How strictly are the Skill DC tables followed?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll start by admiting that I don't play 3.5 or Pathfinder. I play 5e extensively as a DM. I know the systems for 3.X from a theoretical standpoint, but have never put them into practice.

Some threads on the 5e forums have made me wonder about the skill DC tables (e.g. this one for Pathfinder. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics) What I'm wondering is how well theory meets practice.

From your own experiences, how tightly do gaming groups hold to these tables? I can think of several classes of answers:

Completely and transparently. All in-game scenarios calling for skill checks fit one (and only one) row of the table with circumstance modifiers being explicitly called out. At this level, any observer could calculate the exact DC for every skill check with 100% fidelity.
Completely but not transparently. The DM gives a DC that is calculated from the tables but does not always give enough information for an observer to calculate it independently.
The tables are inspiration. The actual DCs are close to the ones provided but could not be (and are not) calculated directly from them. Other circumstance modifiers may apply beyond the ones listed.
Honored in the breach. The DM mostly just makes up appropriate-sounding DCs and only occasionally refers to the tables. The DM often overrides the table: "I know that's what the book says, but the DC is X"
Dictator style. The DCs depend on the mood of the DM and how far off the railroad the party is trying to go :smalltongue:
Other?


I'd like to hear from people who actually play 3.X how this is actually handled. Are there some skills that are run by-the-book and others that are hand-waved?

Additional question for those who are mostly by-the-book: how much time does this process take at the table? IE how long does a skill check take (assuming you can't take 20 on it)?

[DarkSoul]

My personal experience has been something around 2 or 3, both as a player and DM. Anything resembling 4 or 5 would not be a game I'd subject myself or my players to.

As far as time taken, it's dependent on how often the skill is used. An example from my game Friday night:

"Can barbed devils see invisibility?"

"Make a knowledge (planes) check." I know the DC for knowing something about monsters is 10 + Hit Dice, with additional information given for every 5 points the DC is beaten by. In this case, the base DC was 22.

"I got 24."

"Barbed devils have no innate ability to see invisible creatures or objects."

"I got 29."

"They can't see invisibility, either innately or via any ability they possess. They can also see normally in any kind of darkness, regardless if it's magical or natural in origin."

The first player knows they can't. The second player not only knows they can't, but that they can't gain the ability to see invisible either, so they don't have any spell-like ability that they can use.

[Jowgen]

In my experience, the reality usually lies somewhere between 2 and 3.

Basic DCs are known and followed, and the DM will usually make it clear whether a circumstance bonus/penalty is in play, but only rarely will he outright say what that bonus/penalty is.

All subject to the occasional rule of cool and DM adjucation of dysfunctions of course (e.g. Knowledge DCs for advanced monsters).

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal experience has been something around 2 or 3, both as a player and DM. Anything resembling 4 or 5 would not be a game I'd subject myself or my players to.


In my experience, the reality usually lies somewhere between 2 and 3.

Basic DCs are known and followed, and the DM will usually make it clear whether a circumstance bonus/penalty is in play, but only rarely will he outright say what that bonus/penalty is.

All subject to the occasional rule of cool and DM adjucation of dysfunctions of course (e.g. Knowledge DCs for advanced monsters).

Thanks both of you--just to clarify, does the DM usually give a (possibly pregenerated) DC or do players look it up in advance? And how long does this resolution process take? Do they consult the tables at the table or have the numbers pre-prepped? I'm wondering how much extra work this is and if it reduces the flexibility of the DM to adapt to unpredicted circumstances.

[DarkSoul]

It can be some extra work, but as I mentioned in the example I edited in it's also dependent on how much the rules are referenced. My example took about 10-15 seconds because all the information I needed was either at hand or already known. Making knowledge checks for monster information is a common occurrence at my table compared to something like feinting in combat using Bluff or using Sleight of Hand.

[Jormengand]

I don't play diplomacy or knowledge by the rules strictly because the implications of that are dumb (Oh the bard is now everyone's friend and the truenamer knows everything which isn't related to a monster with more than 20 hit dice, how sensible) but otherwise I pretty much stick to the numbers.

