Spreadsheet of published skill DCs

[Telok]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ps6fqC-WGzkZbFix7Ak1T7VU4YUEFXJJFWXLBww2Gxg/edit?usp=sharing

That links to a Google document of pretty much all the skill checks publushed in the DMG, Out of the Abyss, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and Rise of Tiamat. For ease of use you will want to use the "Create new temporary filter view" option under the filters icon next to the print icon.

Included are a couple of saves that overlap with some of the skill uses, automatically successful skill uses, and auto fail skill uses. Most dex(stealth) versus wis(passive perception) checks are not included because they vary with the monster used. Snarky comments are intentional and I have noted some spots that I think are typos.

My conclusion from this project is that different writers have totally different opinions as to what constitutes 'easy' versus 'hard' and some numbers for DCs are being pulled out of people's butts. Sort by the 'climb' tag under the 'action' (D) column.

[Tanarii]

I sorted by Climb. It looks to me like most writers are defaulting to Easy or Medium. That's pretty much by the DMG guidelines.

Where I see far too many 20s (IMO): finding / locating stuff, and straight ability checks to break things.

Edit: This is something I want to get Pex's opinion on. He's the biggest proponent on these boards of standardized DCs to basic tasks.

[Telok]

I sorted by Climb. It looks to me like most writers are defaulting to Easy or Medium. That's pretty much by the DMG guidelines.

Row 18 vs. 122
Rows 127 vs. 133 vs. 341
Row 294 vs. 318

"by the guidelines" is being very generous.

[Tanarii]

Your point? They're either Easy or Medium. DC 10 vs DC 15. That's well within the DMG Guidelines for setting DCs.

Even if they're for "the same thing", there's no way to know from the description if they are actually identical difficulty. That's the entire point of the Easy, Medium, Hard designation. You can't always say "all natural cliffs with handholds are DC 10" because there's no such thing as a standard "natural cliff with handholds". This system gives DMs flexibility to set DCs appropriate to simulate the difficulty of "this particular natural cliff with handholds" based on the difficulty they want the challenge to be, using an unskilled, untalented individual (+0 to the check) having a 55% chance of success if it's Easy, or 30% chance of success if it's Medium.

Furthermore, players know their chances of success for Easy, Medium and Hard tasks. So they've got all the information they need to play the game without having to memorize a bunch of tables for "natural cliff with handholds = DC X".

Of course, there has to be clear communication with the players as to general difficulty, provided their character can judge the difficulty of the task, so they can make a meaningful decisions.

[Zman]

Your point? They're either Easy or Medium. DC 10 vs DC 15. That's well within the DMG Guidelines for setting DCs.

Even if they're for "the same thing", there's no way to know from the description if they are actually identical difficulty. That's the entire point of the Easy, Medium, Hard designation. You can't always say "all natural cliffs with handholds are DC 10" because there's no such thing as a standard "natural cliff with handholds". This system gives DMs flexibility to set DCs appropriate to simulate the difficulty of "this particular natural cliff with handholds" based on the difficulty they want the challenge to be, using an unskilled, untalented individual (+0 to the check) having a 55% chance of success if it's Easy, or 30% chance of success if it's Medium.

Furthermore, players know their chances of success for Easy, Medium and Hard tasks. So they've got all the information they need to play the game without having to memorize a bunch of tables for "natural cliff with handholds = DC X".

Of course, there has to be clear communication with the players as to general difficulty, provided their character can judge the difficulty of the task, so they can make a meaningful decisions.

Exactly, the DM using the descriptions of very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, and near impossible should be used as descriptors that give the players some indication of just how hard the task. As long as the DM is giving the players a fair description of how hard something is, they can understand the task at hand and make decisions appropriately.

"Garnak studies the climb, a hard climb that few normal men would risk, but Garnak is no normal man." Here the player asked the the DM how tough the climb DC is for his player Garnak, the DM's response in his description indicates that it is in the neighborhood of DC20 which would indeed be a hard climb for a normal person, but Garnak is a strong character who is proficient in athletics making the climb far more likely to be completed. The player hears "a hard climb" and knows the DC is near 20, his character has a +4 Str Mod and +4 proficiency in Athletics and the player can assume that he has just under a 50% odds of success. Not being stellar odds and risking a moderately dangerous fall the player can ask if Garnak can study the wall since he is in no rush and would like to improve his odds, the responds, "After Garnak studies the wall for a few long moments he thinks he has discovered the best hand holds." in his OOC voice the DM says, "he can now attempt the hard check with advantage." Now the player thinks he had pretty good odds and attempts his climb, upon reaching the top he secures and drops a rope ladder which makes the climb "very easy" ie DC5 for the rest of the party.


Another example for say a lvl 20 Rogue with expertise in Acrobatics and a 20 Dex ie a +17 to the check. "As Boris measures the jump he determines the jump and 20' drop aren't the problem, its sticking the near impossible landing on top of a pillar barely two bandwidths wide without falling to your death is where the real problem lies." Here, the player knows that even with his supreme expertise this is a very high risk task, he asks if Boris can figure out how to make the task easier and the DM say, "No, no matter how long Boris thinks about it, with the swirling wind in the canyon the only way to figure it out is to do it." Hearing that the player has Boris begrudgingly turn to Yaris the mage, "Hey! Got any magics up your sleeve that can reduce the liklihood I fall to my death and you've got no one to keep your bony ass alive?"

When asked how hard it would be to convince the King to marry his daughter to Timmee the scoundral bard and that he was a powerful lord in his own right, the DM responds "Such a ruse would indeed be very hard, but convincing his lordship such a hasty union was advisible would be nigh impossible, and failure could earn the ire of an entire kingdom and cost him his head." Here the DM has told the player of Timmee that the Decption check is around DC25 to convince the kind he is too a Lord, and convincing the king to hastily marry of his daughter would be a persaustion of DC30, and that failure especially by any significant margin could have dire consequences. Timmee's player, knowing the bard only has a 14 Charisma and only proficiency

If the DM at least uses the uniform rough categories for difficulty during their descriptions, or describes the task OOC using its category, it gives the players workable information that they can use in decision making. The DM doesn't have to tell them the exact DC, but letting them get an idea of it, could describe DC12 as "pretty easy", or a DC14 and "moderate", or a DC22 as "pretty damned hard", or a DC30 as "hah, good luck!". Basically as long as the DM's descriptions of the task match the rough DC of the task they are good to go.

[Telok]

Your point? They're either Easy or Medium. DC 10 vs DC 15. That's well within the DMG Guidelines for setting DCs.

Even if they're for "the same thing", there's no way to know from the description if they are actually identical difficulty.

Are you sure you're looking at the same stuff I'm looking at?

str athletics 15 climb 50 foot natural rock cliff
str athletics 10 climb 50 foot cliff with hand holds
str athletics 10 climb 100 foot shaft One check for the whole thing, carved by magic
str athletics 11 climb 6 foot natural rock cliff
str athletics 10 climb 75 feet ice wall with hand holds
str athletics 15 climb 8 foot ice ledge
- athletics 15 climb 80 foot slick and slimy stone wall, requires 3 checks

Those include pretty much all the information in the books, 'natural rock cliff' and 'carved by magic' is all the description you get. The same lack of pattern is found across everything else, finding and disarming traps, spotting things, etc. I mean, if you want to say "working as intended because the checks are between 5 and 20" and excuse the lack of consistency by saying that there's no descriptions then you can. But after comparing four books worth of skill checks I feel confident in saying that there's no pattern, no consistency, no structure, and no agreement about what easy/medium/hard mean within even a single published adventure.

You can pick at the example if you want but this is the best data you'll find about what WotC expects skills to look like. And if you really want to interrogate the data you can look up the skill checks in the books yourself.

[Tanarii]

Are you sure you're looking at the same stuff I'm looking at?

str athletics 15 climb 50 foot natural rock cliff
str athletics 10 climb 50 foot cliff with hand holds
str athletics 10 climb 100 foot shaft One check for the whole thing, carved by magic
str athletics 11 climb 6 foot natural rock cliff
str athletics 10 climb 75 feet ice wall with hand holds
str athletics 15 climb 8 foot ice ledge
- athletics 15 climb 80 foot slick and slimy stone wall, requires 3 checksYes. Those are all either Easy (~DC 10) or Medium (~DC 15). That's exactly where the checks should be.


But after comparing four books worth of skill checks I feel confident in saying that there's no pattern, no consistency, no structure, and no agreement about what easy/medium/hard mean within even a single published adventure.There doesn't need to be "agreement". All that matters is that the player is aware of the approximate difficulty of the the task, when it's possible for the character to discern it. And an understanding that the majority of tasks that require an actual check (as opposed to automatically succeeding or failing) should fall into the category of Easy, Medium or Hard (DC 10-20). As long as the player has that assurance and that knowledge, he can make meaningful decisions about character actions.

When things get into trouble is when the player makes assumptions about difficulty without that knowledge, or the DM doesn't communicate it well or assumes that it's properly communicated from a flowery description.

[Pex]

I sorted by Climb. It looks to me like most writers are defaulting to Easy or Medium. That's pretty much by the DMG guidelines.

Where I see far too many 20s (IMO): finding / locating stuff, and straight ability checks to break things.

Edit: This is something I want to get Pex's opinion on. He's the biggest proponent on these boards of standardized DCs to basic tasks.

I have been successfully summoned. :smallcool:

So not only do I have to "relearn the game" based on who is DM I also have to relearn the game based on what module I'm playing if playing a module. Given the multitude there is a probability two instances of a skill use would match and they do exist, but it is not the norm. Accepting two skill uses could be from different modules, the slimmest difference in flavor text between them can change the DC by 5 or more or even what ability score (skill) to use. I can appreciate the DC values given for the most part are doable, the "screw you" and very high DCs are few, but that affirms my issue with 5E skills has nothing to do with tyrannical DMing. The lack of a defined skill system facilitates tyrannical DMing, but that's a side effect not the meat & potatoes. It's this lack of consistency that's my issue.

Given a DM I play with is Honest True Wonderful, I'm sure my particular character build for that campaign will have meaning. Seeing that spreadsheet though, my perception (call it hyperbolic facetiousness if you want) is that the 5E skill system can be summarized as roll a d20. If 15+, succeed. If 9-, fail. If 10-14, DM mood. I acknowledge the spreadsheet has a good number of DC 10 skill uses, so "DM mood" can easily be succeed. I'm not married to this particular perception since Honest True Wonderful DMs demolish it.

As it happens I have recently joined a second 5E group, playing a sorcerer this time. We had our first game play session today. Skill use has already been noticeable to me as different than the first DM. The second DM is more open to improvisation. His DCs tend to be lower than the first DM when a player wants to do something unexpected or unusual. There also aren't as many DC 20s for skill uses he makes up. If it matters, for the first DM we started at 6th level and just hit 7th, and with the second DM we started at 3rd level. I also do not find the first DM uses DC 20 too much, just more than the second DM.

[Tanarii]

Actually, I find the place where the biggest DM variation occurs is not on determining DC, IMX most DMs seem to be fairly solid at setting 10-15 DCs.

The place I see variation is in judgement as to if a check is called for at all. One DM will make something automatic and another will judge it a DC 10 "Easy" check. One DM will flat say something is impossible, and another will judge it DC 30 "Nearly Impossible". The latter isn't really such a big deal until high levels (or for a high ability score Rogue/Bard with Expertise). The former is a huge deal. Automatic vs a relatively significant chance of failure is no small thing.

When I think "DM who encourages improvisation" I think of a DM who isn't strict about judging things to require a check at all, not even DC 10 checks. Whereas one who doesn't encourage improvisation requires a DC 10 check for trying anything unusual not explicitly covered by a rule.

[Ivogel]

Also a thing that some dm's tend to do uncondciously is scale up dc's for characters who are proficient in the skill or ask for acrobatics for an obviously athletics skill check on low-dex characters ;)

[IShouldntBehere]

In general it seems for most categories for most checks the WotC writers seem to run DCs a bit higher than I do. The DC 25 on that lock for the "Bosses' Door" is a higher DC than I put ancient locking mechanism of long-lost origin. There is staggering number of "20s", which is just not a DC I ask for much.

In fact if anything I'd say that the broadest trend I see is that locks, doors, and locating passages seem to be inflated compared to my own numbers. While the overall trend is still higher than my own checks, the DCs to identify hazards or navigate terrain and other perils safely tend to skew a bit lower than I do.

I like that there are a lot of in-between difficulty checks 12/13/16 and so on. I'm a little surprised that there is only one DC 7~8 check, which is generally my go-to for "This is pretty hard to mess up, but it's not auto-pass right now unless you're really good at this." when I want to deal with something that would normally be auto-pass trivial given opportunity to just take your time, but under circumstances where the situation is dangerous and demands round-by-round resolution.

