Consequences of Variability

[Easy_Lee]

In other thread, the age-old 5e-old question of unpredictable skill checks came up. There are many thoughts on both sides of this. Some don't want any fixed checks, and for the DM to decide everything. Some want a few fixed checks for a reference point, so players know about what to expect. Others want most of the game to be fixed checks so that players can plan accordingly.

The most common argument given against the latter two is that it restricts the DM to running his campaign at a particular power level. Some campaigns are high fantasy, where climbing a cliff would be easy for the players. Others are lower power, where players might struggle to climb a stubborn tree. People leave comments like the following:


Could you not instead ask the DM if this is either a heroic game (climbing a tree is automatic, etc), or a more realistic game (mundane things can be challenges), and make your choices from there?

In short, the argument is that fixed checks reduce game variability. If climbing a tree is always automatic, then the players are assumed to be at a high level of athletic competency relative to real-life people. Some DMs don't want to run a campaign like that.

But variability has consequences.

The Consequences of Variability

Hypothetical example: in your game, you want wearing plate to be realistic. So you make it impossible to swim in full plate, and you compound the effects of difficult terrain when someone is wearing plate, and you impose penalties on their dexterity checks, and you make it impossible for them to comfortably fire a bow because of the gauntlets, and impose exhaustion for walking around hot areas while wearing plate...but then you realize plate is becoming too weak for its benefit. So you give it damage absorption and decrease the AC of other armor types, and give the player resistance to certain types of damage, and create some maneuvers only possible in plate, and...and...

And what you're left with is a different game. The meta changes. Builds change. if you haven't been careful, certain classes and builds may become overpowered.

What does that have to do with skills? Checks are one of the three types of D20 rolls in this game, and skill checks are the most common kind of check. They affect the world. And there's a huge difference between a heroic game and a realistic game, as above. Consider:

If climbing is difficult, spider climb, fly, levitate, and so on become more powerful.
If swimming is easy, water walk and aquatic transformations become weaker.
If persuasion checks rarely work, then spells like Command, Suggestion, dominate effects, or even Friends become more powerful.
If stealth is easy, then Invisibility and Pass Without Trace are weaker.

The more powerful skill checks are, the more powerful martials become. The weaker skill checks are, the more powerful spellcasters become. And that impacts the game. From a narrative standpoint, stripped of the mechanics, heroic and realistic campaigns aren't set in the same world and don't even seem to be using the same rules.

In short, choosing to run a mundane rather than heroic game is as significant a decision as deciding to house rule plate armor or other fixed effects. It may not seem like it, but it has just as big of an effect on the game.

Consider also that skill checks are the main area of the game where this sort of variability exists. Spells have fixed effects, attacks do a fixed amount of damage, and most features work exactly as they're written. It's only skills where we have no idea where the power level will be until we ask the DM.

I believe I understand why WotC went with this approach. No fixed skill checks means that D&D 5e can be adapted to suit a wide variety of games.

However, the more variability you add, the less of a game you have left.

In conclusion, I don't think that variability was the right decision. Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e. Otherwise, we aren't all playing the same game.

[DivisibleByZero]

Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e. Otherwise, we aren't all playing the same game.

We don't have to all be playing the same game. Every table is different. That's the beauty of this game, and it is certainly not a fault.

[ko_sct]

We don't have to all be playing the same game. Every table is different. That's the beauty of this game, and it is certainly not a fault.

Yeah, but it would be fun if we had a framework so we could play the same game at the same table.

We had a problem with one of our player who would alway metagame information that his character didin't have. It was a problem and we couldn't convince him to stop, it wasn't until an other character mercy-killed a dying prisonner and the problem player immediatly started trying to find proof of the killing that we understood the problem. When confronted about his metagaming, he just shrughed and said "My character has super-human wisdom and is proficient in perception and insight, what's the point if he can't figure stuff right away ?".

He simply had vastly different expectation of what he should roll for and what he simply knew without rolling.

Somekind of framework for the skill checks would probably have helped us being on the same page.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yeah, but it would be fun if we had a framework so we could play the same game at the same table.

