picking the pockets of random people. Imagine a modern master thief on the level of movies like Ocean's Eleven. In modern times, he'd probably have equipment for cracking the most advanced of safes. He knows the alarm system and how to disable it and how long the local response time is for security to arrive. He's done bank heists several times and made millions.

Imagine that guy picking wallets all day that have maybe 50 bucks in them. It's not rational behavior. It's beneath him.

Word.

For what it's worth, in my experience art imitates life in this respect. Once PC rogues reach the point where they can no longer fail pickpocket rolls on normal people, they lose interest in it. That's especially true if the GM doesn't houserule autofailing skill checks on a 1 and thus stops asking the PC to roll.

If the rogue then starts turning to adventurers to pilfer their magic items, well, they're adventurers so they're much more likely to have high notice rolls or something.

dascarletm

2014-01-31, 01:14 PM

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. You can ignore all this if you've already had your fill of discussing it.:smallbiggrin:

Maybe, but then they should be able to take out a CR 8 monster.

I think that depends on what monster it is and how many lives they are willing to spend on killing it. That said, if they're acting like most people, they'll value their lives (since they don't know they're just figments of our imagination, and don't even have lives per say). I'd think hiring adventurers would be a better choice then trying to take it themselves.

Fair enough. Except the DMs decision had a negative impact on the PCs fun. Plus horses, not zebras.

I think it's more important that the person putting the time and effort into building a world enjoys said world over the PCs. In this instance at least, since it is such a minor detail.

If it is a problem that they can't overcome I would be inclined to say that the upset player(s) should DM if they don't like worlds like that. IMO it's important that a DM runs a world he/she likes.

However I'm making a bunch of assumptions about the OP, and these responses are more generalities than anything

Yeah, but the OP mentioned nothing about plot development hinging on it.

It's a side plot. If you've watched Stargate SG1, it's like one of those episodes where they accidentally get caught up in some weird culture's traditions. The shenanigans are all contained in that episode (or two) and the main plot involving whichever Goa'uld is the baddie at the time is neither advanced or even mentioned. Those episodes are still fun and enjoyable.

For the OP and party they may not have enjoyed this side plot, but no DM is perfect. If the only reason is that they expected to win at stealing when they are in a town no matter what, then I'd look to the players to fix this issue.

No, by "address" I mean "no that doesn't. here's why based on the mechanics of the spot skill and aid another". You just keep clipping where I talk about mechanics. Second time by my count.

I see your points, overall to what you had said.

Except I reference mechanics. Your RAI, does not stand up to how the mechanics play out. Its a standard action to aid another, yet the spot check to oppose a SoH attempt happen out of turn.

True, it is a standard action, but in my scenario they would be using those standards every round (fluffed by my description). I assumed it was more or less implied since I said they were doing this as they went, but I'll detail it out a bit more.

Every "round" as they move on patrol is this

Private 1-6: Standard action Aid, move action move 30ft.
Sergeant: Move action attempt to spot anything he may have missed, Move action move 30ft.

Thus (PS this probably didn't play out like this in the OP, but I'm just coming up with an example on how this could work):

Round 1:
Rogue: Move, SoH (Guards roll spots)
Privates: Aid, move 30ft.
Sergeant: Check to see if he missed anything (makes it), move action towards culprit.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-01-31, 01:35 PM

Note they uaed aid another with no verbal communication, so they are either all telepathic or mindlinkes rudimentary intelligenced shadesteel golems with factotum levels. Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

Firechanter

2014-01-31, 01:51 PM

So. Maybe the DM of the OP's group indeed doesn't subscribe to the idea that the whole world should be comprised of level 1 commoners who better take care they don't ever anger a common housecat. Maybe the guards are level 4-6. Even then, and even if for some reason they have Spot in class, casually beating DC35 is ridiculous. Especially considering that the guards should be taking 10.
So let's just face it: the DM was out to shaft the Rogue player, and he broke the rules to do so with almost certain probability.

hymer

2014-01-31, 02:12 PM

I'm reminded of a time in a 2nd edition game, where the PCs encountered a unicorn in a very unlikely place: A volcanic island devoid of trees. What's more, that unicorn attacked them, though they were clearly good guys! And then, when it ran away, it did so by running part of the way on the cliff face! OMG, that's completely impossible!
One of my players reacted with great anger and threatened to quit the game.

So at that point I had to explain to them that I was trying to get them to realize that they were dealing with an illusion, and I had the unicorn behave in more and more unbelievable ways to get the players to say the magic words 'I disbelieve'. The fact that a unicorn was behaving in an 'unrealistic way' and that this had seemed grounds for a threat to quit I did not bring up.
Having seen this happen, I'm always rather slow to assume that DMs are bahaving wrongly. The OP tells us only so much, and we have no idea what else may be going on that he doesn't know about. I readily agree it looks fishy, but that's all. If it happened with me as a player, I might bring it up after the game. I would not go so far as to accuse the DM of 'breaking the rules' or 'shafting' a player based on this.

Boci

2014-01-31, 02:28 PM

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. You can ignore all this if you've already had your fill of discussing it.:smallbiggrin:

My stance is that I am trying to avoid making 100 little assumptions and so I'm going to make 1 big one: that the OP gave us all relevant information. So I'm not too interested in "its possible" and "what if".

I see your points

Then why did you claim I hadn't been making points and was just saying you were wrong?

True, it is a standard action, but in my scenario they would be using those standards every round (fluffed by my description). I assumed it was more or less implied since I said they were doing this as they went, but I'll detail it out a bit more.

Every "round" as they move on patrol is this

Private 1-6: Standard action Aid, move action move 30ft.
Sergeant: Move action attempt to spot anything he may have missed, Move action move 30ft.

Thus (PS this probably didn't play out like this in the OP, but I'm just coming up with an example on how this could work):

Round 1:
Rogue: Move, SoH (Guards roll spots)
Privates: Aid, move 30ft.
Sergeant: Check to see if he missed anything (makes it), move action towards culprit.

That:

1. is ridiculous and convoluted, even if possible by RAW.
2. still doesn't match with the way the Aid Another mechanics work.

Having seen this happen, I'm always rather slow to assume that DMs are bahaving wrongly. The OP tells us only so much, and we have no idea what else may be going on that he doesn't know about. I readily agree it looks fishy, but that's all. If it happened with me as a player, I might bring it up after the game. I would not go so far as to accuse the DM of 'breaking the rules' or 'shafting' a player based on this.

Has anyone said they should? They may have, but I didn't see it. I think the DM probably was being a bit fiatish, but I don't think the OP should open with that.

Also the scenario you describe is different, because that was something you planned, not something that happened randomly.

hymer

2014-01-31, 02:41 PM

Has anyone said they should? They may have, but I didn't see it. I think the DM probably was being a bit fiatish, but I don't think the OP should open with that.

I was responding to the post above mine:

So let's just face it: the DM was out to shaft the Rogue player, and he broke the rules to do so with almost certain probability.

Also the scenario you describe is different, because that was something you planned, not something that happened randomly.

It's very different. It's a different system, and a different situation, with different players and a different DM. But it is my illustration that players are usually better off trusting their DM's good intentions than concluding that he's out to shaft them by breaking the rules. For the game to work, there is a lot of information that the players just don't have, some of which they may uncover with luck or skill.

dascarletm

2014-01-31, 03:08 PM

My stance is that I am trying to avoid making 100 little assumptions and so I'm going to make 1 big one: that the OP gave us all relevant information. So I'm not too interested in "its possible" and "what if".

:smallconfused:
(What does that have to do with me being busy last night?)

To your point. The OP's information is inadequate to my taste. There are far too many variables to truly talk about his specific case.

We can talk hypothetically, which I thought we were both doing since our subject seems to be more of a general topic debate.

If you are not interested in that then I'm fine with dropping this. All I can say to the OP's specific case is *More Data Required*.

Then why did you claim I hadn't been making points and was just saying you were wrong?

You can accept my ceding of your points or not. If you really want me to say it flat out, here, "I was wrong, this is a formal admission of me being incorrect on what you were replying to."

1. is ridiculous and convoluted, even if possible by RAW.

To Ridiculous:
I don't think it's absurd for there to be a group of guards actively trying to notice crime.

To Convoluted:
As far as hard to follow it consists of 3 things. I don't see how it can be any easier. What specifically is hard to follow about my scenario?

2. still doesn't match with the way the Aid Another mechanics work.