[gkathellar]

This is pretty great humor material. Some of my favorites:
DC 10 Perception to find blood on a weapon ... after you saw the fight happen
DC 10 Perception to find tracks from a wagon train ten long ... also not Survival, right? Because that would be for, you know, tracking.
DC 10 Perception check to notice the thousands of bats above you, with guano and bat skeletons everywhere.
DC 12 Insight "the guy with the extra, deformed, demon head growing out of him and going on a screaming, babbling, lunatic rampage is insane" - Well put, my friend.
DC 12 Investigation finds a hidden compartment in a desk ... and it's empty.
DC 13 Persuasion to bribe a guard who asks for a bribe.
DC 13 Perception to notice an invisible thief has automatically successfully pickpocketed you.
DC 14 Persuasion to successfully flash your legitimate badge.
DC 14 passive Perception to identify a dragon you already met and fought with.
DC 15 Arcana to determine that a guy with a dragon head is, in fact, a half-dragon.
Auto-Fail Deception to impersonate a cultist - but roleplay always works, you just fail if you have the GALL to rely on your character's skills, you rollplayer you.
Contested Intelligence vs. +9 to win a game of chess, because the NPC is better at chess than you are, shut up.

[IShouldntBehere]

DC 10 Perception check to notice the thousands of bats above you, with guano and bat skeletons everywhere.

This is one is actually not all that insane. Some cave critters can pack themselves in so dense that they sort of camouflage each other by literally becoming the terrain. "There's tons of bat gauno and all these skeletons around, but where are the bats?" is actually sort of a question you can wind up asking until you make a big noise and all of a sudden the entire cieling of the cave comes loose and starts moving because that wasn't the ceiling, it was just mass of bats so densely packed it just looked like the ceiling.

Why are the walls the pulsating like that? Oh wait upon closer examination that isn't the wall it's a 2" thick swarm of roaches coating every single surface.

Caves are gross.


The chess game should probably be a int check with proficiency for Game Set[Chess Board]. Game Sets are still tools, right (not at my books).

[Naanomi]

Any chance we get Strahd... or even better all the AL adventures... added to this?

[Telok]

Any chance we get Strahd... or even better all the AL adventures... added to this?

The friend I borrowed the books from doesn't have those. The consensus of our group right now is that 5e does the combat bit really well and doesn't really have usable rules for anything else*.

Adding to this wouldn't be hard, you can copy from the document and paste into a spreadsheet to work on it yourself. Or send me the data and I'll add and update. The process is quite simple, open the book and skim through to a skill check. Read the skill check, write down the attribute, skill/tool, the main action, the thing acted on/with, and anything else about it that stands out.


*This was our consensus on 4e too and 'good combat' alone isn't enough to keep a game functioning.

[Easy_Lee]

This is pretty great humor material. Some of my favorites:
DC 10 Perception to find blood on a weapon ... after you saw the fight happen
DC 10 Perception to find tracks from a wagon train ten long ... also not Survival, right? Because that would be for, you know, tracking.
DC 10 Perception check to notice the thousands of bats above you, with guano and bat skeletons everywhere.
DC 12 Insight "the guy with the extra, deformed, demon head growing out of him and going on a screaming, babbling, lunatic rampage is insane" - Well put, my friend.
DC 12 Investigation finds a hidden compartment in a desk ... and it's empty.
DC 13 Persuasion to bribe a guard who asks for a bribe.
DC 13 Perception to notice an invisible thief has automatically successfully pickpocketed you.
DC 14 Persuasion to successfully flash your legitimate badge.
DC 14 passive Perception to identify a dragon you already met and fought with.
DC 15 Arcana to determine that a guy with a dragon head is, in fact, a half-dragon.
Auto-Fail Deception to impersonate a cultist - but roleplay always works, you just fail if you have the GALL to rely on your character's skills, you rollplayer you.
Contested Intelligence vs. +9 to win a game of chess, because the NPC is better at chess than you are, shut up.

Replied because this post needs attention. This is delightful.

But the ones that really rustled me were the auto fails, particularly when trying to find or disarm traps, and the arbitrarily high DCs, like breaking through an arcane locked door. DC 70? Really? I'll just tunnel under the door or break through the wall, thanks. Oh, and moving a sarcophagus lid is apparently impossible without some special tool or magic. It's DC 30 vs Str, and the help action only grants advantage. No number of humans, working together, could move that lid. One wonders how anyone got that 10 by 20 foot abomination on there in the first place.

OP, awesome work putting this together. This is a great resource for new DMs, and even experienced ones, looking to set consistent DCs.

For me, the take away is this. In most cases, players should be told the approximate difficulty of a task (easy, moderate, hard, etc.) when they ask.

[Theodoxus]

For me, the take away is this. In most cases, players should be told the approximate difficulty of a task (easy, moderate, hard, etc.) when they ask.

For me, the take away is this: Players should ask the approximate difficulty of a task.

I can't think of an instance where my players (as DM), or my group (as player) ever asked what the difficulty is. We'll state we're going to use X skill to perform some action and just wait for the result of the roll, success or fail.

When I DM, I have the DCs in mind well before the players stumble on them - so I could certainly let them know if they asked... but it's never come up... weird.

[gkathellar]

For me, the take away is this: Players should ask the approximate difficulty of a task.

For me, the take away is this: The 5E adventure writers don't know what the hell they're doing.

[Naanomi]

I think the dragon adventure path was written before the rules were complete; most of the rediculous DCs seem to come from there

[Pex]

For me, the take away is this: Players should ask the approximate difficulty of a task.

I can't think of an instance where my players (as DM), or my group (as player) ever asked what the difficulty is. We'll state we're going to use X skill to perform some action and just wait for the result of the roll, success or fail.

When I DM, I have the DCs in mind well before the players stumble on them - so I could certainly let them know if they asked... but it's never come up... weird.

That's great for you as DM for your particular game. That's not great for me as a player on playing 5E. What if I happen to play a different character with a different DM in a different campaign but just by coincidence have the same statistics in using a particular skill. Using the skill in your game I roll the die, get a number, and succeed. However, with this other DM the same skill use need comes up, I roll the die, get the same number, but this time I fail because this DM disagrees with you, unknowingly, on the difficulty of the task thus made the DC higher. My ability to do a skill had no relevance at all on how I created my character.

[Telok]

For me, the take away is this: The 5E adventure writers don't know what the hell they're doing.

What I think happened was that different people got the jobs of writing different bits and had different ideas about what "easy" and "hard" meant.

At one point there's a check to see if the party hears a waterfall. It seemed off to me, I grew up around audiologists (hearing doctors), so I hit up Google. Found a pdf of a piece of research about waterfalls to mask highway road noise. Turns out that the waterfall in the game should be about 80 decibels. Loud. Quite loud. And with lousy rolls the entire party might not hear that. Thirty minutes of research put me firmly in "oh heck no you ignorant author" territory. Likewise with some of the other boating stuff, the person who wrote some of that comes across as a fool to someone who has had experience in similar situations.

We can keep on with examples, excuses, and trying to explain stuff but I really think what's happening is different people's ideas about how hard stuff is. Feels like the skill system pushes the "guy at the gym" fallacy on you.

One thing they're really consistent on, it's a dc 15 to tell a man sized purple mushroom from a mushroom that isn't man sized and purple.

Again I'll offer to update the spreadsheet if people want to run down the skill and stat checks from other adventures. PM me, data or for my email, and I'll add on.

[Easy_Lee]

At one point there's a check to see if the party hears a waterfall. It seemed off to me, I grew up around audiologists (hearing doctors), so I hit up Google. Found a pdf of a piece of research about waterfalls to mask highway road noise. Turns out that the waterfall in the game should be about 80 decibels. Loud. Quite loud. And with lousy rolls the entire party might not hear that. Thirty minutes of research put me firmly in "oh heck no you ignorant author" territory. Likewise with some of the other boating stuff, the person who wrote some of that comes across as a fool to someone who has had experience in similar situations.

Your post made many good points, but i'd like to expand on this one. Research is a writer's second job. He or she needs to have knowledge of the subject matter, and that means consulting Google. Fortunately for writers everywhere, research is easier now than it ever was before. Unfortunately for readers everywhere, few authors seem to do it.

The campaign writer should have known how loud this waterfall would be. There should have been no question that functioning ears would hear it. But, rather than do that research, he just threw in a number that sounded right to him.

I'm not saying every DM needs to do that level of research. However, any published campaign writer absolutely should research everything that he or she puts in a campaign.

[georgie_leech]

Your post made many good points, but i'd like to expand on this one. Research is a writer's second job. He or she needs to have knowledge of the subject matter, and that means consulting Google. Fortunately for writers everywhere, research is easier now than it ever was before. Unfortunately for readers everywhere, few authors seem to do it.

The campaign writer should have known how loud this waterfall would be. There should have been no question that functioning ears would hear it. But, rather than do that research, he just threw in a number that sounded right to him.

I'm not saying every DM needs to do that level of research. However, any published campaign writer absolutely should research everything that he or she puts in a campaign.

I'd agree. Part of the whole point of slow content release cycles is the ability to check things like that. I'm alright with the occasional odd DC, because difficulty can be subjective, but at the least they need to figure out what shouldn't actually need a check.

[IShouldntBehere]

I'd agree. Part of the whole point of slow content release cycles is the ability to check things like that. I'm alright with the occasional odd DC, because difficulty can be subjective, but at the least they need to figure out what shouldn't actually need a check.

It's just impractical. It's not like the current release schedule & pricing model we have includes WotC paying writers to spend half their time playing foosball. The current release schedule & pricing scheme we have is already fully in use producing the level of content already on sale. Introducing research will necessarily take more time and more money than what is already used in the process. Writers must be paid for their time after all. If they're taking even 10-20 minutes or so out to research the facts on each check in the adventure you're going to see a large increase in the man-hours put into the book. This would greatly increase costs which would be passed on to the consumer, it would also increase production time significantly and would could often require mid-stream rewrites when research on later point illuminates holes in previous writing or research.

I'm just not sure there is enough of consumer base willing to pay twice as much for a release schedule going at half the rate just so they can avoid oddly silent waterfalls and naval rules that only strike you as odd when you've had naval experience. D&D adventure paths are cheap popcorn entertainment meant to be consumed along pizza & beer. People in the know have a good laugh at Han Solo's claims about the Kessel run and his parsec scores, because hey it's really silly if you know what a parsec is. However those nuances were lost on the average consumer who was there for laser sword fights and panicky robots. Also, something else in the movie would have had to give had more money and time been allocated to getting all the space terminology stuff right.

I get the desire for accuracy it's better not to be stupid than be stupid, usually. However, I'm not sure there is much space to demand more of it from a product like D&D Adventures paths with them being what they are, aimed at the audience at they are, for the type of consumption they're meant for.

[Telok]

It's just impractical...

I get the desire for accuracy it's better not to be stupid than be stupid, usually. However, I'm not sure there is much space to demand more of it from a product like D&D Adventures paths with them being what they are, aimed at the audience at they are, for the type of consumption they're meant for.

It's not that anyone wants the writers to research everything, they didn't check or research anything. There are a number of WTF DCs that get more noticable as you read more adventures and especially when you put the different checks next to each other. What we see is a lack of communication, consistency, and even adherence to the professed tenets of the 5e skill paradigm. We have waterfalls sneaking up on people, sometimes traps can be found or disarmed and sometimes they can't, hundred foot pits magically carved by super-intelligent beholders as lair defense are easier to climb than a six foot high natural ledge. Even within the same adventure book skill checks are wildly different across different sections.

Perhaps this is part of the skill setup, where "roll a die and move on" is apparently more important than internal consistency or verisimilitude. But even WotC authors on the same project, or perhaps the same author at different times, can't agree on what's easy or hard or automatic success or automatic failure with skills.

At this point I feel that you'd get the same overall effect as this skill setup if you told the players to write down four things their characters are good at and simply had them roll high = success on any die.

[IShouldntBehere]

It's not that anyone wants the writers to research everything, they didn't check or research anything.

What? I was responding directly to a post line asking for just that:

Post #22


I'm not saying every DM needs to do that level of research. However, any published campaign writer absolutely should research everything that he or she puts in a campaign.

Post #23, quoting post #22:


I'd agree. Part of the whole point of slow content release cycles is the ability to check things like that. I'm alright with the occasional odd DC, because difficulty can be subjective, but at the least they need to figure out what shouldn't actually need a check.

The "everything" in writers need to "research everything" is even put in italics for emphasis. I very much was responding to the idea that was put forward that they should research everything.

[Tanarii]

At this point I feel that you'd get the same overall effect as this skill setup if you told the players to write down four things their characters are good at and simply had them roll high = success on any die.
Interestingly, there's two DMG variant options for proficiency that looks sorta like that. If you squint at them a bit. Background Proficiency and Personality Trait Proficiency, DMG p264.

[Safety Sword]

I think the dragon adventure path was written before the rules were complete; most of the rediculous DCs seem to come from there

Pretty much.