As far as 5e is concerned, the one time I DMed it I literally had the 3.5 SRD open so I could nick the DCs (though I used new=(old/2)+5 for any DC over 10), so the lack of explicit DCs was certainly an issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It can be some extra work, but as I mentioned in the example I edited in it's also dependent on how much the rules are referenced. My example took about 10-15 seconds because all the information I needed was either at hand or already known. Making knowledge checks for monster information is a common occurrence at my table compared to something like feinting in combat using Bluff or using Sleight of Hand.

So it strongly depends on the particular use of a skill. Common ones are quick (mostly memorized/formulaic) while rarer ones involve a table-lookup taking (as a guess) 30-seconds to a minute? Thanks.

[Geigan]

By your criteria 2 or 3, though rather than say that all skill checks are handled in that way, I'd say it mainly comes down to the type of check. A jump check or a climb check might be very clear cut for example, whereas things like social skills tend to be more as the GM/group prefers.

A 10ft gap is a 10ft gap, and jumping that is a very clear DC unless there are some seriously extenuating circumstances. But say trying to covince a town's mayor to let you help them with a problem might be handled any number of ways, and from what I've gathered hardly anybody uses the Diplomacy RAW in actual games. You could influence their attitude as per the RAW, you could just ask them and the GM decides that they can easily be convinced with a semi-decent DC that they made up on the spot, or the mayor might just be willing to let them help because it's the next plot hook and the GM wants to let the PCs get into action with some minimal RP to ask permission possibly with no check at all.

Additionally, sometimes the GM asks for a skill check for something and sometimes you as the player might simply tell them you're trying something. The former I usually see if the player isn't sure how to handle what they're asking to do, and the latter is more common if the player has an idea of how the check would work already in their head. In the former case, it's usually pretty much the GM having decided the DC separately, either on the spot or ahead of time. The tables may or may not have played into their decision, but it might as well just be off the top their heads. Sometimes they'll tell you the DC outright, and other times they won't. That tends to be almost entirely at their discretion.

In the latter case, I'd layout what I want to do and mention what the DC is off the table if it's an explicitly simple check and then look to the GM to shoot it down or let it happen. If they disagree, maybe we argue about the circumstances involved or I realize that there was something I hadn't considered/wasn't clear and think about trying something else. You don't always know all the circumstances of course as a player, so sometimes you might think it looks clear cut and it really isn't. How much your GM chooses to tell you about what you're attempting is their prerogative, though generally if something should have been clear when making the decision my group's GMs tend to be more forgiving in adjudicating the result.

Anyway though, the latter is more how I'd approach that as an experienced player trying to do something I know is simple, but for anything I don't actually know for a certainty I usually wouldn't bother, and of course what is certain/uncertain is still entirely dependent on what the GM tells you in the first place.

[Zaydos]

Between 2-3. For most of the physical skills 1-2 (climb gets the most 'eh I'm assigning it special for this wall'), but Diplomacy can veer towards 5 territory (the official is just so badly done) though I don't think I've ever had it be more than 3-4 (and never been called out on it since I stopped playing with the munchkin who was claiming +6 Synergy bonus to Diplomacy at Lv 1 in 3.0* and always had 2-3 18s if he didn't roll where someone else could see him which he was extremely reluctant to do). Then again it's been as often as not 'I'm lowering the DC because none of you have Diplomacy' as 'I'm upping the DC because Diplomacy DCs are lolwhut'. Typically I scale Diplomacy somewhat based upon the level/CR of the target, and then there's Knowledge which I often go above the DC 30 (just like actual modules/written adventures) but for monsters some things get more and more 'common knowledge' (for example Baatezu traits, beyond a certain point if you have enough to recognize 'oh it's a Baatezu' you know the traits, and common dragon traits, because it shouldn't be a DC 16 check to know 'a white wyrmling is immune to cold' and a DC 36 to know 'a white great wyrm is immune to cold').

*Note that you can't get synergy bonuses at Lv 1, and 3.0 Core Diplomacy only went to +4 synergy.