How so? All it says is that you take a standard action to add a +2. That is the only requirement besides the fluff requirement in the last sentence (see below), and they are doing that. If you don't like the fluff requirement I can give you real life examples on how it can help you try to notice something. I can bring up times where I've noticed things I wouldn't have seen while serving as an MP in Iraq because I knew my friends were focusing on different areas around me, but.... well I kinda already did just that, and I'd be lying. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

You can help another character achieve success on his or her skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

Boci

2014-01-31, 03:37 PM

:smallconfused:
(What does that have to do with me being busy last night?)

I was informing you of my clarified stance which you may have missed.

To your point. The OP's information is inadequate to my taste. There are far too many variables to truly talk about his specific case.

We can talk hypothetically, which I thought we were both doing since our subject seems to be more of a general topic debate.

If you are not interested in that then I'm fine with dropping this. All I can say to the OP's specific case is *More Data Required*.

I'm fine debating hypothetical, if some structure could be agreed upon that means the debate will be more than each side saying "what if" a lot.

To Ridiculous:
I don't think it's absurd for there to be a group of guards actively trying to notice crime.

To Convoluted:
As far as hard to follow it consists of 3 things. I don't see how it can be any easier. What specifically is hard to follow about my scenario?

Standard actions are tied to initiative, with is a combat thing. Your are not meant to be breaking down action like that for OOC situations. If you have to, then the result is going to be forced and inorganic as a general rule. That's not to say you cannot take standards action outside of combat, simply that you shouldn't be needing to make round by round notes of the mechanics of a guard patrol who are not engaged in an encounter.

Also see below. You have yet to come up with an interpretation for aid another spot checks that meshes with the mechanics.

How so? All it says is that you take a standard action to add a +2. That is the only requirement besides the fluff requirement in the last sentence (see below), and they are doing that. If you don't like the fluff requirement I can give you real life examples on how it can help you try to notice something. I can bring up times where I've noticed things I wouldn't have seen while serving as an MP in Iraq because I knew my friends were focusing on different areas around me, but.... well I kinda already did just that now didn't I?:smallwink: :smalltongue:

That doesn't work. Aid another is not automatic, it required a DC: 10 check. How could your friends occasionally fail to look the other way?

Plus, how do you know you wouldn't have noticed them without your friends.

But it is my illustration that players are usually better off trusting their DM's good intentions than concluding that he's out to shaft them by breaking the rules.

In general sure, but as you said this situation looks a little fishy.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-31, 03:54 PM

Referencing something another poster stated (I don't care to search for the original post), I always viewed the town guard are more of the police force. Their job is to maintain order and protect the town from minor threats.

So, they would be trained to find thieves, track murders, etc.

They are not equipped to (at least in my worlds) to handle greater threats. Powerful villains, monsters, and such are beyond their capabilities.

Those kinds of things fall on powerful NPCs, PCs, or the military of the area.

So, to me, noticing a skilled thief lift a purse falls in the domain of the town guard as they would have more specialized skills in this area. If the thief tried to perform that same action against some random solider in the military (of equal general power to the town guard), they would have more success as the solider is trained to fight monsters and not find thieves.

That being said, super thieves (such as this PC) will fall outside the skills of a typical town guard. It would take something greater (an old veteran guard, head of guard, special detective) to have a chance of noticing the PC action.

Every time I think of a town guard trying to take on a strong monster, I imagine old monster movies where a police officer is firing his gun at said monster... not very effective. However, that same officer would probably notice a pick-pocket.

So, to me, using CR encounters to determine effectiveness in Spot checks isn't the most accurate method. It does help to narrow down, but it still could be wrong.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-01-31, 04:18 PM

Boci

2014-01-31, 04:27 PM

Referencing something another poster stated (I don't care to search for the original post), I always viewed the town guard are more of the police force. Their job is to maintain order and protect the town from minor threats.

Which nation's police? I imagine there is very big difference between London police and the police force of a war torn African nation. I've heard horror stories of how militarized the police of New York were in the previous generation.

That's not to say you would be wrong to have town guards in D&D work as the police force in the average western city, just that to make the setting feel real, you need consider the social conditions that have allowed police in our cities to become the way they are.

To be clear: in order to make the spot check that guard would need to be level 14 or have signigant cross class levels. Level 14 is legendary by DnD standards (past it really) so it seems odd that someone who should be 10 or under can make that Spot chrck. I am also assuming that the DM is ignoring distance penalties.

Its possible to do so at an earlier level. But regardless of how they are doing, someone making such a spot check would presumably be special, and if they aren't the DM should say so.

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 04:45 PM

I'm confused why aid another wouldn't work on a spot to see someone snatch a purse from someone's arm.

Lets assume the PC and his victim are standing in adjacent squares with the town guards filling the 8 remaining squares around the PC. (To negate those pesky distance penalties) Now Sneaky McMasterthief snatches grannies purse off her shoulder. (Or cuts the strings)

We have two options:

A. The guards, who we will assume are low level warrior types with +10 spot, all make individual checks to notice whats happening just inches away from them and all fail 100% of the time.

OR

B. The same guards aid another 1 of themselves, so that guard can succeed 50% of the time.

I understand that at the PCs level he should be awesome, and successfully stealing a purse from inside a guard formation and having a 50/50 chance of no one noticing falls into that category. Succeeding 100% of the time makes me question how the town's merchants are still in business. Going by the town demographics in the DMG every community of large town or higher would have already been robbed of all material possessions.

Boci

2014-01-31, 04:51 PM

I'm confused why aid another wouldn't work on a spot to see someone snatch a purse from someone's arm.

Because so far any attempt to explain how you aid another's spot check do not mesh with the mechanics.

Also is +10 a typo? How is a low level warrior getting a +10 in a cross class skill?

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-31, 04:53 PM

To be clear: in order to make the spot check that guard would need to be level 14 or have signigant cross class levels. Level 14 is legendary by DnD standards (past it really) so it seems odd that someone who should be 10 or under can make that Spot chrck. I am also assuming that the DM is ignoring distance penalties.

Assuming the guard in question has Spot as a class skill, they would only need to be level 10 or 11 to have a chance to make the check (can't remember who wins in a tie). That is before feats to improve their Spot.

If were to have the captain of the guard (Rogue 3rd in a past life w/full Spot because Rogue) take 2 levels of Fighter (CC 1 rank Spot over 2 levels).

Add in feats (Able Learner at 1st level Rogue to make all Skills "in class" so full for Fighter, Alertness +2, Skill Focus +3, uncertain of extra)

+6 Rogue
+2 Fighter w/Able Learner
+2 Alertness
+3 Skill Focus
+2 from Aid of another

+15 Total

This is for a 5th level character. Hardly legendary.

Boci

2014-01-31, 04:56 PM

This is for a 5th level character. Hardly legendary.

No, just borderline savant. Assuming human that's 100% of their non-fighter feats spent on boosting spot. If they aren't human, its 150%.

Zharradan Marr

2014-01-31, 04:58 PM

Well, at least now we know why those guards weren't able to deal with a CR 8 monster - it's because they spent all their feats on boosting Spot checks!

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:01 PM

Because so far any attempt to explain how you aid another's spot check do not mesh with the mechanics.

Based on your interpretation of the rules maybe, but last I checked characters aren't held to to specific round by round initiative based turn orders until they are in combat. They all just act at the same time. So while the rogue is using his standard action to steal a purse, at the exact same time all the guards are aiding the one guard with glasses on to notice the pesky thieves.

It all happens simultaneously in the same round. You may not like that people can aid another on spot, but they can. At the end of the day it's up to the DM to decide if it works, and apparently he decided it does. I would say that thinking of it from only the mechanical side also makes the entire situation little more than a Monty Python skit, as the bumbling guards can't even see the thief robbing the little old lady in the middle of the formation.

It also help prevent the feel of the world from being destroyed by the realization that the best way of making gold is to steal everything of value from every person and building in town. Because, nothing can ever see you do it.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-31, 05:02 PM

No, just borderline savant. Assuming human that's 100% of their non-fighter feats spent on boosting spot. If they aren't human, its 150%.

Human is required for Able Learner feat. I still have an extra bonus feat left.

Because so far any attempt to explain how you aid another's spot check do not mesh with the mechanics.

Also is +10 a typo? How is a low level warrior getting a +10 in a cross class skill?

Unless I am misreading the text it states that the individuals attempting to aid only need to roll +10. So for a person who has no bonuses there is a 50-50 shot of making the roll. I would imagine that the guards have at least the Alertness feat, so the probability boosts. If more then one guard is aiding (and is being allowed), it can be taken to mean that the captain is getting at least +4 based on the odds.

So that would leave us with +17 (more or less depending on who makes their aid rolls.)

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:07 PM

Also is +10 a typo? How is a low level warrior getting a +10 in a cross class skill?