The DC 20 sarcophagus lid is probably the one on the tomb of the STORM GIANT so it wasn't placed by humans in any case.

[Vogonjeltz]

str athletics 15 climb 50 foot natural rock cliff
str athletics 10 climb 50 foot cliff with hand holds
str athletics 10 climb 100 foot shaft One check for the whole thing, carved by magic
str athletics 11 climb 6 foot natural rock cliff
str athletics 10 climb 75 feet ice wall with hand holds
str athletics 15 climb 8 foot ice ledge
- athletics 15 climb 80 foot slick and slimy stone wall, requires 3 checks

So, based on what you've put here...we can extrapolate the following:

DC 10 for hand holds (across the board!)
DC 10 for climbing that magically carved shaft (Can we get more specific details? i.e. Is it straight vertical? Are there hand holds then? Is the shaft totally smooth providing no purchase, but you get a rope?)

DC 11 for 6 foot natural rock, +1 DC for each +11 feet (i.e. DC 15 for natural rock at 50 feet)
DC 15 for climbing ice ledge, no hand holds

DC 15 for climbing slick and slimy wall, recheck every 30 feet.

Assuming these are all attempts to climb without a rope, then that would seem to be internally consistent with the rules.


So not only do I have to "relearn the game" based on who is DM I also have to relearn the game based on what module I'm playing if playing a module.

Except the descriptive modifers used for those checks actually were consistent in use, so as far as modules go, no problem apparently exists.


This is pretty great humor material. Some of my favorites:
•DC 10 Perception to find blood on a weapon ... after you saw the fight happen
•DC 10 Perception to find tracks from a wagon train ten long ... also not Survival, right? Because that would be for, you know, tracking.
•DC 10 Perception check to notice the thousands of bats above you, with guano and bat skeletons everywhere.
•DC 12 Insight "the guy with the extra, deformed, demon head growing out of him and going on a screaming, babbling, lunatic rampage is insane" - Well put, my friend.
•DC 12 Investigation finds a hidden compartment in a desk ... and it's empty.
•DC 13 Persuasion to bribe a guard who asks for a bribe.
•DC 13 Perception to notice an invisible thief has automatically successfully pickpocketed you.
•DC 14 Persuasion to successfully flash your legitimate badge.
•DC 14 passive Perception to identify a dragon you already met and fought with.
•DC 15 Arcana to determine that a guy with a dragon head is, in fact, a half-dragon.
•Auto-Fail Deception to impersonate a cultist - but roleplay always works, you just fail if you have the GALL to rely on your character's skills, you rollplayer you.
•Contested Intelligence vs. +9 to win a game of chess, because the NPC is better at chess than you are, shut up.

To be fair though, the PHB indicates that DMs and players can and should make the case for using different ability scores and proficiency combinations to achieve tasks in diverse ways. That being the case, Wisdom (Survival) seems entirely plausible as well.

Without reviewing the particulars, the insight check is probably to deconflict between other possible explanations (i.e. enchantment).
I actually applaud the existence of a hidden compartment that happens to be empty, it subverts the problem of the Chekov's Gun in storytelling, thereby altering player expectations (alternatively, maybe the compartment leads to suspicion about what it's for).

The persuasion check for bribery, iirc, is to not offend the subject, i.e. to avoid being gauche. I think that's the one from out of the abyss. Most persuasion checks involve convincing someone of something, as in the badge case, where even if it's legit it might not be trusted on the outset by a recalcitrant personality.

What's wrong with the perception that you've been pickpocketed?
Ditto the dragon. People routinely confuse one animal for another or one person for another when they've only interacted with them once, especially in a high stress scenario.

The auto-fail deception iirc makes sense in context, as the characters are too close to avoid being seen in detail, are known as antagonists, and specifically not cultists. An attempt to pretend to be a cultist is hubristically foolish in those circumstances. It's like pretending to be a potted plant and saying "Please don't look at me, just another potted plant here" and then expecting that to work.

+9 bonus on game...so the subject has proficiency in the game set and a high int? Why is this even a problem?


The DC 20 sarcophagus lid is probably the one on the tomb of the STORM GIANT so it wasn't placed by humans in any case.

The extremely limited context on the spreadsheet makes most of the annotations extremely suspect. The ones I recognize offhand without actually leafing through the books were entirely reasonable given the full context of the situations they occur in, which suggests that the rest are probably also misleading when divorced from the game scenario.

[Telok]

So, based on what you've put here...we can extrapolate the following:
Assuming these are all attempts to climb without a rope, then that would seem to be internally consistent with the rules.
Except that the 100 foot pit was carved by a super intelligent beholder as part of it's lair defense and theres a 30 foot pit that it's autosuccess for anyone to climb out of and there's this little six foot ledge that's harder than the 100 foot pit to climb. Most of the climb DCs seem reasonable, especially in isolation, and especially if you want to assume that there are unwritten modifiers that make things easier or more difficult but that you don't get to be told about.


The auto-fail deception iirc makes sense in context, as the characters are too close to avoid being seen in detail, are known as antagonists, and specifically not cultists. An attempt to pretend to be a cultist is hubristically foolish in those circumstances. It's like pretending to be a potted plant and saying "Please don't look at me, just another potted plant here" and then expecting that to work.

+9 bonus on game...so the subject has proficiency in the game set and a high int? Why is this even a problem?

The first is because roleplay explicitly works by the text in the book while rolling the appropriate skill explicitly fails. For the second, PCs don't get proficency to that roll. I mean, a good DM will change stuff like that but it's pretty pervasive through the books.

If you're happy with the system of "DM makes stuff up without guidance or examples" that's fine. This is to help the rest of us try to understand what the skill system thinks it's levels of easy/hard/impossible are.

[Vogonjeltz]

Except that the 100 foot pit was carved by a super intelligent beholder as part of it's lair defense and theres a 30 foot pit that it's autosuccess for anyone to climb out of and there's this little six foot ledge that's harder than the 100 foot pit to climb. Most of the climb DCs seem reasonable, especially in isolation, and especially if you want to assume that there are unwritten modifiers that make things easier or more difficult but that you don't get to be told about.



The first is because roleplay explicitly works by the text in the book while rolling the appropriate skill explicitly fails. For the second, PCs don't get proficency to that roll. I mean, a good DM will change stuff like that but it's pretty pervasive through the books.

If you're happy with the system of "DM makes stuff up without guidance or examples" that's fine. This is to help the rest of us try to understand what the skill system thinks it's levels of easy/hard/impossible are.

Soldiers get proficiency in game sets.

[Telok]

Soldiers get proficiency in game sets.

True. But as with line 291 and line 222 the book doesn't allow for tool proficency. It may be a typo and a good GM can fix it on the fly if they notice it but as written the PC only gets Int bonus.

[Vogonjeltz]

True. But as with line 291 and line 222 the book doesn't allow for tool proficency. It may be a typo and a good GM can fix it on the fly if they notice it but as written the PC only gets Int bonus.

The module specifically says that the check does not allow proficiency to apply despite the rule in the PHB?

What module and page #?

[Telok]

The module specifically says that the check does not allow proficiency to apply despite the rule in the PHB?

What module and page #?

Bloody heck man, I borrowed the books. My standards for buying stuff are higher than WotC has put out for this edition so far. As I recall it was in Out of the Abyss, during the bit between escaping the underdork and going back to save it from demons. So the PCs are level 8 and I think the book calls for three contested Int checks with the NPC getting a +9 to the roll for being "highly skilled" at chess.

[mgshamster]

The module specifically says that the check does not allow proficiency to apply despite the rule in the PHB?

What module and page #?


Bloody heck man, I borrowed the books. My standards for buying stuff are higher than WotC has put out for this edition so far. As I recall it was in Out of the Abyss, during the bit between escaping the underdork and going back to save it from demons. So the PCs are level 8 and I think the book calls for three contested Int checks with the NPC getting a +9 to the roll for being "highly skilled" at chess.

Out of the Abyss, Page 126-7. Under Lord Zelraun Roaringhorn.

It's a game contest, best of 3 wins with opposed intelligence checks. You can win the control of a Shield Guardian if you beat him. He gets a +9 to the game.

More specifically, you have to be willing to "dine, drink, and potentially game" with the Lord to gain his favor.

Even if you lose, he may still be "a gracious winner" and loan the shield guardian for the quest.

Since he gets a +9, then he's at least level 9, giving him a +4 proficiency to the game and a +5 int modifier. The PCs are level 8, so they have a +3 and if one has maxed int they may also have a +5 int modifier. So at best, he may have a +1 above the player.

The text says nothing about not getting proficiency. Since this is a game, and since all gaming sets are classified under ability checks, one can safely assume that the gaming proficiency would apply if someone took it.

This particular check is a social challenge, and you don't even have to beat the challenge to get the prize, depending on how well you roleplay the rest of the encounter beyond the game itself.

[Safety Sword]

The extremely limited context on the spreadsheet makes most of the annotations extremely suspect. The ones I recognize offhand without actually leafing through the books were entirely reasonable given the full context of the situations they occur in, which suggests that the rest are probably also misleading when divorced from the game scenario.

Hardly surprising, eh?

[Vogonjeltz]

Out of the Abyss, Page 126-7. Under Lord Zelraun Roaringhorn.

It's a game contest, best of 3 wins with opposed intelligence checks. You can win the control of a Shield Guardian if you beat him. He gets a +9 to the game.

More specifically, you have to be willing to "dine, drink, and potentially game" with the Lord to gain his favor.

Even if you lose, he may still be "a gracious winner" and loan the shield guardian for the quest.

Since he gets a +9, then he's at least level 9, giving him a +4 proficiency to the game and a +5 int modifier. The PCs are level 8, so they have a +3 and if one has maxed int they may also have a +5 int modifier. So at best, he may have a +1 above the player.

The text says nothing about not getting proficiency. Since this is a game, and since all gaming sets are classified under ability checks, one can safely assume that the gaming proficiency would apply if someone took it.

This particular check is a social challenge, and you don't even have to beat the challenge to get the prize, depending on how well you roleplay the rest of the encounter beyond the game itself.

Given that he's a wizard with a penchant for gambling it does not surprise me in the least that he'd have proficiency and a high intelligence score.

[mgshamster]

Given that he's a wizard with a penchant for gambling it does not surprise me in the least that he'd have proficiency and a high intelligence score.

I forgot to mention that, but yup!

This character follows the optimization guidelines (one maxed stat by level 8) and follows the roleplaying guidelines (he has a hobby and grabbed proficiency in the appropriate tool).

Also, did you notice that the same people who complain about a lack of set DCs in the PHB are also the people complaining about these particular set DCs?

[Easy_Lee]

I forgot to mention that, but yup!

This character follows the optimization guidelines (one maxed stat by level 8) and follows the roleplaying guidelines (he has a hobby and grabbed proficiency in the appropriate tool).

Also, did you notice that the same people who complain about a lack of set DCs in the PHB are also the people complaining about these particular set DCs?

Heh, I'll assume that was partially directed at me. I happen to like set DCs for general tasks like climbing a rough wall or not slipping on an icy floor. Even if those DCs are unreasonable, at least I can plan for them.

The main reason these are bad is because they're inconsistent. Which is the point. The second reason why they're bad is because some of them are very stupid, such as needing to pass a check to bribe a guard, when the guard just asked for a bribe.

[IShouldntBehere]

Heh, I'll assume that was partially directed at me. I happen to like set DCs for general tasks like climbing a rough wall or not slipping on an icy floor. Even if those DCs are unreasonable, at least I can plan for them.

The main reason these are bad is because they're inconsistent. Which is the point. The second reason why they're bad is because some of them are very stupid, such as needing to pass a check to bribe a guard, when the guard just asked for a bribe.

The list doesn't give us a bunch of information. This might be a perfectly reasonable check depending how the book frames it. Assume the guard will take any amount over 3 gold, but would love 5 gold, and will be insulted to the point of turning against you for 1 or less gold. Without any checks we might see it play out:

"The Guard asks for a bribe"
"I give him 1 gold"
"He laughs, then scowls angrily. Insulted he loudly declares "You're under arrest for trying to bribe a guard!"

"The Guard asks for a bribe"
"I give him 10 gold"
"He laughs, with a giant ***-eating grin on your face, he lets you pass. You hear him chuckling more as you walk by".

"The Guard asks for a bribe"
"I give him 4 gold"
"He lets you through!"

If we introduce a check:

"The Guard asks for a bribe. Make a check, DC 12"
*rolls* - 15
"For a guy like this, he'll do it for 3 gold but probably no less. 5 will really cinch you as his favorite "Customer"

"The Guard asks for a bribe. Make a check, DC 12"
*rolls" - 4?
"This guys a chump. Anything more than a gold is a total rip off, he'd be lucky to get a few silvers from you"

We can see that in the second situation the "Incorrect Bribe" problem is still possible, but it stems from a failure on the character's part to know enough about guards & proper bribes (a check) rather OOC guessing. A check forces the character to be the one making the bribe, rather than the player.