Because they are guards and as such have optimized to guard and watch things. If we were talking about the militia or the military or the blacksmith I would understand your confusion, but having a +10 spot by level 4-5 isn't hard especially if its your job to, you know, spot things.

Let's say level 4 guards with max ranks in spot

+4 spot ranks
+2 alertness
+3 skill focus
+1 WIS bonus

look a guard that aids another 100% of the time and in turn gives one of the group a 50/50 shot at seeing a snatch-and-grab occurring from inside the group itself. The odds are much lower as you get outside the group.

Boci

2014-01-31, 05:09 PM

Human is required for Able Learner feat. I still have an extra bonus feat left.

You have 2 bonus feats from fighter 2. Also you can probably toss in another +1/+2 from wisdom modifier I think.

Based on your interpretation of the rules maybe

So how do you imagine aiding another's spot check to work?

Because they are guards and as such have optimized to guard and watch things. If we were talking about the militia or the military or the blacksmith I would understand your confusion, but having a +10 spot by level 4-5 isn't hard especially if its your job to, you know, spot things.

Actually it is, it takes a rogue and fighter to get that at level 5. Also the average guard is a 1st level warrior.

It also help prevent the feel of the world from being destroyed by the realization that the best way of making gold is to steal everything of value from every person and building in town. Because, nothing can ever see you do it.

Magic can. Incidentally I'm sure this won't derail the thread in any way.

Augmental

2014-01-31, 05:09 PM

I understand that at the PCs level he should be awesome, and successfully stealing a purse from inside a guard formation and having a 50/50 chance of no one noticing falls into that category.

All the original post says is that the guards were in the vicinity. You're the one claiming that the rogue was in the middle of the guard formation.

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:15 PM

All the original post says is that the guards were in the vicinity. You're the one claiming that the rogue was in the middle of the guard formation.

I'm not claiming anything. Boci doesn't want the guards to be able to aid another because it is "unbelievable". I'm simply stating that having them not aid another and be incapable of seeing things that happen inside the group is more unbelievable than helping each other watch out for thieves.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-31, 05:16 PM

You have 2 bonus feats from fighter 2. Also you can probably toss in another +1/+2 from wisdom modifier I think.

Good catch. Forgot how many bonus feats they get and ability modifier. Still, the threshold has been reached. It is possible for a guard (admittedly, someone special like the captain), to make the check with the support of his associates.

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:17 PM

Also the average guard is a 1st level warrior.

I'm your game maybe, but in mine all the nobles have realized that it is best if the town guard can defend itself from at least a group of 1st level PCs, and a herd of cats.

Boci

2014-01-31, 05:18 PM

I'm not claiming anything. Boci doesn't want the guards to be able to aid another because it is "unbelievable". I'm simply stating that having them not aid another and be incapable of seeing things that happen inside the group is more unbelievable than helping each other watch out for thieves.

And the fact that you had to use such a contrived scenario doesn't in any way undermine your point.

Aid another just does not work for spot checks. I can see why its tempting to prevent high level characters from doing impossibles, but that hows the system works. Incidentally, the DM is kinda meant to give a bonus to checks with favoriable condition. I think surrounding the rogue in a ring could qualify as a "favorable condition". No need to shoe horn the aid another mechanics into it.

I'm your game maybe, but in mine all the nobles have realized that it is best if the town guard can defend itself from at least a group of 1st level PCs, and a herd of cats.

According to the rules actually. A DM is free to change that, but they should tell their PCs this. And its not about nobles "realizing" anything, the default assumption is that such characters are too rare to make up the town guard.

Zharradan Marr

2014-01-31, 05:23 PM

Aid another just does not work for spot checks.I spent 3 years in the military, significant part of which was on guard duty, making Spot checks. During a typical watch, I would make probably several thousands of Spot checks, and close to a million in total.

With that kind of experience to back me up, let me assure you, Boci, Aid Another works on Spot checks in real life. You are wrong.

Boci

2014-01-31, 05:25 PM

I spent 3 years in the military, significant part of which was on guard duty, making Spot checks. During a typical watch, I would make probably several thousands of Spot checks, and close to a million in total.

With that kind of experience to back me up, let me assure you, Boci, Aid Another works on Spot checks in real life. You are wrong.

So far no method suggested has been compatible with the aid another mechanics. What can happen is multiple people on watch means no one is distracted, that works, but so far aid another doesn't seem to.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-31, 05:35 PM

And the fact that you had to use such a contrived scenario doesn't in any way undermine your point.

Aid another just does not work for spot checks. I can see why its tempting to prevent high level characters from doing impossibles, but that hows the system works. Incidentally, the DM is kinda meant to give a bonus to checks with favoriable condition. I think surrounding the rogue in a ring could qualify as a "favorable condition". No need to shoe horn the aid another mechanics into it.

According to the rules actually. A DM is free to change that, but they should tell their PCs this. And its not about nobles "realizing" anything, the default assumption is that such characters are too rare to make up the town guard.

From what I can tell the only limiting factor to applying aid to another is if the person providing the aid can perform the action on their own. So for instance, a fighter could not help a rogue search for a (edit magic)trap because on his own the fighter could not search for the (edit magic)trap. I would personally limit the amount of aid to only +2, because that is what the rules suggest to me.

Obviously, this can be overruled depending on circumstances.

Edit: I would also never allow 7 guards to aid 1 captain... that just seems overkill. Not that a DM is wrong for allowing it, but if you are boosting by +14 due to aid... why even bother? At that point it is like the DM is targeting the PC.

Boci

2014-01-31, 05:40 PM

From what I can tell the only limiting factor to applying aid to another is if the person providing the aid can perform the action on their own. So for instance, a fighter could not help a rogue search for a (edit magic)trap because on his own the fighter could not search for the (edit magic)trap. I would personally limit the amount of aid to only +2, because that is what the rules suggest to me.

Obviously, this can be overruled depending on circumstances.

There's also the problem that explaining how aid another works in game. It cannot "hey what was that?" because they should know to look there without a spot check of their own, and it cannot be "you look this way, I look that way" because it has a chance of failure.

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:45 PM

According to the rules actually. A DM is free to change that, but they should tell their PCs this. And its not about nobles "realizing" anything, the default assumption is that such characters are too rare to make up the town guard.

Too rare to make up a majority of the guard, maybe.

I'm going to assume that the PCs in the OP were in a fairly high trafficked area because there were 8 guards around and it wasn't to suspicious. Like a market.

As the captain of the guard, I would place my best men in the areas that are likely to be hit hardest by thieves, like a market. I would probably travel between the gates and market, as well. The lowest level, newest, guards would get the crap assignments of guarding the slums and industrial districts.

The best guards in town are probably where they are needed most, guarding the money.

mashlagoo1982

2014-01-31, 05:45 PM

There's also the problem that explaining how aid another works in game. It cannot "hey what was that?" because they should know to look there without a spot check of their own, and it cannot be "you look this way, I look that way" because it has a chance of failure.

As another posters signature says "100% Raw, 110% Silly" or some such thing. :smallbiggrin:

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:46 PM

There's also the problem that explaining how aid another works in game. It cannot "hey what was that?" because they should know to look there without a spot check of their own, and it cannot be "you look this way, I look that way" because it has a chance of failure.

"There are many guards watching over the market as a group, this gives them a much higher chance of success."

Boci

2014-01-31, 05:48 PM

As another posters signature says "100% Raw, 110% Silly" or some such thing. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, but this is an exception, because the RAW has a common sense clause. It doesn't really count.

"There are many guards watching over the market as a group, this gives them a much higher chance of success."

So why does only 1 benefit? And again, the is still the chance of failure. How do they possible fail with the above strategy? Edit: Also that would be passive, not require a standard action from each of them. Plus what Augmental said below me.

Augmental

2014-01-31, 05:49 PM

"There are many guards watching over the market as a group, this gives them a much higher chance of success."

Because there are more of them, which means they get more spot rolls. You don't need aid another to represent this.

ISitOnGnomes

2014-01-31, 05:56 PM

Because there are more of them, which means they get more spot rolls. You don't need aid another to represent this.

Aid another is used to represent people working as a group. If is was different random individuals trying to spot I would agree, but it's a group a people watching for thieves, trained to do so as a group. (pointing out suspicious strangers with small gestures, drawing attention to high risk individuals, etc)

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 06:03 PM

You know, the more I think about this, the less contrived it sounds. I'm picturing this conversation at the guard captain's desk early one fine morning:

[Captain]: What have you got for me today, Guard X?

[Guard X]: Well, a mighty pack of adventurers arrived a few days ago and slaughtered the [CR 8 monster] that was threatening the town!

[Captain]: Great news!

[Guard X]: Ah, its not all good news, cap. That massive string of purse snatchings that started a few days ago is still going strong. Another dozen complaints came in last night.

[Captain]: Huh. So, a group of highly skilled people, who very publicly demonstrated their skill and power while defeating [CR 8 Monster], just happened to show up at the *exact same time* as a pickpocket too skilled to be seen or caught started terrorizing the townsfolk?

[Guard X]: I guess so. Why do you ask?

[Captain]: . . . Uhhhh, yeah, never mind. On a *totally unrelated note*(sarcasm) we should go and say hello to our new city heroes! What do you say we round up, oh, say 8 of the lads and check these guys out. I'm sure everyone will want to meet them.

[Guard X]: Great idea, capn!! I'll get the paper for autographs too!

--------------------------------------------------------

So, to sum up:

Its quite probable that the guard captain is as high a level (or near to it) as the PCs per the standard demographic tables. Its at least possible that said captain is optimized for Spot checks (regardless of the discussion of whether Aid Other is allowed or not) since spotting things is a prime responsibility for guards and all. Most importantly, it would be downright implausible to suggest that *nobody* in town, least of all the guard captain, has put two and two together with regards to the brand new heroes arriving just as a master undetectable pickpocket showed up out of the blue, and would thus be at least focusing some attention (i.e. "close observation") on the PCs.

There's no way anyone can say from here that the DM wasn't being a jerk or just pulling things out of his butt to bring a PC in line. Frankly, based off of the limited info the OP gave us, it sounds like there's a pretty good chance that this is the case.

I will, however, stand by the assertion that we *also* cannot condemn the DM as "almost certainly" cheating.

Boci

2014-01-31, 06:04 PM

Aid another is used to represent people working as a group.

So why does only one person benefit from it?

Edit: Also, not really. Teamwork benefits and synergy are used to represent people working as a group. Anyone can aid another for an untrained skill.

If is was different random individuals trying to spot I would agree, but it's a group a people watching for thieves, trained to do so as a group. (pointing out suspicious strangers with small gestures

That's not aid another, that's a spot check, over wise they don't know the individual is suspicious.

drawing attention to high risk individuals, etc)

How can that have a chance of failure?

You know, the more I think about this, the less contrived it sounds. I'm picturing this conversation at the guard captain's desk early one fine morning:

Problem is, they just happened to show up when the rogue was making a SoH check.

YMost importantly, it would be downright implausible to suggest that *nobody* in town

I know, which is probably why no one said that.

skyth

2014-01-31, 06:23 PM

Aid another is strictly (By the rules) for something where a person can help.

For instance, lifting a heavy object or breaking down a door. Being able to aid another picking a lock is not something that I would see working.

Same with spot. Having other people on watch means more rolls and thus a higher average roll. It would not help someone see something that they never would have seen by themselves.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-01-31, 06:30 PM

It seems odd that no one would notice the pile of Aid Anothers. The concept of helping someone to Spot is realistic. The concept of doing it in a crowded street where no one notices seems very iffy (and if they used magic, why did the straight up fail to drop a CR 8?)

Boci

2014-01-31, 06:35 PM

It seems odd that no one would notice the pile of Aid Anothers. The concept of helping someone to Spot is realistic.

By allowing them to not suffer distraction penalties yes. But for the actual aid another mechanics there are several problems when you try to apply it to spot, which I listed above.

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 06:38 PM

Boci:

True, no one has literally said word-for-word that the guards shouldn't be suspicious. It has, however, been implied by a lot of other things you've said.

- Disallowing the guards spot checks at all assumes that they don't suspect the PCs.

- Saying the guards shouldn't be around when the PC is picking pockets is also iffy. From the OP's description of things, the guards had a nonzero chance of just randomly showing up when the PC was picking pockets, since he was constantly indulging his kleptomania. More importantly, it would be trivial for a *suspicious* set of guards to wait till the street got busy with a few good (i.e. nicely dressed) "marks" before heading out to introduce themselves. Heck, its not implausible that the guards would have set up a "sting" using a likely pickpocket target, meaning they would *certainly* be right on hand when the Sleight of Hand check was made.

All of that is assuming some things, but its not assuming anything that isn't believable, or even all that unlikely if we assume some (again, likely and plausible) suspicion on the guards part.

I just don't see how we can auto-condemn the DM here.

{Edit for clunky cut-n-paste skills}

Boci

2014-01-31, 06:43 PM

Boci:

True, no one has literally said word-for-word that the guards shouldn't be suspicious. It has, however, been implied by a lot of other things you've said.

- Disallowing the guards spot checks at all assumes that they don't suspect the PCs.

That's impossible to do. Spot checks happen automatically in response to visual stimuli. Okay so blinding would technically accomplish that.

- Saying the guards shouldn't be around when the PC is picking pockets is also iffy.

I just don't see how we can auto-condemn the DM here.

I didn't auto-condemn. I read the information presented to us, made the assumption that there was no major information missing, and then came to my conclusion.

If you really want to though I will discuss your hypothetical sting operation.

Edit: Another of these gems:

True, no one has literally said word-for-word that the guards shouldn't be suspicious. It has, however, been implied by a lot of other things you've said.

Maybe I have. However that would be counter acted by the fact that I have talked about the scenario of an NPC in the town being capable of making such a check multiple times and acknowledged the validity of that concept in doing so. Here is one:

"Except nobody said that, at least by my count. Now I do recall saying that there is no realistic chance of a guard being able to make a DC: 35 spot check just happening to be on the street corner at the exact moment."

Direct statements trump what you read as being implied in my posts.

dascarletm

2014-01-31, 07:33 PM

I'm fine debating hypothetical, if some structure could be agreed upon that means the debate will be more than each side saying "what if" a lot.

Works for me, but I won't be on here over the weekend so I'll just finish what I have to say here. I'll look forward to your closing rebuttal on the 3rd.

Standard actions are tied to initiative, with is a combat thing. Your are not meant to be breaking down action like that for OOC situations. If you have to, then the result is going to be forced and inorganic as a general rule. That's not to say you cannot take standards action outside of combat, simply that you shouldn't be needing to make round by round notes of the mechanics of a guard patrol who are not engaged in an encounter.

To make it flow as I said way back you see it as an abstraction much like hit points are abstractions. These people are assisting you (I can break it down round by round if I want, but in actuality I'm only going to look at it when it matters.)

Also see below. You have yet to come up with an interpretation for aid another spot checks that meshes with the mechanics.

You say it doesn't mesh, yet if I need to break it down round by round I can. If you think it's clunky that isn't enough to disprove it.

That doesn't work. Aid another is not automatic, it required a DC: 10 check. How could your friends occasionally fail to look the other way?

It's not simply by virtue of them looking the other way. Let's say it is 4 friends. Each has roughly a 90 degree arc around you. If they see something generally out of place (DC10 spot) they point it out to you. Freeing your attention elsewhere. If they fail, they either don't point something out to you, or point out something not worth the time, thus distracting you (-2).

To help illustrate my point consider a modern day guard watching security cameras in a jewelry store. There is 100 cameras in the building (because it is huge), and he has 4 subordinates. Each subordinate watches 25 cameras looking for suspicious activity (people with bulky clothes that may contain a weapon, people acting strange, etc.). If they see something that might prove suspicious they hit a button which flags that camera feed as high priority. The main guard then can make those feeds more prominent on his monitors. If the guards fail their DC10 aid check they send either feeds with nothing, or don't send feeds that contain suspicious characters. Can you see how some (the ones that make the DC 10 check) would help their superior while some would hurt (the ones that failed)?

Plus, how do you know you wouldn't have noticed them without your friends.

It's a simple matter of having less to look at.

You also say:
Finding generally suspicious people is a spot check in and of itself

To that I say:

Yes, that is represented by the DC 10 spot check to aid

You also say:
Spot is in response to stuff.

To that I say:

No, spot has an action of "Varies". It explicitly says you can perform it as a move action.

Boci

2014-01-31, 07:48 PM

No, spot has an action of "Varies". It explicitly says you can perform it as a move action.

Wrong:

"Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute."

It is a move action only to retry a failed spot check. It is explicitly a non-action to notice something.

So your example once again does not mesh with the mechanics.

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 08:32 PM

"Except nobody said that, at least by my count. Now I do recall saying that there is no realistic chance of a guard being able to make a DC: 35 spot check just happening to be on the street corner at the exact moment."

Direct statements trump what you read as being implied in my posts.