[mgshamster]

Heh, I'll assume that was partially directed at me. I happen to like set DCs for general tasks like climbing a rough wall or not slipping on an icy floor. Even if those DCs are unreasonable, at least I can plan for them.

The main reason these are bad is because they're inconsistent. Which is the point. The second reason why they're bad is because some of them are very stupid, such as needing to pass a check to bribe a guard, when the guard just asked for a bribe.

Partially, yes, but you're not the only one.

As for the bribe check - again we have the issue of assuming fault without all the information.

This is another Out of the Abyss encounter set to be somewhere between levels 4-7. As you come up to the city gates of the Duergar (a highly suspicious race that's also slightly mad due to the demonic influence of a demonic cult in the times when demon lords are roaming the underdark) you get stopped. The guards questions your business and decide if you're worth enslaving, allowed in, or turned away (this is determined by a persuasion or intimidation check; DC 15; fail by 5 or more and they may try to arrest and enslave you).

If you're not arrested then and there, then the guard captain comes out and tries to extract a bribe from you.

A DC 12 wisdom check let's you notice that he's particularly eying any drow weapons you have, and your weapons in general. If you bribe him with a worthy weapon, you get a free pass. If you bribe with with anything else, then you have to make a DC 13 persuasion check to bribe him.

So the check is only for if you try to bribe him with something he's not particularly interested in. He wants a worthy weapon, and there's a check to let you know that is what he wants.

Additionally, the NPCs traveling with you let you know that it's extremely rare to see a captain so corrupt, especially with the Duergar. This gives the PCs the option to make a scene about the corrupt captain to try to get him arrested, and they can either use the distraction to get in or hope that revealing the corruption will put them in good graces with the authorities in the city, depending on how it is roleplayed and how the GM is running the city.

So what we have here is people/posters who are predisposing themselves to be biased against the game, given incomplete information, and then decide to act on their bias instead of determining if the information they were given was accurate or not.

So far, all the major criticisms of the DCs in this thread have been addressed and shown not to be valid when the details are examined. Do you think that's enough for you to set aside your bias and actually examine the rest of them, or are you going to decide to ignore all of this and continue to rail about how stupid they are?

[Easy_Lee]

Partially, yes, but you're not the only one.

As for the bribe check - again we have the issue of assuming fault without all the information.

This is another Out of the Abyss encounter set to be somewhere between levels 4-7. As you come up to the city gates of the Duergar (a highly suspicious race that's also slightly mad due to the demonic influence of a demonic cult in the times when demon lords are roaming the underdark) you get stopped. The guards questions your business and decide if you're worth enslaving, allowed in, or turned away (this is determined by a persuasion or intimidation check; DC 15; fail by 5 or more and they may try to arrest and enslave you).

If you're not arrested then and there, then the guard captain comes out and tries to extract a bribe from you.

A DC 12 wisdom check let's you notice that he's particularly eying any drow weapons you have, and your weapons in general. If you bribe him with a worthy weapon, you get a free pass. If you bribe with with anything else, then you have to make a DC 13 persuasion check to bribe him.

So the check is only for if you try to bribe him with something he's not particularly interested in. He wants a worthy weapon, and there's a check to let you know that is what he wants.

Additionally, the NPCs traveling with you let you know that it's extremely rare to see a captain so corrupt, especially with the Duergar. This gives the PCs the option to make a scene about the corrupt captain to try to get him arrested, and they can either use the distraction to get in or hope that revealing the corruption will put them in good graces with the authorities in the city, depending on how it is roleplayed and how the GM is running the city.

So what we have here is people/posters who are predisposing themselves to be biased against the game, given incomplete information, and then decide to act on their bias instead of determining if the information they were given was accurate or not.

So far, all the major criticisms of the DCs in this thread have been addressed and shown not to be valid when the details are examined. Do you think that's enough for you to set aside your bias and actually examine the rest of them, or are you going to decide to ignore all of this and continue to rail about how stupid they are?

If the guard was expecting to be bribed with a weapon, that makes even less sense than asking for a DC to determine how much of a bribe he wants. Seems to me he would just ask for more until it was sufficient. But a weapon? That's just weird. If the guard was corrupt, he'd just make a case to confiscate everyone's weapons.

But since you gave me the choice of either agreeing with you or just continuing to rail and be biased, I think I'll just continue to rail and be biased.

Asking for different numbers to do the same thing in different campaigns in the same game world is ****ing stupid. Don't give me any of that "this situation vs that situation" nonsense. If it has to be explained to the flabbergasted player, it's stupid and a waste of game time. Just tell players how difficult basic stuff is, so they can plan their characters.

[mgshamster]

If the guard was expecting to be bribed with a weapon, that makes even less sense than asking for a DC to determine how much of a bribe he wants. Seems to me he would just ask for more until it was sufficient. But a weapon? That's just weird. If the guard was corrupt, he'd just make a case to confiscate everyone's weapons.

But since you gave me the choice of either agreeing with you or just continuing to rail and be biased, I think I'll just continue to rail and be biased.

Asking for different numbers to do the same thing in different campaigns in the same game world is ****ing stupid. Don't give me any of that "this situation vs that situation" nonsense. If it has to be explained to the flabbergasted player, it's stupid and a waste of game time. Just tell players how difficult basic stuff is, so they can plan their characters.

Ok. So I'll just ignore you from now on. You're reading comprehension is extremely poor, you're heavily biased, insulting, and condescending. You engage in some massive logical fallacies in your arguments - most prominently strawman arguments of anyone who disagrees with you by altering what they said to something else to make it easier for you to argue against them.

I used to think you were cool and that you had some good insights. I recognize that I was wrong, and you're actually just an ass.

[Pex]

I forgot to mention that, but yup!

This character follows the optimization guidelines (one maxed stat by level 8) and follows the roleplaying guidelines (he has a hobby and grabbed proficiency in the appropriate tool).

Also, did you notice that the same people who complain about a lack of set DCs in the PHB are also the people complaining about these particular set DCs?

The problem is with the inconsistency among the adventures for the same tasks. The only difference between that and different DMs of different campaigns having different opinions on the difficulty of the task is that the difference of opinion is between authors. In either case the ability of my character to do something has no relation to how I make the character but rather who is the DM/author.

[Easy_Lee]

The problem is with the inconsistency among the adventures for the same tasks. The only difference between that and different DMs of different campaigns having different opinions on the difficulty of the task is that the difference of opinion is between authors. In either case the ability of my character to do something has no relation to how I make the character but rather who is the DM/author.

Agreed. And the reason why this is a big deal is because many players wish to design their characters to accomplish specific tasks. Is expertise in a skill enough, or will I also need guidance for consistent results? That depends on the author; not necessarily on the task.

And of course, players are discouraged from reading the adventure ahead of time. There's no table at the front of the book listing "Standard DCs for Tasks in This Adventure", either.

In short, players really have no idea how high they'll need to roll. This actually encourages heavy optimization: if you don't know what roll you'll need, the only viable strategy is to make your roll as high as possible. Since this edition otherwise discourages optimization, the whole skills debacle doesn't fit.

[Telok]

Partially, yes, but you're not the only one.

As for the bribe check - again we have the issue of assuming fault without all the information.

You left stuff out too if I'm remembering correctly. The guy wants a fancy drow weapon which your party may not have. If the party doesn't have that particular bit of loot then you get the roll for offering anything and not offering something is an auto fail. Keeping in mind all this time that the NPC told you that he wanted a bribe.

But I'm going off memory and could be wrong. Still, if you want a three paragraph write up with quotes, page references, and your own interpretation of events then make your own spreadsheet. I'm busy writing a computer game involving lightspeed information delay. I read all the skill checks, wrote them down, lined them up side by side and came to my decision. I think that WotC has no idea what should be easy or hard and expects DMs to make up most of the skill system as they go along, which is reflected by different professional writers and WotC employees assigning different skill DCs to similar or identical tasks in an inconsistent manner.

[Easy_Lee]

I think that WotC has no idea what should be easy or hard and expects DMs to make up most of the skill system as they go along, which is reflected by different professional writers and WotC employees assigning different skill DCs to similar or identical tasks in an inconsistent manner.

From my experience, particularly with AL, I agree with this. As I've said before, there's a simple fix. If DMs provide a list of DCs for common checks to their players, DCs their characters have probably encountered before, then that gives players some basis for their characters' capabilities. This list could also be at the front of campaign books, to assist with AL.

[IShouldntBehere]

You left stuff out too if I'm remembering correctly. The guy wants a fancy drow weapon which your party may not have. If the party doesn't have that particular bit of loot then you get the roll for offering anything and not offering something is an auto fail. Keeping in mind all this time that the NPC told you that he wanted a bribe.

But I'm going off memory and could be wrong. Still, if you want a three paragraph write up with quotes, page references, and your own interpretation of events then make your own spreadsheet. I'm busy writing a computer game involving lightspeed information delay. I read all the skill checks, wrote them down, lined them up side by side and came to my decision. I think that WotC has no idea what should be easy or hard and expects DMs to make up most of the skill system as they go along, which is reflected by different professional writers and WotC employees assigning different skill DCs to similar or identical tasks in an inconsistent manner.

You don't need a spreadsheet to tell you this, it's one of the primary design features of the game. The skill system is intentionally open-ended with the expectation the DM provide DCs as content, rather than mechanics. Since Adventure Paths are just content collections with the author basically doing half the job of the DM, it's obvious different authors with different styles will set different DCs.

Why would WotC create an official set of skill DCs 3.P style only to leave them out of the game and hide them like easter eggs for people to find by handing out writing imperatives to authors working on separate adventure path products? It's nonsensical. Of course there isn't anything to glean from analyzing the Adventure Path DCs as a collective if there was some kind official stance they would have released it officially.

If you're simply looking for an external authority with some backing, you could perhaps look at each author in isolation. If one has a consistent style you like, perhaps they could serve as model?

[Easy_Lee]

You don't need a spreadsheet to tell you this, it's one of the primary design features of the game. The skill system is intentionally open-ended with the expectation the DM provide DCs as content, rather than mechanics. Since Adventure Paths are just content collections with the author basically doing half the job of the DM, it's obvious different authors with different styles will set different DCs.

If this really their design intent, then why do the published adventures have DCs at all? Shouldn't the DM be providing that as content?

[georgie_leech]

If this really their design intent, then why do the published adventures have DCs at all? Shouldn't the DM be providing that as content?

Same reason they include NPC's of varying quality when that's also part of the DMing process. The whole point of an adventure path is to provide content the DM doesn't have to make.

[IShouldntBehere]

If this really their design intent, then why do the published adventures have DCs at all? Shouldn't the DM be providing that as content?

Not at all. If DMs are supposed to come up with the Scenario, NPCs & Game World why are they selling all those in adventure paths & setting guides? When you buy an adventure path you're paying an author to do much of the DMs prep work. This means coming up with the scenario, providing maps, providing NPCs and yes providing DCs.

Just like one DM may vary from another, authors well naturally vary from each other as well. We can expect that all the same restrictions they put on DMs they'll put on Adventure Path writers. So if DMs in 5e get open-ended DCs they have to fill in themselves, so to are Adventure Path writers expected to fill in their own DCs. Just like if it were 3.P content, Adventure Path writers would be generally expected to follow the tables and guidelines that game provides, just as DMs are generally expected to do so.

When you buy an Adventure Path you're effectively buying the DM service of providing content. Since DCs are content you're buying those as a part of that same service too.

[mgshamster]

You left stuff out too if I'm remembering correctly. The guy wants a fancy drow weapon which your party may not have. If the party doesn't have that particular bit of loot then you get the roll for offering anything and not offering something is an auto fail. Keeping in mind all this time that the NPC told you that he wanted a bribe.

It doesn't specify fancy, it just says it has to be worthy enough for the NPC, which is a DM call. It can be drow or magical or something else. If your party just arrived at gracklstugh straight from Velkynvelve and they didn't steal any drow weapons on the way out and haven't done any of the optional mini-quests in chapter 2 yet, then there's a good possibility they won't hav anything. If they're arriving in Gracklstugh at level 7 after completing the other three major cities and completing all the mini-quests in chapter 2, then it's much more likely they'll have something.

My own players were the former of those two when they went through this. They took an entirely different approach and used the knowledge that it's very rare for a guard to be this corrupt - and they tried to shame him for asking for a bribe and caring about ornamental things (something that is very against Deurgar culture).


But I'm going off memory and could be wrong. Still, if you want a three paragraph write up with quotes, page references, and your own interpretation of events then make your own spreadsheet. I'm busy writing a computer game involving lightspeed information delay. I read all the skill checks, wrote them down, lined them up side by side and came to my decision. I think that WotC has no idea what should be easy or hard and expects DMs to make up most of the skill system as they go along, which is reflected by different professional writers and WotC employees assigning different skill DCs to similar or identical tasks in an inconsistent manner.