And by my count, saying "there is no realistic chance" doesn't hold water unless you *also* say that there is no realistic chance that the guard commander can't be high level, can't be optimized, and can't be suspicious of the PCs based on the circumstances. While its true that you have not *directly* said any of those last three things, your assertion requires them to be true.

Flickerdart

2014-01-31, 08:34 PM

Boci

2014-01-31, 08:36 PM

And by my count, saying "there is no realistic chance" doesn't hold water unless you *also* say that there is no realistic chance that the guard commander can't be high level, can't be optimized, and can't be suspicious of the PCs based on the circumstances. While its true that you have not *directly* said any of those last three things, your assertion requires them to be true.

By saying "there is no realistic chance of a guard being able to make a DC: 35 spot check just happening to be on the street corner at the exact moment" I am acknowledging the that there is a possibility that there is a guard that can make a DC: 35 spot check. Other the detail of them being on the street by chance wouldn't be necessary.

I cannot help it if you choose to read "There is no chance X character would be in Y situation by chance" as "There is no chance X character could have existed".

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 08:39 PM

Commanders don't go out on patrol to random streets.

Well, they don't hide in their offices all day, either.

Especially if they are suspicious enough of some very capable heroes to at least want to see first hand what the situation is (and having empirical evidence that he might be the only one in town capable of "Spot"ting the problem, given the OPs description of the number of pockets picked).

Boci

2014-01-31, 08:41 PM

Well, they don't hide in their offices all day, either.

Especially if they are suspicious enough of some very capable heroes to at least want to see first hand what the situation is (and having empirical evidence that he might be the only one in town capable of "Spot"ting the problem, given the OPs description of the number of pockets picked).

Not really. "and occasionally steal NPC purses". Does not sound like enough to trigger much suspicion.

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 08:46 PM

I cannot help it if you choose to read "There is no chance X character would be in Y situation by chance" as "There is no chance X character could have existed".

I'm not reading either of those things, really. What I'm saying is that X character is in Y situation by design, not by chance. I'm also arguing that said design is not just DM asshattery, but is based on the guard captain being reasonably competent and being able to make basic logical deductions.

Check that. I'm not saying it isn't DM asshattery (because it very well could be) but that it doesn't *have* to be.

Boci

2014-01-31, 08:50 PM

I'm not reading either of those things, really. What I'm saying is that X character is in Y situation by design, not by chance. I'm also arguing that said design is not just DM asshattery, but is based on the guard captain being reasonably competent and being able to make basic logical deductions.

See above: "and occasionally steal NPC purses" (emphasis mine). Does not sound like enough to trigger much suspicion. And even if they could figure it out, the whole sting operation is pretty far fetched, not what I would call logical.

Check that. I'm not saying it isn't DM asshattery (because it very well could be) but that it doesn't *have* to be.

I never said that either, I just argued it was the most likely call.

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 09:16 PM

I never said that either, I just argued it was the most likely call.

I'll concede that I may have read more of an absolute position in your posts than you meant to imply. I certainly read "no realistic chance" as being a much stronger statement than "not likely". The latter implies something less than 50%, the former implies something <<<<50%.

Based on the pushback you've had for the last few pages, I'd also say I'm not alone.

*shrug*

At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised to hear from the OP that the DM was just sick of the PC shenanigans and just rolled some random dice before messing him up.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the OP said that the DM had simply allowed his guard captain a not-illogical amount of skill and logical deduction ability and allowed said captain to set the PC up.

I wouldn't consider either outcome "unrealistic".

dascarletm

2014-01-31, 09:20 PM

Wrong:

"Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute."

It is a move action only to retry a failed spot check. It is explicitly a non-action to notice something.

So your example once again does not mesh with the mechanics.

Except my example has them aiding the move action. So that rebuttal is non-applicable to my example.

The Grue

2014-01-31, 09:28 PM

Except my example has them aiding the move action. So that rebuttal is non-applicable to my example.

A move action to notice something you've previously failed to notice as a non-action. How a guard knows to take a move action to look for it if he didn't notice it was there to begin with is, I think, the idea. One is reactive and requires no prior knowledge. The other is made by explicit decision and therefore requires prior knowledge.

Boci

2014-01-31, 09:31 PM

I also wouldn't be surprised if the OP said that the DM had simply allowed his guard captain a not-illogical amount of skill and logical deduction ability and allowed said captain to set the PC up.

I wouldn't consider either outcome "unrealistic".

When I said "no realistic chance" I had not considered a sting operation. It is a modern tactics, but D&D borows liberally from modern philosophies and tactics.

However, it still doesn't feel realistic to me. My three biggest problems are:

1. How was a pattern built over the occasional missing purse, especially since the guards have no idea how skilled the cut purse was. They don't know the rogue was getting 35.

1. But even if they did figure it out, how did the guard commander know when and where to be? Even if there was an obvious place for a purse cut to take place, he still cannot be sure it will happen there, and he cannot be sure when. He may not even be sure which day. Is the commander of the guard really going to attend a multiple-sting operation with no grantee of success, over some missing purses?

2. Even if it does work out, what are they going to do? The PCs have proven themselves to be a force to be reckoned with, and have done the town good by defeating a monster. That probably doesn't excuse robbery, but is confronting them worth it? Wouldn't it be better to approach the most moral member of the party along the lines of "We are grateful for your help but we cannot allow him to steal from our citizens. We do not want a confrontation. Can you speak to him?"

I can sympathize with the DM. Pretending to only have a handful of the fact and trying to plan NPC actions based on what they know is one of toughest parts of the job. But based on what we know, sting operation does not seem like the likely course of action a guard captain would take, even if he could figure out who was responsible.

Except my example has them aiding the move action. So that rebuttal is non-applicable to my example.

What The Grue said. Also that's still not a standard action, which is what aiding another is. That and a DC: 10 spot check to notice "something suspicious" is a houserule.

Calimehter

2014-01-31, 10:21 PM

I'm running low on time, but my thoughts on those points:

1. We don't have an exact enough description from the OP to say anything with complete certainty, but the OPs description of the PCs pickpocketing as habitual makes it possible. It doesn't take many cut purses in a small town to get noticed.

2. *If* the above is true, the PCs being new in a small town would probably fall under suspicion just for being the new people in town, even if they hadn't displayed their skill and power by defeating a CR 8 monster. I don't think the captain would have been there randomly, he would have been checking out the PCs specifically.

3. Yeah, even if their suspicions are confirmed, its quite probable that the captain and his guards can't outmuscle a pack of adventurers that just defeated the local CR 8 menace, and its also quite probably that they are aware of that fact. So why set up a sting at all? Well, a) to see if their suspicions are correct in the first place. and b) to see what the PCs are made of. Did they defeat a CR 8 terror just to take its place as might-makes-right types, or will the rest of the party agree that the thieving PC was in the wrong? I think you are correct in noting that c) stage a SWAT-type beatdown first and ask questions later is an unrealistic option . . . and I can't help but notice that the OP said that the PC was observed, but didn't say whether he was arrested or not.

Those are all valid points, but I don't know if they reduce the chances all the way down to "unrealistic".

I'd concede less than 50%, though. :smallsmile:

TuggyNE

2014-01-31, 11:52 PM

As another posters signature says "100% Raw, 110% Silly" or some such thing. :smallbiggrin:

That's mine, yep. I think it might just be the most commonly referenced sig quote in this section of the forum, which makes me happy. :smallcool:

"There are many guards watching over the market as a group, this gives them a much higher chance of success."

That's not Aiding Another, that's either the second or third of the options in this post earlier:
I don't understand how you can Aid Another on automatic Spot or Listen checks. Here's the different mechanical representations I can think of, and what they act like:
Each guard makes a single Spot check at -5: Going on routine unrelated patrol, discipline a bit lax.
Each guard makes a single Spot check: Going on careful anti-thief patrol.
Roll 1d8, selected guard rolls Spot at +2 or +4: Each guard is scanning a given field of view and ignoring the rest.
One guard rolls Spot, all others roll Spot against DC 10 to Aid: ??? They aren't actually seeing anything, and if they did spot something suspicious there wouldn't be enough time to alert the one Spotting for the Aid Another to actually work before the Sleight of Hand was done.

Explain, if possible, exactly how it is that Aid Another works in this fashion.

Aid another is used to represent people working as a group. If is was different random individuals trying to spot I would agree, but it's a group a people watching for thieves, trained to do so as a group. (pointing out suspicious strangers with small gestures, drawing attention to high risk individuals, etc)

The main problem I have with this is that, in the case of SoH, there isn't necessarily enough time for this sort of help to be effective before the Rogue accomplishes their goal and there's no longer anything at all suspicious to Spot.

It's not simply by virtue of them looking the other way. Let's say it is 4 friends. Each has roughly a 90 degree arc around you. If they see something generally out of place (DC10 spot) they point it out to you. Freeing your attention elsewhere. If they fail, they either don't point something out to you, or point out something not worth the time, thus distracting you (-2).

That would be, as mentioned, either the second or the third possibility in my list.

Pan151

2014-02-01, 02:18 AM

Also the average guard is a 1st level warrior.

You keep repeating this, but it is not true. The average guard is not a 1st level warrior. The average guard is whatever the individual setting dictates. When the DMG refers to NPC populations, those are not rules - they are mere guidlines for DMs who don't wish to spend too much time fleshing their own world out.

And, btw, a 5th level character is not "borderline savant". They're just moderately good at what they're doing, nothing more. The way I see them, at the very least.

Boci

2014-02-01, 09:42 AM

You keep repeating this, but it is not true. The average guard is not a 1st level warrior. The average guard is whatever the individual setting dictates. When the DMG refers to NPC populations, those are not rules - they are mere guidlines for DMs who don't wish to spend too much time fleshing their own world out.

Were does it say its just a guideline? Its possible I missed that. More importantly though, if the average guard is 4th or 5th level, the DM needs to tell the players that.

And, btw, a 5th level character is not "borderline savant". They're just moderately good at what they're doing, nothing more. The way I see them, at the very least.

Good thing I never said a 5th level character was borderline savant. Now I do recall saying a 5th level character where every feat they had served the purpose of increasing spot (except for the bonus fighter feats) was "borderline savant".

Those are all valid points, but I don't know if they reduce the chances all the way down to "unrealistic".

I can see that. I think we've debated about as much as we can with the information we have been given.

Pan151

2014-02-01, 10:50 AM

Were does it say its just a guideline?

It actually says that those tables can be used if the DM wants to quickly generate facts about a town during play. Can being the key word.

More importantly though, if the average guard is 4th or 5th level, the DM needs to tell the players that.

Do they have any in-game reason to know what the average level of guards in a particular area is? As in, do they have the necessary Knowledge (Local) ranks, or have they done a good job at Gathering Information? While we're at it, should they also know the average level of goblins, kobolds, orcs and other assorted critters in the area? Should they know the average amount of security measures shops have in place? Should the DM give them the stat sheet of every possible encounter for good measure?

Boci

2014-02-01, 10:54 AM

Where does it say it's a hard rule?

That's not how it works. If it doesn't say its a guidline (like the pricing of custom magical items) then its a hard rule.

Do they have any in-game reason to know what the average level of guards in a particular area is? As in, do they have the necessary Knowledge (Local) ranks, or have they done a good job at Gathering Information? While we're at it, should they also know the average level of goblins, kobolds, orcs and other assorted critters in the area? Should they know the average amount of security measures shops have in place? Should the DM give them the stat sheet of every possible encounter for good measure?

1. You do not need knowledge checks or gather information to notice the difference in performance between a town guard of 1st level and 4-5th level character.
Your attempt at strawman fails because everything else there is something the PCs interact with only by choice. Also if it is a combat encounter then presumably it has been balanced with the PCs in mind. Town guard is not some optional component of the adventure.

2. The above is irrelevant. This informs the players of the setting in a fairly significant way. The character for example will not know they are in a horror story, but it is still required of the DM to tell the players.

Pan151

2014-02-01, 11:05 AM

That's not how it works. If it doesn't say its a guidline (like the pricing of custom magical items) then its a hard rule.

It specificaly says that that it is a guideline.

Your attempt at strawman fails because everything else there is something the PCs interact with only by choice. Also if it is a combat encounter then presumably it has been balanced with the PCs in mind. Town guard is not some optional component of the adventure.

2. The above is irrelevant. This informs the players of the setting in a fairly significant way. The character for example will not know they are in a horror story, but it is still required of the DM to tell the players.

Since when do the players have to interact with the guards? The guards are there to deal with wrongdoers. They have nothing to do with the party unless the party is asking for it (see pickpocketing in bright daylight). They are an encounter no different than the dragon that lives in the next mountain over.

Besides, assuming guards are lv1 is silly from a mechanical point of view. Lv1 warriors cannot deal with a swarm of angry cats, let alone criminals.

Also, telling the players the general theme of the campaign and telling them the levels of everything in it are 2 very different things.

Boci

2014-02-01, 11:15 AM

It specifically says that that it is a guideline.

Okay, I missed your edit where you actually answered my question. Which page is that?

Since when do the players have to interact with the guards? The guards are there to deal with wrongdoers. They have nothing to do with the party unless the party is asking for it (see pickpocketing in bright daylight). They are an encounter no different than the dragon that lives in the next mountain over.

Not really. The PCs should probably encounter the guards entering the city, they will see them on the streets (in fact some random encounters involve guards), they may need to talk to them about quest in the city, ect ect. To say that they are no different from a dragon in a lonely mountain is simply untrue.

And even if it that were true, there's still two other points:

1. You shouldn't need knowledge checks or gather information to see the difference between the abilities of a 1th and 4th level character.

2. Information of the setting. Kinda polite of the DM to tell the PCs that.

Besides, assuming guards are lv1 is silly from a mechanical point of view. Lv1 warriors cannot deal with a swarm of angry cats, let alone criminals.

Which would be a problem if angry hoards were a realistic problem in a city but they aren't. Congratulations, you have a rules glitch, but not a point.

If the town guard are level, then maybe, just maybe, most criminals are level 1 as well. But why should you assume I'm being at all reasonable.

Also, telling the players the general theme of the campaign and telling them the levels of everything in it are 2 very different things.

Can you quote me saying the DM should "them the levels of everything in it"? No? Probably because I never said that. And this a general theme of the setting. It is a very high powered setting that can have 4th level NPCs as regular town guards.

Pan151

2014-02-01, 11:35 AM

Okay, I missed your edit where you actually answered my question. Which page is that?

DMG I, pg138, Other NPCs in the Community, 2nd line.

Not really. The PCs should probably encounter the guards entering the city, they will see them on the streets (in fact some random encounters involve guards), they may need to talk to them about quest in the city, ect ect. To say that they are no different from a dragon in a lonely mountain is simply untrue.

Those interactions with the guards are no more meaningful than the interactions the PCs could have with random commoners on the street and certainly less meaningful than the interactions they're gonna have with various merchants. Unless they themselves do something to change that, the guards have no more reason to pick a fight with them than the local dragon has a reason to drag his hide from his cozy lair and pick a fight with them.

1. You shouldn't need knowledge checks or gather information to see the difference between the abilities of a 1th and 4th level character.

2. Information of the setting. Kinda polite of the DM to tell the PCs that

1. They shouldn't be able to eyeball the guards' level until they actually get in an encounter with them. Guards do not have an hp bar above their heads for people to see.

2. PCs know what their characters would know. If their characters have a legitimate reason to know how powerful guards are, then the DM should tell them. If not, then telling them would only create a metagamey situation.

Which would be a problem if angry hoards were a realistic problem in a city but they aren't. Congratulations, you have a rules glitch, but not a point.

So we come to what we were arguing 5 pages ago. Being able to make a high spot check dos not contradict that they can't beat a CR 8 encounter, because one is their job and the other isn't.

Boci

2014-02-01, 12:01 PM

DMG I, pg138, Other NPCs in the Community, 2nd line.

Page 99: "The majority of a city guard force is made up of warriors, mostly
1st level." Its a completly different section.

1. They shouldn't be able to eyeball the guards' level until they actually get in an encounter with them. Guards do not have an hp bar above their heads for people to see.

No, but they should be able to tell the difference between 1st and not 4th level. They won't know the level, but they should be able to know the exact level, just that "these guards are more competent than 1st level warriors would be".

2. PCs know what their characters would know. If their characters have a legitimate reason to know how powerful guards are, then the DM should tell them. If not, then telling them would only create a metagamey situation.

A high powered setting is a setting theme like horror, and therefor players should be informed of it, even if their characters do not know.

So we come to what we were arguing 5 pages ago. Being able to make a high spot check dos not contradict that they can't beat a CR 8 encounter, because one is their job and the other isn't.

This is wrong for so many reasons (well two):

1. This in no way ties back to that debate. You are trying to score points by mentioning the rules glitch of the mechanics giving the housecat an unfairly high chance of beating a first level humanoid. Of course this is mostly irrelevant, because the house cat has no reason to attack the guards.

2. The argument against was a bit more complicated: Firstly I doubted someone capable of making a DC: 35 would have been randomly patrolling the street. Secondly, the borderline savant problem. Even if you want the town guard to be police rather than military (a scenario I previously addressed), they still need other skills than spot. Listen, sense motive, intimidate. Its contrived to have a guard captain focus on spot so much.