It's kind of hypocritical to get mad at me for critiquing your work that's critiquing someone else's work. If you don't want people to critique your work, maybe focus on work that doesn't involve critiquing someone else's work?

[Pex]

You don't need a spreadsheet to tell you this, it's one of the primary design features of the game. The skill system is intentionally open-ended with the expectation the DM provide DCs as content, rather than mechanics. Since Adventure Paths are just content collections with the author basically doing half the job of the DM, it's obvious different authors with different styles will set different DCs.

Why would WotC create an official set of skill DCs 3.P style only to leave them out of the game and hide them like easter eggs for people to find by handing out writing imperatives to authors working on separate adventure path products? It's nonsensical. Of course there isn't anything to glean from analyzing the Adventure Path DCs as a collective if there was some kind official stance they would have released it officially.

If you're simply looking for an external authority with some backing, you could perhaps look at each author in isolation. If one has a consistent style you like, perhaps they could serve as model?

That's the problem. We know it was an on purpose design choice. We're saying that design was a poor decision to make in the first place.


Same reason they include NPC's of varying quality when that's also part of the DMing process. The whole point of an adventure path is to provide content the DM doesn't have to make.

Then they could have had example DCs of various tasks in the PHB to begin with so that the DM doesn't have to make it up even when running their own adventures instead of published modules.


Not at all. If DMs are supposed to come up with the Scenario, NPCs & Game World why are they selling all those in adventure paths & setting guides? When you buy an adventure path you're paying an author to do much of the DMs prep work. This means coming up with the scenario, providing maps, providing NPCs and yes providing DCs.

Just like one DM may vary from another, authors well naturally vary from each other as well. We can expect that all the same restrictions they put on DMs they'll put on Adventure Path writers. So if DMs in 5e get open-ended DCs they have to fill in themselves, so to are Adventure Path writers expected to fill in their own DCs. Just like if it were 3.P content, Adventure Path writers would be generally expected to follow the tables and guidelines that game provides, just as DMs are generally expected to do so.

When you buy an Adventure Path you're effectively buying the DM service of providing content. Since DCs are content you're buying those as a part of that same service too.

And I buy the core rule book with the expectation it would give me the rules and setting guides I need instead of telling me I can do whatever. I could already do whatever. I never needed the rules to tell me that.

[IShouldntBehere]

That's the problem. We know it was an on purpose design choice. We're saying that design was a poor decision to make in the first place.

While we've disagree in the past on that point, this particular post is not on the merits of an open vs closed system. It's just stating that if it was a closed system they'd have stated that up front. They wouldn't have handed sheets of official DCs in sceret for the eyes of adventure paths writers only. The AP writers had to go off what we go off of and so an effort to collect and look at the APs to try and discover what the "Skill system thinks is medium/easy/hard" is just obviously doomed from the start. It's digging around for needle in a haystack when the haystack is clearly labeled: "No needles here. Seriously, we were really careful about that".

No matter if you think open DCs are good idea or bad idea, looking in the APs expecting to find a closed system hidden behind the veil is just isn't sensible.



And I buy the core rule book with the expectation it would give me the rules and setting guides I need instead of telling me I can do whatever. I could already do whatever. I never needed the rules to tell me that.

That sucks man. Sorry you got a product that doesn't work for you. Buyer Beware and all that. Not every product can be a winner for everyone. I know of several games with rigidly defined resolutions if that's what you're into. I'd be happy to make some suggestions if you have some other guidance on what you what in terms of setting, mechanics complexity and general design.

[Vogonjeltz]

Also, did you notice that the same people who complain about a lack of set DCs in the PHB are also the people complaining about these particular set DCs?

Which is odd, because in both cases the complaints are not supported by the purported evidence.

There are established rules for setting DCs and the DCs in the published modules all appear to adhere to those rules.


The main reason these are bad is because they're inconsistent. Which is the point. The second reason why they're bad is because some of them are very stupid, such as needing to pass a check to bribe a guard, when the guard just asked for a bribe.

Such is the claim, however the examples given purporting to show inconsistency have failed to hold up to scrutiny.

If the bribe example is the one I'm thinking of (iirc from Out of the Abyss) the guard has given signals that suggest they could be bribed, but the actual personality of the guard is such that outright offering a bribe would be considered offensive, requiring the check to circumnavigate the treacherous waters of human (drow) interaction.

So it's not nearly as simple as you are boiling it down to, there is important nuance there.

However, if that's not the example you're referencing, can you provide the book and page number so that we can see for ourselves?


This is another Out of the Abyss encounter set to be somewhere between levels 4-7. As you come up to the city gates of the Duergar (a highly suspicious race that's also slightly mad due to the demonic influence of a demonic cult in the times when demon lords are roaming the underdark) you get stopped. The guards questions your business and decide if you're worth enslaving, allowed in, or turned away (this is determined by a persuasion or intimidation check; DC 15; fail by 5 or more and they may try to arrest and enslave you).

Aha! I was (mostly) correct (duegar, not drow, doh!).


The problem is with the inconsistency among the adventures for the same tasks.

This has been stated but not proven. Telok referenced climb checks, but those DCs were shown to be comparable for the given situations in context (i.e. handholds is consistently DC 10)

Then there was the complaint about gaming skill, but that falls well within the bounds of what a character of similar power to the PCs could have as a bonus (and as a Wizard likely would have).

Can you provide even one specific case example that hasn't been distorted by being taken out of context and which shows actual discrepancy?


Still, if you want a three paragraph write up with quotes, page references, and your own interpretation of events then make your own spreadsheet.

I appreciate your attempted effort, but I'd just prefer you not provide incomplete and thus misleading information. It doesn't indicate what books or page numbers the checks supposedly came from, and once they were identified they didn't actually say what you claimed in your annotations. A document with misleading information is worse than having no document at all.

[mgshamster]

If the bribe example is the one I'm thinking of (iirc from Out of the Abyss) the guard has given signals that suggest they could be bribed, but the actual personality of the guard is such that outright offering a bribe would be considered offensive, requiring the check to circumnavigate the treacherous waters of human (drow) interaction.

So it's not nearly as simple as you are boiling it down to, there is important nuance there.

However, if that's not the example you're referencing, can you provide the book and page number so that we can see for ourselves?



Aha! I was (mostly) correct (duegar, not drow, doh!).

Also note that in the case of the bribe, the check is only for if you don't give the guard a worthy weapon.

If you give the guard a worthy weapon, there is no check. No roll. Nothing. It's an automatic success.

That's something that was ignored in the original analysis and continued to be ignored despite it being posted in this thread.

People are complaining/laughing that you have to roll a persuasion check to bribe a guard asking for a bribe without recognizing that the check is only for trying to bribe the guard with something other than what the guard wants.

Let's look at some examples.

The guard mentions/hints that he wants a bribe...

The guard looks at the tasty crumpet you have in your hand, smacking his lips. He says, "That looks mighty delicious."
I bribe him with an expensive pair of fine boots.

The guard intently watches the gold coin you're flipping in your hand.
I bribe him with a a magic mace.

The guard intently inspects your weapons, taking particular note of the well crafted drow dagger.
I bribe him with an expensive ruby gem.

In all of these cases, you'd expect a check to bribe someone with something other than what they want. If you give them what they want, no check. If you give them something else, a check is needed.

If you succeed: 1) I do need a new pair of boots; Let me walk around the corner to put them on. 2) That's a nice mace, I'll add it to my belt. 3) With this gem, I could buy a nice weapon.

If they fail: 1) What the heck am I going to do with this? I can't eat leather! 2) How am I going to explain to my boss where I got a three foot frickin magic mace from? I can't pocket that! 3) A red rock? What the hell do you think I'm going to do with that?!

Those laughing at the idea of a check to bribe a guard asking for a bribe apparently think that *any* bribe will do, regardless of what the guard wants.

[Easy_Lee]

This thread is going in circles. One camp likes an open ended system because the DM should set whatever DCs he wants and no one should ever challenge him on it. The other camp likes some DCs to be set so they can plan their characters appropriately. It's clear which is better for the health of the game.

My detractors are suffering from the backfire effect: when your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Having some known DCs ahead of time is, objectively, better for the players. There are more players in a typical game than DMs. The DM is not superior to his players, nor do a few set DCs cramp his style in any meaningful way. Furthermore, having a few set DCs provides some consistency between tables.

Is the above not enough for you? If not, I suspect you'll only reaffirm your belief that an open system with no set DCs is the way to go.

[IShouldntBehere]

This thread is going in circles. One camp likes an open ended system because the DM should set whatever DCs he wants and no one should ever challenge him on it. The other camp likes some DCs to be set so they can plan their characters appropriately. It's clear which is better for the health of the game.

My detractors are suffering from the backfire effect: when your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Having some known DCs ahead of time is, objectively, better for the players. There are more players in a typical game than DMs. The DM is not superior to his players, nor do a few set DCs cramp his style in any meaningful way. Furthermore, having a few set DCs provides some consistency between tables.

Is the above not enough for you? If not, I suspect you'll only reaffirm your belief that an open system with no set DCs is the way to go.

This point can be handled simply enough:

To readers of this thread: Is anyone reading this post that is primarily a player but prefers an open DC system?

We need only one person to answer "Yes" to disprove your hypothesis. Since if you are correct that "objectively" all players are better off with closed DCs, there can exist no player that prefers open DCs.

Therefore if anyone answers "Yes" to the question: We can conclude there exists at least one player that prefers open DCs. This would disprove the claim that knowing DCs ahead of time is objectively better for all players.


EDIT: Ah uh.. just FYI. My deepest convictions have nothing to do with Tabletop RPGs. The idea that they would for anyone is kind of distributing.

[mgshamster]

This point can be handled simply enough:

To readers of this thread: Is anyone reading this post that is primarily a player but prefers an open DC system?

We need only one person to answer "Yes" to disprove your hypothesis. Since if you are correct that "objectively" all players are better off with closed DCs, there can exist no player that prefers open DCs.

Therefore if anyone answers "Yes" to the question: We can conclude there exists at least one player that prefers open DCs. This would disprove the claim that knowing DCs ahead of time is objectively better for all players.

I asked my players. They all either like the system as is or don't care one way or the other. More specifically, the player that didn't care also doesn't care which system we play at all, as long as he has fun and can hang out with the group.

One player even called it a strawman and came up with his own strawman argument "from the other side."

Here's what he wrote:

"The straw man is strong with that one.

Let's see what that sounds like from the other side:

One camps likes an open ended system because not every situation is similar and every gaming group has different opinions of how a campaign can be the most cinematically thrilling. The other camp wants their DCs told to them because they value their character builds over enjoying the game with their friends and they hate it when the system doesn't agree with their strict worldviews. It's clear which is better for the health of the game."

[Easy_Lee]

This point can be handled simply enough:

To readers of this thread: Is anyone reading this post that is primarily a player but prefers an open DC system?

We need only one person to answer "Yes" to disprove your hypothesis. Since if you are correct that "objectively" all players are better off with closed DCs, there can exist no player that prefers open DCs.

Therefore if anyone answers "Yes" to the question: We can conclude there exists at least one player that prefers open DCs. This would disprove the claim that knowing DCs ahead of time is objectively better for all players.

This isn't a matter of opinion. More information is always better than less, because it enables better decision making. That's an objective truth. You can argue all you want, but on that particular point, you're arguing against a fact.

Players who prefer less information are players who like to run around blind. They can still run around blind with slightly more information, without it affecting them, while people who actually want to play intelligently will be better off.

And if you're a DM who likes for your players to run around blind, and can't be arsed to tell them you aren't using the standard DCs, then I question whether you should be a DM at all.

[Tanarii]

While we've disagree in the past on that point, this particular post is not on the merits of an open vs closed system. It's just stating that if it was a closed system they'd have stated that up front. They wouldn't have handed sheets of official DCs in sceret for the eyes of adventure paths writers only. The AP writers had to go off what we go off of and so an effort to collect and look at the APs to try and discover what the "Skill system thinks is medium/easy/hard" is just obviously doomed from the start. It's digging around for needle in a haystack when the haystack is clearly labeled: "No needles here. Seriously, we were really careful about that".

No matter if you think open DCs are good idea or bad idea, looking in the APs expecting to find a closed system hidden behind the veil is just isn't sensible. Woah. That's a really good point. It's effectively taking several somethings that are built using a system intentionally flexible enough to allow variation, and then saying 'hah look there is variation told you so'. And then claiming it's bad. That's circular.

The badness or goodness (sorry my brain farted) of more rigidly defined vs more loosely defined DCs isn't dependent on proof of the existence of variation. That's a given in a more loosely defined system. What's good or bad about it is if a given person considers either both sufficient for allowing DM flexibility to define resolution of a non-rigid game world, while also giving players sufficiently rigid information to make meaningful in-game chooses.