Pan151

2014-02-01, 12:13 PM

No, but they should be able to tell the difference between 1st and not 4th level. They won't know the level, but they should be able to know the exact level, just that "these guards are more competent than 1st level warriors would be".

How? "These guards stand idly in a particular pose that signifies a higher level person than those in the previous town"?

Boci

2014-02-01, 12:20 PM

How? "These guards stand idly in a particular pose that signifies a higher level person than those in the previous town"?

Firstly, I'm pretty sure you can do that by sense motive, but only in splat so its not necessarily relevant.

Basically through reputation, and not the kind that involves check to find out. If I go to town/city where the average guard is 4th level and that isn't conveyed to me through their awesome reputation, then the setting is going to feel pretty inert to me.

Alternatively, as I said previously stated, 4th level town guards being standard across the game, which is a change to the setting's theme.

skyth

2014-02-01, 01:39 PM

All of it involves player expectations. Players will generally expect a generic setting with level 1 warriors as city guards unless otherwise told. Same as they would expect wizards to be rare and Paladins to have to be lawful good.

If you change any of this, you are breaking immersion and hampering the fun of the players. The very fact that the player was upset and surprised by the result means that this happened.

Granted, we don't have all the information, but it really seemed like DM fiat to passive-aggressively screw over the player for doing things that the DM didn't want him doing.

Granted, things could change that viewpoint...Were the guards there (And the player knew about them) before the pickpocket attempt. Were these standard guards or were they 'special'? Were range penalties being taken into account? Does a 20 automatically succeed on a skill check for this campaign?

mashlagoo1982

2014-02-03, 11:18 AM

This entire scenario has never come up in any game I have run, but reading through all the posts has made me consider how to handle town guards (in more detail at least).

I do subscribe to the idea that individuals who are apart of a professional town guard force should have higher skills checks in skills appropriate to their profession then a level 1 warrior.

The way I would probably accomplish this would first be to consider if the town is large enough to have a professional town guard. If the local town guard is simply made up of individuals who have other professions and only are called into action in an as-need basis (town is very small and has little to no problems), then there is no need for a professional town guard and the below does not apply.

If the town does have a full-time staffed guard force, I would probably DM magic the skill Profession (Town Guard). Every 5 Ranks in that profession would provide a +2 synergy bonus to appropriate skills. So, for a standard Town Guardsman, that would probably only apply to Spot and Listen checks. Taking it further, there might also be Profession (Investigator) and Profession (Captain of Guard). Both would have appropriate synergy bonuses like Gather Information and Intimidate. I would also probably allow a +1 to Rank in their Profession for each year of service, capping out at a certain point.

This is obviously not RAW (at least as far as I know), but I think it would help accomplish the goal of representing how individuals who's job it is to perform an action should in some regard be competent in said action. Also, the longer an individual works at a job, the better they are at that action.

dascarletm

2014-02-03, 11:27 AM

Basically through reputation, and not the kind that involves check to find out. If I go to town/city where the average guard is 4th level and that isn't conveyed to me through their awesome reputation, then the setting is going to feel pretty inert to me.

The mechanics for that sort of information is derived through:

1. Bardic Knowledge (or similar)
2. Knowledge (Local)
3. Gather Information
4. In game role play.

If some city in America had a really powerful policing force compared to the majority, I don't think it would be inherent knowledge, and we even have the internet.

Boci

2014-02-03, 12:29 PM

The mechanics for that sort of information is derived through:

1. Bardic Knowledge (or similar)
2. Knowledge (Local)
3. Gather Information
4. In game role play.

If some city in America had a really powerful policing force compared to the majority, I don't think it would be inherent knowledge, and we even have the internet.

The differences between 1st and 4th level guards is the latter is about 3 times as strong as the former. I think you would know about it if police in one city of American were 3 times stronger than the national standard. Their skill modifiers are about twice the size, they have an extra feats, their attacks are 50% more accurate (likely even more so), and they are over twice as hard to kill. If the difference is 1st and 2nd level warriors, then sure, it would subtle enough to miss, but not 1st and 4th.

person29

2014-02-03, 12:45 PM

Boci

2014-02-03, 12:49 PM

I could be wrong but with comparing it to real life situations isnt that what we expect when comparing the police forces of a large city (chicago, new york, los angeles) to small towns that don't show up on the map?

The large cities probably have guards (police) with more experience...while that may not give them more HP in real life it will give them experience to know what to look for, what to avoid etc and make them better at their jobs..they have seen more than the podunk police

this is reflected in the DMG and pretty much every campaign ive been in and run that larger cities have some higher level guards than small towns

This may be cross-contamination from debating this point from multiple posters, but the debate isn't whether or not a city CAN have 4th level guards, its whether or not a city WILL have ALL its members be a minimum of 4th level, and if it does, is the DM obliged to inform the players of that.

person29

2014-02-03, 02:50 PM

Boci

2014-02-03, 03:05 PM

Why is the DM obliged to tell the players the levels of guards? Is the DM also obliged to tell players the levels of other NPCs in the towns/cities, such as a major, merchants, blacksmith, barkeep, leader of the thieves guild?

Because it informs the players of the game. If every guard in the setting is 4th level, that a higher powered setting than the rules assume by default. Nothing wrong with that, but its polite to tell the players that, just like you would if you were running a horror game.

person29

2014-02-03, 03:19 PM

It might not be every guard in the setting, but perhaps most of the guards in a large city are 4th level whereas most guards in a small town will still be level 1.

hymer

2014-02-03, 03:23 PM

Why is the DM obliged to tell the players the levels of guards? Is the DM also obliged to tell players the levels of other NPCs in the towns/cities, such as a major, merchants, blacksmith, barkeep, leader of the thieves guild?

He isn't. It's reasonable to expect the PCs to have some idea of the environment they exist in, though. So if the player asks*, I think it'd be nice to give him a vague idea of what to expect. I think it's unlikely it would have changed the player's decision, though. What could the DM have said more than "The average guard is lower level than your character, but there's always a risk you'll get caught when you steal."? I assume the player wasn't expecting an automatic success.

* Not because the DM should withhold information, but because of conservation of detail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail). While not a strict rule, it has considerable relevancy in roleplaying.

Zirconia

2014-02-03, 03:25 PM

Why is the DM obliged to tell the players the levels of guards? Is the DM also obliged to tell players the levels of other NPCs in the towns/cities, such as a major, merchants, blacksmith, barkeep, leader of the thieves guild?

Actually, I would say the PCs should have a general idea of level range of NPCs in the town. If most merchants are retired 5th+ level adventurers, they will react differently to a lot of situations than if they are 1st-2nd level. They will have different stories to tell, they will have more impressive gear (locks, traps, weapons) and goods to sell, they will be more capable of defending the town from wandering trolls, fires, etc. And if most of the merchants and guards are 5th level, it is pretty unlikely that the leader of the thieves guild is 2nd level.

While they wouldn't necessarily get all of this in their first hour in town, they would probably get a lot of it over a day or two, especially if they asked the right kinds of questions. And town guard is likely to be the first encounter they have, unless the whole region is so peaceful nobody guards the gates.

Boci

2014-02-03, 03:25 PM

It might not be every guard in the setting, but perhaps most of the guards in a large city are 4th level whereas most guards in a small town will still be level 1.

That not what the the DMG says. Its much more clean if the DM just says "A regular city guard is level 4," Its no big loss and avoid confusion.

hymer

2014-02-03, 03:39 PM

That not what the the DMG says. Its much more clean if the DM just says "A regular city guard is level 4," Its no big loss and avoid confusion.

I disagree heartily. The more you put numbers on NPCs, the less alive do they seem. I concede that it's a matter of style, but my style is definitely in another direction from this.

Boci

2014-02-03, 03:55 PM

I disagree heartily. The more you put numbers on NPCs, the less alive do they seem. I concede that it's a matter of style, but my style is definitely in another direction from this.

I get that, but when you are talking about a whole population of NPCs I find it matters less. "A regular guard is fourth level" doesn't depersonalize them because you are talking about them on such a large scale, compared so "X NPC is 4th level" which can be a problem. I appreciate that you do still try to feed the players information, but saying an actual level is much clearer, and really don't think it especially impacts the feeling of the setting.

mashlagoo1982

2014-02-03, 03:55 PM

That not what the the DMG says. Its much more clean if the DM just says "A regular city guard is level 4," Its no big loss and avoid confusion.

Actually, even if I personally made all city guards level +4, I still wouldn't tell my players.