Personally, both as a DM and as a player, I love it he 5e system. With two caveats: players should have some general sense of the difficulty of a task (ie Easy, Medium, Hard); the DM should follow the guidelines for things not always requiring checks, and most checks being Easy, Medium or Hard.

As long as those two things are occurring, a player can not only make meaningful choices, she actually has more information about chance of success or failure on things that can fail than in real life.

[IShouldntBehere]

This isn't a matter of opinion. More information is always better than less, because it enables better decision making. That's an objective truth. You can argue all you want, but on that particular point, you're arguing against a fact.

Players who prefer less information are players who like to run around blind. They can still run around blind with slightly more information, without it affecting them, while people who actually want to play intelligently will be better off.


You can't say "It isn't a matter of an opinion. More information is better than less" in the same breath you acknowledge there are "Players who prefer less information". This is because to be able to prefer one thing or another you must be dealing with traits that can be subjectively interpreted. One cannot for example, prefer their way to being exempt from the law of gravity because that's actually an objective force. One can prefer their way into finding open-DCs to be better or worse (for you, obviously worse). This reveals "More information is always better than less, because it enables better decision making." as the value judgement it is rather than "objective fact" you claim it to be.

If way one is "Objectively" better than the other, than none can disagree and prefer something else because the non-preference is objective. To use your phrasing "It's not a matter of opinion".

[Easy_Lee]

You can't say "It isn't a matter of an opinion. More information is better than less" in the same breath you acknowledge there are "Players who prefer less information". This is because to be able to prefer one thing or another you must be dealing with traits that can be subjectively interpreted. One cannot for example, prefer their way to being exempt from the law of gravity because that's actually an objective force. One can prefer their way into finding open-DCs to be better or worse (for you, obviously worse). This reveals "More information is always better than less, because it enables better decision making." as the value judgement it is rather than "objective fact" you claim it to be.

If way one is "Objectively" better than the other, than none can disagree and prefer something else because the non-preference is objective. To use your phrasing "It's not a matter of opinion".

Perhaps I should be more clear. More information is better than less for the purpose of decision making. Some players don't want to make decisions. My point is that those players are no worse off in a system like I describe; one which is better for decision makers and doesn't impede DMs.

[mgshamster]

Re: More information is always better.

Regardless of whether more information is better *in this case,* more information is not always better universally. We cannot state that as an objective fact. Heck, there's even research on it (as one of my players just sent me: Additional information does not yield higher returns (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268106001120)).

In genera, false information is bad when trying to determine the truth (False information is good when trying to hide the truth). When searching for the truth, we don't want more false information, we want less.

Meaningless information can add to the noise when looking for a specific signal. Therefore, when trying to discover something, we want to minimize the information of noisy components. This is prominent in instrumental analysis where you want to minimize electronic noise in order to better see a signal for the thing you're measuring. More information is not better, in this case.

These examples help illuminate an issue that's been pervasive in this thread and others - people are making blanket statements that aren't necessarily true when looked at in detail, and then deriving conclusions based on the blanket statements. Those conclusions may be right or wrong, but they don't necessarily follow the evidence given. In some of the cases, the conclusions are flat out false.

[georgie_leech]

Perhaps I should be more clear. More information is better than less for the purpose of decision making. Some players don't want to make decisions. My point is that those players are no worse off in a system like I describe; one which is better for decision makers and doesn't impede DMs.

Not so. Open DC's impede OOC decisions like character building, but don't hurt in-character decisions. Indeed, for some it could even help with immersion. No one in real life has perfect information of their capabilities ahead of time without careful planning, which isn't often possible in a dangerous environment. By restricting DC information until the act in question comes up (e.g. climbing a moldy rope slick with... mold, while trying to hurry because a Giant is just around the corner), it can help some players make decisions as their character would, as there is less information disparity between in and out of character. To characterize everyone that prefers open DC's as not wanting to make decisions is just a strawman.

EDIT @mgshamster: While I'm completely on board with false and meaningless information not being good, I'm not sure either description could really be applied to rule-based DC's. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that the AC listed in, say, the Hobgoblin stat block is bad because it could be different if they wear different armor than the default. :smallwink:

[IShouldntBehere]

Perhaps I should be more clear. More information is better than less for the purpose of decision making. Some players don't want to make decisions. My point is that those players are no worse off in a system like I describe; one which is better for decision makers and doesn't impede DMs.

Again you're making value judgement here. YOU like making decisions based on mathematical anlysis of as much game-state information as possible. That is a preference. So do some other people, you are not alone in your preference. However your preference is not universal, it is not some objective truth.

A player might prefer to not know DCs because they value a more immersive experience. Being told

"The lock is rusty, and the traps are hair trigger. One misstep could probably turn bad this is going to take all your skill and more than a fair bit of luck to get right"

might preferable to being told

"It's a well made lock DC[20]. The lock is rusty (degraded DC+2) and the traps are hair trigger (DC +2, -1 trap danger). Total DC 24, danger level 4 trap"


A player might find lots of rules hard to digest and frustrating. These players get frustrated when they feel like they "Should" know all the rules because hey they are in the book, but lists are just overwhelming.

A player might just have a particular quirk "Never tell me the odds" quirk.

I'm sure there are tons of other reasons I'm not listing here, that I couldn't even think of because I've just haven't been exposed to those kinds of players yet.

All these players want to make decisions, they just don't want to make decisions in the same way you make them. Your way is better only for players who want to make decisions based of mathematical analysis of the game framework. This is fine but it is not universally true. It is a simple preference. It is no more or less valid than any other.

What you are asking for is fine. What you like is fine. However you're not speaking to some grand objective truth. The only thing objective here is that set DCs are better for people who prefer set DCs, which isn't everybody nor is it all players, nor is it all players who like making decisions.


I can sit here with all my preferences and bias and go "Yeah the way Easy_Lee likes things it totally valid. It would make for a perfectly enjoyable game, particularly for those that share his views on things. That said I wouldn't like it as much as I like the current 5e"

You can't seem to do the same. Folks who don't share your preferences aren't just folks who like a different kind of game for different reasons. They're "objectively wrong" for not sharing your tastes.

[mgshamster]

EDIT @mgshamster: While I'm completely on board with false and meaningless information not being good, I'm not sure either description could really be applied to rule-based DC's. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that the AC listed in, say, the Hobgoblin stat block is bad because it could be different if they wear different armor than the default. :smallwink:

Fair.

I did say that while it may not apply in this particular case. I was just trying to be clear in the overarching case of "more information is always better and it's an objective fact that no one can argue with."

This particular case is an ongoing argument with neither side being settled yet. :)

[georgie_leech]

Fair.

I did say that while it may not apply in this particular case. I was just trying to be clear in the overarching case of "more information is always better and it's an objective fact that no one can argue with."

This particular case is an ongoing argument with neither side being settled yet. :)

True enough. It's definitely something that matches my experience. I've seen some staggering idiocy perpetrated by people who know just enough to think they know what they're doing, after all. :smallbiggrin:

I think what's less disagreeable is 'sufficient (true) information is better than insufficient information.' Where we seem to disagree with Easy is where the line between the two for players. We seem to think the DC guidelines are sufficient, him less so. In a similar vein, I actually think the DMG guidelines are insufficient for a new DM, and would rather there be more text explaining how to use the strengths of this system (flexibility) and how to mitigate or avoid its weaknesses (proper communication, the importance of reflecting theme with DC's, etc.). As usual, D&D seems to be assuming a certain familiarity with the system as a prerequisite, which I'm always frustrated by.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't have a preference for knowing all of the information. I have a preference for knowing what my character knows. If my character has a skill, then he knows how to use that skill. He may not know everything he can do with that skill, but he does know some things that he can do well.

In 5e, I don't know the above. My character does, but I don't. When I first read the 5e PHB, I thought I knew what the skills did and how hard things were to do. But I didn't, because not everyone agrees with my idea of what the world looks like.

And you know what? That's fine. But we need to agree at some point in order to have a functioning collaborative experience. Just like how, in order to debate whether a thing is good or bad, we have to agree on what it is that we're talking about.

That means that, sooner than later, I need to know what my DM's ideas of easy, moderate, and hard are as they pertain to my skills. 5e offers no means for DMs to easily convey this information. You just have to play with your DM and figure him out over time. And doing that feels a lot more meta to me than just looking at some numbers and judging my abilities accordingly. That's one of the things that pushed me away from playing 5e and toward DMing it only.

Regarding preference for less or more mathematical information, let me put that one to bed. Numbers are our only insight into the worlds in which we play. We see numbers. Our characters see something else. But they understand the same thing that we do when we read the numbers.

This is not about mathematics. I really wish people would wise up and put that foolish "numbers are bad!" argument in a grave, where it belongs.

[Tanarii]

Perhaps I should be more clear. More information is better than less for the purpose of decision making. Some players don't want to make decisions. My point is that those players are no worse off in a system like I describe; one which is better for decision makers and doesn't impede DMs.
This is (somewhat) true. Up to a point. Having more information about probabilities of success than real life can, on a certain level, break verisimilitude. That said, your point is more or less correct.

However, it isn't about more information for the player vs less information for the player in a vacuum. The issue is about sufficient flexibility for the DM to map the resolution system to what is inherently an in-game world of un-rigid probabilities vs sufficient information for the player.

In other words, if we define a basic "a slippery wall is DC X" and "swimming in rough water is DC Y" we are making an incorrect assumption that slippery wall situations, or all swimming in rough water situations, are identical. Also note that in 5e checks aren't supposed to be required for a mundane basic task. Only exceptional ones. So there is no unexceptional situation to even use as a 'baseline' for DCs.

Players know their chance of success in a variety of exceptional circumstances: Easy, Medium, Hard, or even harder. As long as the character can determine the approximate difficulty of the task (and IMO the DM absolutely should provide it when it's reasonable to assume they can), then the player actually has MORE information about their chance of succeeding in this exceptional (ie chance of failure) task that we would in the real world. So IMO it's still more than sufficient to make meaningful choices, while giving DMs much more flexibility in setting the difficulty of any given exceptional task than a largely predefined DC system would.

Edit: If the system assumed, like 3e, that even unexceptional tasks required a resolution roll, I'd agree with you. And that the baseline DCs should be much MUCH lower. But for a system that only does resolution for exceptional tasks like 5e, which are far harder by definition to define in advance, I don't agree with your stance.

[georgie_leech]

-snip-


Alternatively, you could, you know, sit down ahead of time with the DM and ask about the things you want your character to be able to do effectively. 'Sure,' they might say, 'this campaign is assuming a heroic standard so being able to pull off these physical feats won't be a challenge.' Or maybe 'well, this is a grim and horror-esque adventure, so while you can have a better chance to figure things out, it's not really appropriate to have a character that can rattle off the strengths and weaknesses of any given monster on sight.' It's fine to prefer being able to make these decisions independent of the DM, so you don't need to act like players have absolutely no way of obtaining any insight into their DM's decisions ahead of time.

[Easy_Lee]

Alternatively, you could, you know, sit down ahead of time with the DM and ask about the things you want your character to be able to effectively. 'Sure,' they might say, 'this campaign is assuming a heroic standard so being able to pull off these physical feats won't be a challenge.' Or maybe 'well, this is a grim and horror-esque adventure, so while you can have a better chance to figure things out, it's not really appropriate to have a character that can rattle off the strengths and weaknesses of any given monster on sight.' It's fine to prefer being able to make these decisions independent of the DM, so you don't need to act like players have absolutely no way of obtaining any insight into their DM's decisions ahead of time.

Not possible in AL, some DMs won't do this, and 5e offers no vehicle for this conversation nor any indication that it needs to be had.

[georgie_leech]

Not possible in AL, some DMs won't do this, and 5e offers no vehicle for this conversation nor any indication that it needs to be had.

Agreed, 5e is terrible at teaching unexperienced DM's how to communicate skills effectively. Agreed, 5e would be better if it had better guidance. Agreed, a DM or player won't necessarily know or be able to have this conversation. Disagreed, there's no way to have this conversation because there are no rules for it.

[IShouldntBehere]

That means that, sooner than later, I need to know what my DM's ideas of easy, moderate, and hard are as they pertain to my skills. 5e offers no means for DMs to easily convey this information.
.