I would up front say they were stronger then guards typically are, but giving the exact level is not something I would do. Sometimes my players will metagame, even behaving in ways their characters in game would normally not behave.

So, to try and prevent that behavior, I only provide information their characters would know.

Edit: I will say my players have gotten better with this over the years. Originally much of the metagaming was done without really knowing how wrong it was. Once I brought it up, almost all of it stopped.

Boci

2014-02-03, 03:57 PM

The Grue

2014-02-03, 04:19 PM

...But really"4th level" does not say that much, and does not allow too much metagaming. The players have no idea what classes the guards are, whether they are NPC or PC ones, multiclassed or straight, how optimized.

True. But saying "4th level" gives them a range for a lot of numerical attributes. Regardless of what class they are or whether they're multiclassed, knowing "4th level" means you know any given save is between +4 and +1 before ability score adjustment, and their BAB is likewise between +4 and +2. You can make some assumptions based on their being town guards (like for example, they probably aren't dipping into Wizard) to further narrow that down. You can use the same to make estimates about HP totals and skill ranks and, if you suspect they've dipped into a casting progression, how many spells per day they have, etc.

Boci

2014-02-03, 04:23 PM

True. But saying "4th level" gives them a range for a lot of numerical attributes. Regardless of what class they are or whether they're multiclassed, knowing "4th level" means you know any given save is between +4 and +1 before ability score adjustment, and their BAB is likewise between +4 and +2. You can make some assumptions based on their being town guards (like for example, they probably aren't dipping into Wizard) to further narrow that down. You can use the same to make estimates about HP totals and skill ranks and, if you suspect they've dipped into a casting progression, how many spells per day they have, etc.

If the player is actually going to do that then it seems like you have bigger problem anyway. Such an attitude isn't going to be problem in only this instance after all.
Also there's the question of just how much those calculation action help, especially since you can add state generation to the list of things they don't know, but that's beside the point.

The Grue

2014-02-03, 04:29 PM

Also there's the question of just how much those calculation action help, especially since you can add state generation to the list of things they don't know, but that's beside the point.

If it's beside the point then there isn't the question, is there?

Boci

2014-02-03, 04:32 PM

It isn't the question, but it is a question (that happens to be beside the point) that nevertheless is referred to as the in the particular sentence structure I was using.

The Grue

2014-02-03, 04:33 PM

My point is that if it's beside the point, why bring it up only to dismiss it in the same sentence as being beside the point?

Boci

2014-02-03, 04:35 PM

Because I believe a line of thinking can have a main point and some subpoints/side observations. It was relevant to the question of how harmful telling the PCs "the guards are 4th level" is, but the main point I wanted to stress was that a PC getting down and doing those calculation already had a potentially problematic attitude, which I judged to be the bigger issue.

Brookshw

2014-02-03, 04:46 PM

Commanders don't go out on patrol to random streets.

Commander Vimes would like a word I think.

Flickerdart

2014-02-03, 05:53 PM

Commander Vimes would like a word I think.
Sam Vimes is also a Blackboard Monitor, which carries an additional set of responsibilities.

Maginomicon

2014-02-07, 08:53 AM

Why is the DM obliged to tell the players the levels of guards? Is the DM also obliged to tell players the levels of other NPCs in the towns/cities, such as a major, merchants, blacksmith, barkeep, leader of the thieves guild?
The following house rule I use (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310882) might be useful to the discussion:

Passive Charisma = Personality Impressions (compare passives)

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
You can on-sight tell how much force of personality another creature has from basic evidence. How much is often unclear, but as long as it’s significant in one direction or the other, you can at least make a ballpark estimate. When a creature enters your line of sight, you automatically make a Passive Charisma opposed check against the other creature. If the other creature’s Passive Charisma is at least 3 higher than yours, you immediately notice the creature as if it had "a great presence" (or some other suitable expression). Likewise, if the other creature is at least 3 lower, he automatically gets an impression that the creature is "pathetic". The GM can express this as blatantly as describing everyone in the room suddenly turning to face it or as subtly as describing the creature as having a jolly demeanor and warm smile. What matters is how much qualitative emphasis the GM provides. The player should never receive a numeric value of the difference.
I have something similar happen with Passive Strength, Passive Dexterity, and Passive Constitution, but those require you be able to see the creature's physique, while Passive Charisma does not. All it cares about is line of sight.

Using this house rule would allow the players to automatically notice charismatic people (such as a guard captain), and it intrinsically accounts for in-character personal bias.

Dalebert

2014-02-07, 09:23 AM

Using this house rule would allow the players to automatically notice charismatic people (such as a guard captain), and it intrinsically accounts for in-character personal bias.

That should be under the character's control though, shouldn't it? Obviously you can't project a charisma that's higher but you should be able to tone it down, I would think. A charismatic character should actually be talented at manipulating how they're perceived. Acting is based on it, after all. The prince who wants to masquerade as a pauper to see how the "little people" live or the con man who dresses up and passes himself off as a noble to get into the ball then later casually ventures out of the public space and into private quarters without being noticed so he can steal something.

Maginomicon

2014-02-07, 09:49 AM

That should be under the character's control though, shouldn't it? Obviously you can't project a charisma that's higher but you should be able to tone it down, I would think. A charismatic character should actually be talented at manipulating how they're perceived. Acting is based on it, after all. The prince who wants to masquerade as a pauper to see how the "little people" live or the con man who dresses up and passes himself off as a noble to get into the ball then later casually ventures out of the public space and into private quarters without being noticed so he can steal something.
That's represented by the bluff and disguise skills, which are CHA-based. Noticing a creature's presence still requires line of sight, and if you aren't seen (such as by hiding), naturally they don't get a check against you. It's easy to house-rule that a decent disguise (DC 10) is enough to mask your presence (that is, prevent a Passive Charisma check in the first place).

Further, the difference required to notice someone is so significant that to notice a CHA 16 person you'd have to have a CHA of 11 or less (The Passive CHA of someone with CHA 11 is 5+0, while the Passive CHA of someone with CHA 16 is 5+3). That's a 5~6 point difference in CHA! Having presence through a Passive Charisma check doesn't mean that you're "good" or "evil", just that they notice your presence. Thus, if the person's CHA is anywhere between 4~5 less than your CHA and 4~5 more than your CHA, you simply don't get a reading, period, because in-character you're biased. This is identical to what might happen with a disguise.

skyth

2014-02-07, 09:59 AM

Actually, even if I personally made all city guards level +4, I still wouldn't tell my players.

I would up front say they were stronger then guards typically are, but giving the exact level is not something I would do. Sometimes my players will metagame, even behaving in ways their characters in game would normally not behave.

So, to try and prevent that behavior, I only provide information their characters would know.

Edit: I will say my players have gotten better with this over the years. Originally much of the metagaming was done without really knowing how wrong it was. Once I brought it up, almost all of it stopped.

First off, that is what was expected...Information that the guards in this city are more powerful than would be expected.

Growing up and living in a setting, you would have some idea as to how powerful a generic NPC (Guard, soldier, etc) is. That could be told to the players as a point of info about the setting. Not saying that there aren't small variables (Generally guards are 1st level. If they players run into a guard that is 2nd level or even maybe 3rd occasionally...Especially if it is a guard leader, then that isn't an issue).

Remember, that anyone past 3rd level is approaching superhuman in abilities. Especially if they take feats, etc to specialize in an area.

Taking actions with the general idea that guards are first level and therefore should have 'x' abilties is not metagaming. It is playing as if your character have knowledge about the abilities of someone normally of that level...Which they should.

The real problem here is managing expectations. The DM in the OP's description did not manage expectations which lead to the players being surprised and understandably upset. It really sounded like it was a 'grudge monster' type encounter rather than something in line with the setting.

Mirakk

2014-02-07, 11:30 AM

Boci

2014-02-07, 11:37 AM

This is how you adjucate sleight of hand fairly:

Player> I pickpocket another random passerby.
DM> You receive 3 coins and a piece of paper.
Player> What's the paper say?
DM> Exploding Rune

Turns out a lot of thefts have been reported in the city, so the town guard captain told his officers to go undercover around the city carrying exploding runes in their pockets. Another several teams lie in wait looking for the inevitable explosion to swoop down and rain justice upon the would-be thief.

After an incident like that, they usually get the hint.

Town guards represent 1% of a city's population, those on this undercover mission presumably even less so, the player specified the target was random. Even if it is small, equipping a task force with a 3rd level spell is still rather expensive. Also, Explosive runes is an area affect, so innocent civilians will likely be killed.

That word fair, I don't think it means what you think it does.