Player: So. I enter the room, what do I see.
DM: You see a pair of guards playing cards on a small table to the right. You spot that chest you've heard so much about in the back of the room to to the left, a large canopy beds dominates the center of the room. The rest is filled with stacks and stacks of books, boxes and misc junk.
Player: Does it look like I can sneak past these guys?
DM: They're hardly playing attention and the guy on the left is drunk. Getting past these guys would be literally child's play, seriously they don't like they could beat a kid at hide-and-seek.
Player: Ok I go for the chest. 9. On my Stealth check.
DM: You almost manage to knock over a stack of books on your way there, but don't. You make it the chest undetected.
Player: I take out my Tools and size this thing up.
DM: Mr. Kerbald's reputation as cheapskate is clearly well earned, in addition to the drunk lazy guards he seems to have opted for the cheapest lock money could buy. It's going to be trivial to open, but these locks rattle like a shivering ogre doing it quietly is going to be a challenge.
Player: 15
DM: A challenge you were clearly up to, you can see the vial inside it pulsates various colors.
Player: What the heck is this stuff?
DM: The sort of thing those egghead wizards probably care about. Roll Arcana.
Player: 10.
DM: Well it's not a simple healing potion, that's for sure. Looks like the guards just finished him their card game. With a yawn, the sober one declares to his buddy he's going to check on the chest.
Player: Big surprise there. How close by is the nearest building from the window?
DM: More than 10 feet, less than 20 feet hard to say from this angle. You think you have about an even shot at making it, maybe a bit less - depends on the wind.
Player: Yeah. Not risking that fall with whatever this thing is on me. Just the three guards right?
DM: You haven't seen any others in the building..
Player: OK. I shimmy behind the bed canopy and pull out one of my daggers.
DM: You remember the pay was only 1/2 if you make a mess.
Player: Yeah well, i'd rather make half pay then get blown up or whatever this thing is gonna do if I take a dive.

I would assert while the DM has declared no DCs here and no game terms like "Easy" "Medium" and "Hard" are being used the player is being given sufficient information to act in an informed fashion. Perhaps not as perfectly informed as they would be if they had a table printed out with every possible DC and the DM referring to the entries on that table.

However being familiar with the both the universe and the characters in question the DM has been able to generate DCs and communicate how those DCs relate to the skills of the PC. They have been able to communicate that information easily and in an a way that intuitively makes sense to both parties.

[Easy_Lee]

Agreed, 5e is terrible at teaching unexperienced DM's how to communicate skills effectively. Agreed, 5e would be better if it had better guidance. Agreed, a DM or player won't necessarily know or be able to have this conversation. Disagreed, there's no way to have this conversation because there are no rules for it.

I didn't say there was no way to have the conversation. What I said was that 5e doesn't say that you should, nor offer guidance on how to do it.

I've sugested a fill-in-the-blanks table of common-knowledge DCs, to be distributed by DMs and campaign writers before each game. That's not the only solution, but at least it would make it clear to DMs that some of their players may find this setting-information to be important.

[georgie_leech]

I didn't say there was no way to have the conversation. What I said was that 5e doesn't say that you should, nor offer guidance on how to do it.

I've sugested a fill-in-the-blanks table of common-knowledge DCs, to be distributed by DMs and campaign writers before each game. That's not the only solution, but at least it would make it clear to DMs that some of their players may find this setting-information to be important.

Then we're in agreement, WotC is, as usual, bad at properly signposting the benefits and pitfalls of their skill system. They need to do better at teaching new players and DMs how to use their system properly. Where we disagree is whether that means the system itself is a problem or not. Like anything else in these games, the system itself being good is a question of personal taste, as it largely does what it sets out to do: provide a means of resolving non-violent interactions with the world. You don't need to act like those who think that's enough to have a proper skill system (it does in my mind, albeit barely) are somehow not interested in making decisions. Honestly, the frequent assumption by WotC that new players and DMs are getting brought into the hobby by an existing good DM is a constant frustration for me too. :smallmad:

[Pex]

While we've disagree in the past on that point, this particular post is not on the merits of an open vs closed system. It's just stating that if it was a closed system they'd have stated that up front. They wouldn't have handed sheets of official DCs in sceret for the eyes of adventure paths writers only. The AP writers had to go off what we go off of and so an effort to collect and look at the APs to try and discover what the "Skill system thinks is medium/easy/hard" is just obviously doomed from the start. It's digging around for needle in a haystack when the haystack is clearly labeled: "No needles here. Seriously, we were really careful about that".

No matter if you think open DCs are good idea or bad idea, looking in the APs expecting to find a closed system hidden behind the veil is just isn't sensible.



That sucks man. Sorry you got a product that doesn't work for you. Buyer Beware and all that. Not every product can be a winner for everyone. I know of several games with rigidly defined resolutions if that's what you're into. I'd be happy to make some suggestions if you have some other guidance on what you what in terms of setting, mechanics complexity and general design.

I've already stated, in other threads perhaps, and say so repeatedly in my real life games that I prefer Pathfinder and play such. However, my gripes with 5E isn't at the point where I would hate to play it, so I play it despite my gripes. Playing and enjoying the game does not therefore mean I should never comment on my gripes about it, or are you willing to say the same thing to everyone who gripes about 3E and Pathfinder in the 3E forum?

[georgie_leech]

I've already stated, in other threads perhaps, and say so repeatedly in my real life games that I prefer Pathfinder and play such. However, my gripes with 5E isn't at the point where I would hate to play it, so I play it despite my gripes. Playing and enjoying the game does not therefore mean I should never comment on my gripes about it, or are you willing to say the same thing to everyone who gripes about 3E and Pathfinder in the 3E forum?

You can't ask that, disagreeing about the system is 90% of those threads! :smalleek:

In these sorts of threads, I at least always prefer to try and inform some theoretical reader rather than convince anyone I'm directly disagreeing with. Also nitpicking both sides about bad arguments. :smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

This isn't a matter of opinion. More information is always better than less, because it enables better decision making. That's an objective truth. You can argue all you want, but on that particular point, you're arguing against a fact.

Players who prefer less information are players who like to run around blind. They can still run around blind with slightly more information, without it affecting them, while people who actually want to play intelligently will be better off.

And if you're a DM who likes for your players to run around blind, and can't be arsed to tell them you aren't using the standard DCs, then I question whether you should be a DM at all.

I can't, and would not, argue that that isn't your opinion.

However, your claim that more information is always better has a clear counterfactual, wherein having less information is demonstrably qualitatively better: Reading (Murder) Mysteries stories/novels/etc.

Having full information in those situations undermines the very joy one might experience from reading them, ergo having more information is actively less good than having less information.

This naturally translates over into all kinds of stories, wherein knowing the outcome undermines the enjoyment of surprise, which itself undermines the value of games like D&D becuase part of the fun of the game is exploration of the unknown. Foreknowledge necessarily removes some of that value, rather than enhancing it.

However, you dodged the question previously voiced: Where is the evidence that the standard DCs for Easy/Medium/Hard tasks are not being employed?

It's not in the op's spreadsheet, and that appears to be a matter of fact, not opinion.


Perhaps I should be more clear. More information is better than less for the purpose of decision making. Some players don't want to make decisions. My point is that those players are no worse off in a system like I describe; one which is better for decision makers and doesn't impede DMs.

Except that more information stops being better for decision making when you hit the point of Information Overload, at which point additional information interferes with the ability to make a decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload


I don't have a preference for knowing all of the information. I have a preference for knowing what my character knows. If my character has a skill, then he knows how to use that skill. He may not know everything he can do with that skill, but he does know some things that he can do well.

Yeah, the characters know with training (proficiency in a skill) they can do things that are 10-30% harder than they could without that training. Basically proficiency makes tasks 1 approximately 1 step easier. By no means does that make them guaranteed to succeed, but that's always been the case because anything with a DC is, by definition, possible but uncertain.


I would assert while the DM has declared no DCs here and no game terms like "Easy" "Medium" and "Hard" are being used the player is being given sufficient information to act in an informed fashion. Perhaps not as perfectly informed as they would be if they had a table printed out with every possible DC and the DM referring to the entries on that table.

However being familiar with the both the universe and the characters in question the DM has been able to generate DCs and communicate how those DCs relate to the skills of the PC. They have been able to communicate that information easily and in an a way that intuitively makes sense to both parties.

Looks to be the case, yes.

[IShouldntBehere]

Looks to be the case, yes.

Exactly! The DM has more tools to communicate information about the game world than just numbers. Which is why it's so the claims of "It's an objective fact!" that they can't are so frustrating.

Heck you don't even words. Imagine you're playing your game normally, a game in which from time to time the DM plays music to set the stone. He's one of those multi-media geeks that has like a background ambience track of a busy tavern he plays when you're in a tavern, and a projector set up to project a tavern background on back wall. It's cheesy stuff and sometimes a bit distracting to be honest, but hey you get what he's going for usually.

As your 2nd level team is exploring a temple, you enter a room and given this in total as a description of what you see: "A figure clad in Dark Armor has their back to the door, speaking into a mirror".

At the same time he hits his little projector button which puts up a backdrop of a thing purple & black haze. The haze having faint little skull face patterns in it. Then the sound system starts playing this music (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkx3KcO7TCs). The music is a bit too loud but after a minor adjustment to the sound system, he asks what your next action is.

What conclusions can you draw now (about the NPC, not the GMs taste in video games)?
As a player what is your current thought on the power level of said figure?
Is it somebody you want to start a fight with immediately?
What *is* your next action? (assume you're on the last 2nd level character you actually played).


I'd wager most folks here kind of have a pretty clear answer in mind to those questions. If do you do... why exactly is that? I mean the DM didn't give any numbers away about AC, Attack Rolls or CR. He didn't did give any in game descriptions to allude to the power level of the guy in any particular way. "Guy in Dark Armor" is hardly a description you can use to extrapolate much about their capabilities. What about what I've described here is communicating things to the player, and what is it communicating?

[georgie_leech]

I may not have a projector, but as a proud media geek you're preaching to the choir on the music part. A good theme does a lot to communicate mood that I couldn't get across with pages of text. Plus I get to nostalgia diving to find all those old music tracks rattling around in my head somewhere that would fit that one scene perfectly :smallcool:

[Easy_Lee]

No one is arguing that good DMs can't communicate with their players. But 5e offers no guidance, no additional help on this measure. And it doesn't tell players what they need to ask, either.

If you have a good DM, it's not a problem. But if you have a good DM, like me, then nothing is a problem. If you have a bad DM in 3.5e, or 4e, or Pathfinder, there are steps you can take to mitigate the damage. Some of the best tabletop RPG stories out there are from players who thwarted evil or incompetent DMs. That's never going to happen in 5e, because a bad DM can ruin, quite literally, the entire game via DCs and rulings.

[IShouldntBehere]

No one is arguing that good DMs can't communicate with their players. But 5e offers no guidance, no additional help on this measure.

Then who was this guy?

That means that, sooner than later, I need to know what my DM's ideas of easy, moderate, and hard are as they pertain to my skills. 5e offers no means for DMs to easily convey this information. You just have to play with your DM and figure him out over time. And doing that feels a lot more meta to me than just looking at some numbers and judging my abilities accordingly. That's one of the things that pushed me away from playing 5e and toward DMing it only.

Regarding preference for less or more mathematical information, let me put that one to bed. Numbers are our only insight into the worlds in which we play. We see numbers. Our characters see something else. But they understand the same thing that we do when we read the numbers.

He clearly says that 5e offers no easy way for DMs to convey difficulty information. He also clearly says that numbers are the sole insight into the game world.

He even put the latter issue in bold, to sort of I suppose double-down on the inarguable truthiness of the matter.

EDIT: Also I think I've found some actual footage of Easy_Lee's DM running a game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGglp5I3L0

[georgie_leech]

EDIT: Also I think I've found some actual footage of Easy_Lee's DM running a game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGglp5I3L0

Really? :smallannoyed: You have a perfectly valid point and you muddy it with that? They've already said they're the DM for their groups.

[IShouldntBehere]

Really? :smallannoyed: You have a perfectly valid point and you muddy it with that? They've already said they're the DM for their groups.
A role decided on after and as a direct result of concluding 5e was far too easy a tool for DMs to use for nefarious deeds. It's been an often and directly stated part of the discussion.


I included that because Easy_Lee included this:

Some of the best tabletop RPG stories out there are from players who thwarted evil or incompetent DMs.

Can you honestly call that it dishonest characterization of Easy_Lee's representation of DMs?

[georgie_leech]

A role decided on after and as a direct result of concluding 5e was far too easy a tool for DMs to use for nefarious deeds. It's been an often and directly stated part of the discussion.


I included that because Easy_Lee included this:


Can you honestly call that it dishonest characterization of Easy_Lee's representation of DMs?

I misunderstood, I thought you were illustrating the DM for his games, rather than the DM he's been presenting, or his former DMs. If anything, that mustache isn't twirly enough to be that.

[mgshamster]

You know, I'm really curious as to what some of these "best D&D stories" are that involved players overcoming bad DMs.

Because all the best D&D stories I've ever heard and read involved a DM working with the players to make a great story.

[georgie_leech]

You know, I'm really curious as to what some of these "best D&D stories" are that involved players overcoming bad DMs.

Because all the best D&D stories I've ever heard and read involved a DM working with the players to make a great story.

They're not so much fun for the participants, but might I direct you to The SUE Files? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275152) I think that was one of the most entertaining mutiverse wreck I've ever seen.

[Easy_Lee]

I misunderstood, I thought you were illustrating the DM for his games, rather than the DM he's been presenting, or his former DMs. If anything, that mustache isn't twirly enough to be that.

First, I'm a he, not a they. But that's fine, as I don't make a big deal of pronouns.

Second, I wish I'd had a mustache-twirling, obviously evil DM. I feel like this guy would be cool to play with. The bad ones I've had have been far more mundane. One of them had a severe slur and was a MLP fan, just to give you some idea.

Nah, I'm usually able to pick my DMs a bit better than this. I also have the unfortunate position of having witnessed and heard about many AL games. That's where my bias comes from. And yes, it's a bias. I'd like to extend my permission to all of you to call me biased. I'd like to, but I don't think I can under the forum rules.

That said, as a software engineer, I tend to judge everything by the worst examples. If someone misuses a tool, that to me doesn't mean the use was invalid. It means that the tool needs work. Perhaps that's a bias, as well. But I can tell you, honestly, that fixing a lot of the issues I've seen with 5e would not be difficult. I'd start with consistent use of keywords, move to a list of DCs for basic checks, and go from there.

[IShouldntBehere]

First, I'm a he, not a they. But that's fine, as I don't make a big deal of pronouns.

Second, I wish I'd had a mustache-twirling, obviously evil DM. I feel like this guy would be cool to play with. The bad ones I've had have been far more mundane. One of them had a severe slur and was a MLP fan, just to give you some idea.

Nah, I'm usually able to pick my DMs a bit better than this. I also have the unfortunate position of having witnessed and heard about many AL games. That's where my bias comes from. And yes, it's a bias. I'd like to extend my permission to all of you to call me biased. I'd like to, but I don't think I can under the forum rules.

We don't need to state the obvious. What would be nice though is:

1) Recognition of the validity of view points not your own.
2) Retraction of statements declaring things that are plainly opinions & value judgements as "Objective Facts" that no sensible person could miss.
3) Some acknowledgement when you're outright contradicting yourself. See "Nobody is arguing Dms can't communicate" immediately following a post in which you claim the DMs have no tools to communicate in 5e and that numbers are the only tool they could have to do so.

Also remember nobody goes out of their way to complain when a session goes "Mostly OK" or "Pretty Well", nor do they go out of their way to brag about it. If 5% sessions are going awful, 94% are "OK" to "Good" and 1% are going exceptionally. You will hear reports on 6% of the games, of these reports 83% of them well be exceedingly negative.

Nevermind that if you're focusing on AL, you're focusing on games being played between random people in a game store setting. Not only is this probably not the majority of 5e play, it's biasing the sample of views you're getting to those involving game store crowds. Game store crowds. Seriously not best pool to be sampling for diverse experiences.


That said, as a software engineer, I tend to judge everything by the worst examples. If someone misuses a tool, that to me doesn't mean the use was invalid. It means that the tool needs work. Perhaps that's a bias, as well. But I can tell you, honestly, that fixing a lot of the issues I've seen with 5e would not be difficult. I'd start with consistent use of keywords, move to a list of DCs for basic checks, and go from there.

A meat cutting knife is a tool.
A good knife is a sharp, so it can cut flesh.
When it cuts flesh to prepare a delightful roast, the knife is being used as intended in a good way.
When it cuts flesh to murder the neighbour Ronald, the knife is being used in a way other than intended in a very bad way.

The fault lies not with the knife but with the crazy dude cutting up poor Ronald. .

[georgie_leech]

That said, as a software engineer, I tend to judge everything by the worst examples. If someone misuses a tool, that to me doesn't mean the use was invalid. It means that the tool needs work. Perhaps that's a bias, as well. But I can tell you, honestly, that fixing a lot of the issues I've seen with 5e would not be difficult. I'd start with consistent use of keywords, move to a list of DCs for basic checks, and go from there.

Which works for software, because software is inherently limited in its scope. That is, everything a program can do is because someone gave it the capacity to do that, and the more catastrophic bugs are usually because of some unforseen interaction between functions or similar. Like, Wish Looping was this sort of error, that they really should have been able to catch.

Non computer game RPG's are a bit of a different beast though, because the human mind doesn't need to worry about 404 errors or whatever. They instead need to worry about actually understanding the tools and systems presented. By all means, idiot proof your design as well as possible and avoid obvious holes where the rules flat out don't function at all, but more needs to be done in 5e to teach proper system use, instead of just presenting the whole system and leaving it at that. Like, your gripes with the skill system isn't that there's a lot it can't apply to, because it's intentionally broad. It's difficult to use consistently and fairly though, so it's hard to get the most out of it, on either side of the DM screen. A lot is improved by proper communication, but... well, let's just say that I've seen a surprising number of people that don't seem to realise that just because they have this perfect image of what they're describing in their head, doesn't mean their description has everything important in it.

[Easy_Lee]

A meat cutting knife is a tool.
A good knife is a sharp, so it can cut flesh.
When it cuts flesh to prepare a delightful roast, the knife is being used as intended in a good way.
When it cuts flesh to murder the neighbour Ronald, the knife is being used in a way other than intended in a very bad way.

The fault lies not with the knife but with the crazy dude cutting up poor Ronald. .

Hate to off-topic nitpick, but there are actually a wide variety of "safe knives" designed to cut vegetables and meat, but not people. Some of those cut steak just fine, but would be inferior even to a table leg or screwdriver if used as a weapon. I generally consider these knives to be superior if you specifically wish the knife not to be used as a weapon, such as for prison kitchens.

However some people like the idea that, in a pinch, their kitchen knife might save their life. Others find it a bit exciting that the knife could cut them if they aren't careful. And more still simply enjoy pretty knives.

It all depends on the design goals of the object.


1) Recognition of the validity of view points not your own.
2) Retraction of statements declaring things that are plainly opinions & value judgements as "Objective Facts" that no sensible person could miss.
3) Some acknowledgement when you're outright contradicting yourself. See "Nobody is arguing Dms can't communicate" immediately following a post in which you claim the DMs have no tools to communicate in 5e and that numbers are the only tool they could have to do so.


#1 and #2 seem like personal attacks. I respect the contradictory views of those posters who respect my own. As to #3, I haven't contradicted myself, at all. I said nobody is arguing that DM's can't communicate. I said that 5e doesn't give them good tools to do so. They still can, they just have to figure it out themselves. That's not a contradiction.

And this is horribly off-topic, even by my standards. If you have more to say to me, personally, I'd prefer a PM if you don't mind.


Also remember nobody goes out of their way to complain when a session goes "Mostly OK" or "Pretty Well", nor do they go out of their way to brag about it. If 5% sessions are going awful, 94% are "OK" to "Good" and 1% are going exceptionally. You will hear reports on 6% of the games, of these reports 83% of them well be exceedingly negative.

Nevermind that if you're focusing on AL, you're focusing on games being played between random people in a game store setting. Not only is this probably not the majority of 5e play, it's biasing the sample of views you're getting to those involving game store crowds. Game store crowds. Seriously not best pool to be sampling for diverse experiences.

When I kept seeing the same issues, over and over, I compared 5e with a different system I'm familiar with: Star Wars D6. That system has the same issues: it lays out very easy, easy, moderate, difficult, hard, very hard, and heroic rolls, but doesn't say what constitutes what in most cases. I had an inexperienced DM in this system, and he had to learn both A) to be consistent, and B) to tell us how hard our characters (he) judged tasks to be before we attempted them. Those things are necessary in a totally open-DC system.

Furthermore, as soon as one of our players started playing a martial artist, with fixed DCs for his skills, that player immediately became the most consistently effective member. He wouldn't attempt anything without having some idea that he could do it. That's how knowledge empowers players. And it was the 5e equivalent of quitting a rogue and re-rolling as a wizard, since spells have fixed and (mostly) unambiguous effects.

If I'm being super-meta, and I want to do good in an unknown 5e campaign with an unknown DM, my three classes of choice are Cleric, Wizard, and Barbarian. All three have generally clear, fixed, unambiguous abilities. This empowers me to make the best possible choices in a given situation, since I know what I can do. If I don't know what I can do, or don't know until I try, that's bad. We all agree that's bad. But that's exactly what 5e enables, and (arguably) even promotes with its rulings over rules approach.

Avoiding those kinds of problems, teaching consistency and transparency, should be some of the primary goals of the DMG. So far as I've seen, the DMG does a very poor job at actually preparing DMs to run 5e games well. It does, however, present some rules of play which should have been in the PHB, such as general reaction rules and rules for leaping onto a larger target. I find that very strange.

I get the uncomfortable feeling that WotC doesn't put as much effort into D&D as they should. Our own Playground members are better at designing balanced content than they, just going off of UA.

[Tanarii]

He wouldn't attempt anything without having some idea that he could do it. That's how knowledge empowers players.Not all players do things only if there is a rule for it. In fact, that was a common DM complaint about both 3e and 4e ... that players would only do things if there was a rule for it. Hell, that's been a common problem since before 1e.

What you're talking about is DMs needing to educate players in how to play a TRPG properly. To at least partially play the character, instead of purely playing the rules. The metagame (ie the rules for resolution) already provide more information to predict a result of an action than in real life. For that matter, player's may have better knowledge than if playing a CRPG, where the underlying mechanics are often hidden completely. If they're making decisions ONLY when they have exact and precise metagame rules resolution knowledge in a TRPG, then the problem is on the player, not the game system or the DM.

That type of player might be happier playing a wargame or D&D boardgame instead of a TRPG.

[Easy_Lee]

Not all players do things only if there is a rule for it. In fact, that was a common DM complaint about both 3e and 4e ... that players would only do things if there was a rule for it. Hell, that's been a common problem since before 1e.

What you're talking about is DMs needing to educate players in how to play a TRPG properly. To at least partially play the character, instead of purely playing the rules. The metagame (ie the rules for resolution) already provide more information to predict a result of an action than in real life. For that matter, player's may have better knowledge than if playing a CRPG, where the underlying mechanics are often hidden completely. If they're making decisions ONLY when they have exact and precise metagame rules resolution knowledge in a TRPG, then the problem is on the player, not the game system or the DM.

That type of player might be happier playing a wargame or D&D boardgame instead of a TRPG.

Players are generally punished for attempting unknown feats if they don't have a good DM. And I don't mean an okay DM, but a good one.

Here's why: let's say I want to swing from a chandeli-he-he-hier. There's no specific rule for that. The bad DM asks you to roll, checks if your roll is over X (ignoring character skills and attributes), and tells you whether you succeeded. The decent DM sets a difficulty for that task, tells you which skill to use, and says you need to make a whatever difficulty check. The good DM thinks about it and decides that swinging from a chandeli-he-he-hier shouldn't require a roll at all, because even overrated pop singers can do it.

2/3rds of the time, attempting something which doesn't have rules for it is going to result in a significant chance of failure. DMs frequently set that difficulty specifically so that there's a chance of failure, believing that adds excitement to the game. This is because at least 2/3rds of DMs don't know how to do their damn job.

That's why savvy players learn to stick to only things they know they can do. And that list is smaller than ever in 5e. To nobody's surprise, that list also favors pure casters.

[Tanarii]

The good DM thinks about it and decides that swinging from a chandeli-he-he-hier shouldn't require a roll at all, because even overrated pop singers can do it.Hahahaha love it

And yeah I agree. Swinging on a chandelier in the middle of combat to attempt to avoid an opportunity attack while jumping over someone's head, ie to gain a mechanical advantage outside the default rule, might call for a check. Or it might not. Depending on the specific mechanical advantage attempting to be gained, and the result of failure. But the player should get to know before the dice are rolled, especially any time failure could result in a situation *worse* than the default of not taking the action at all. (e.g. if the enemy not only got their OA, but got +2 to hit, if the check failed.)

But just doing it for cinematic purposes definitely shouldn't call for a roll.

[Vogonjeltz]

Here's why: let's say I want to swing from a chandeli-he-he-hier. There's no specific rule for that. The bad DM asks you to roll, checks if your roll is over X (ignoring character skills and attributes), and tells you whether you succeeded. The decent DM sets a difficulty for that task, tells you which skill to use, and says you need to make a whatever difficulty check. The good DM thinks about it and decides that swinging from a chandeli-he-he-hier shouldn't require a roll at all, because even overrated pop singers can do it.

2/3rds of the time, attempting something which doesn't have rules for it is going to result in a significant chance of failure. DMs frequently set that difficulty specifically so that there's a chance of failure, believing that adds excitement to the game. This is because at least 2/3rds of DMs don't know how to do their damn job.

That's why savvy players learn to stick to only things they know they can do. And that list is smaller than ever in 5e. To nobody's surprise, that list also favors pure casters.

Swinging on a chandeli-he-he-hier would require the character to reach it...probably a jump (rules in the PHB along with all the other movement rules), and maybe a Strength (Athletics) (relates to jumping) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) (relates to stunts) check depending on how crazy they want to get with it, assuming of course the chandeli-he-he-hier is capable of bearing the weight of the character and their gear.

Context depending, I'd probably just say they swing from the chandelier if there are no difficult circumstances in play.