We had a problem with one of our player who would alway metagame information that his character didin't have. It was a problem and we couldn't convince him to stop, it wasn't until an other character mercy-killed a dying prisonner and the problem player immediatly started trying to find proof of the killing that we understood the problem. When confronted about his metagaming, he just shrughed and said "My character has super-human wisdom and is proficient in perception and insight, what's the point if he can't figure stuff right away ?".

He simply had vastly different expectation of what he should roll for and what he simply knew without rolling.

Somekind of framework for the skill checks would probably have helped us being on the same page.

An all encompassing skill check system wouldn't have solved the problem of the player metagaming his character expecting to simply know things. It would have happened regardless.

[Finieous]

Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e.


I mean, no they don't. Players don't have to know **** to play D&D and have a great time.


Otherwise, we aren't all playing the same game.

What DBZ said.

[Easy_Lee]

I mean, no they don't. Players don't have to know **** to play D&D and have a great time.



What DBZ said.

If that's your stance, then why have game rules at all? Checks are the one type of D20 roll with this variability. Perhaps you'd prefer for attacks and saving throws to be equally DM-dependent?

My issue here is that the further we follow this line of reasoning, the less of a game we're left with.

[Finieous]

If that's your stance, then why have game rules at all? Checks are the one type of D20 roll with this variability. Perhaps you'd prefer for attacks and saving throws to be equally DM-dependent?

My issue here is that the further we follow this line of reasoning, the less of a game we're left with.

My opinion is that your reasoning is flawed.

[Easy_Lee]

My opinion is that your reasoning is flawed.

Oh, well that clears up everything.

[DeTess]

I can kinda see where easy_lee is coming from. If your character has climbed an oak by rolling a 15, then you would expect to be able to do that again with that roll under similar circumstances. If a later plan you have depends on you climbing an oak, so you make sure you have as high a modifier as possible, roll a 20, and the DM just rules that you fail to climb the tree,as the DC was 25 this time around, it feels like the ruels of the world have been arbitrarily changed.

So I think the players should be aware of the DC's of at least some basic things just so that they have an idea what a roll of a 15 in acrobatics can accomplish, and in equal situations, the DC should be equal for the same task. However, there are a lot of things that can modify a test. Climbing some trees is vastly easier then others, and trying to climb a tree in a storm is just asking for trouble. Therefore, I believe DM's should be able to set their own DC's for a task, but they should do that in a consistent way, so that their players are aware of what a given character is likely to be able to do.

[DivisibleByZero]

I can kinda see where easy_lee is coming from.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you do.
You're describing a variance at the same table, whereas E_L is describing a variance between two different tables.

With you, I agree that this is a potential problem. But it's a problem with the DM, not the system.
With E_L, I disagree that there is a problem to begin with.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you do.
You're describing a variance at the same table, whereas E_L is describing a variance between two different tables.

With you, I agree that this is a potential problem. But it's a problem with the DM, not the system.
With E_L, I disagree that there is a problem to begin with.

My conclusion was, "Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e." There are a couple of ways WotC could have done this.

My preference is for the game itself to have a single world, a single power level. That makes things much easier on the players, regardless of how stifling some DMs find it. (Besides, art comes from adversity. Creators of all kinds are more creative when working within a set of rules than when given free reign. It has to do with the trait Openness, but I won't get into that here.)

Another approach would be a handout that explains a little bit about the world. WotC could have provided a format for this. As is, they didn't even suggest that DMs needed to go into it as far as skills and such are concerned.

As to whether there's a problem or not, I'm far from the only person to bring this up specifically as it pertains to 5e. You can tell us that we're all wrong and the system is exactly the way you want it to be. But that isn't going to shut us up.

[Sigreid]

My conclusion was, "Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e." There are a couple of ways WotC could have done this.

My preference is for the game itself to have a single world, a single power level. That makes things much easier on the players, regardless of how stifling some DMs find it. (Besides, art comes from adversity. Creators of all kinds are more creative when working within a set of rules than when given free reign. It has to do with the trait Openness, but I won't get into that here.)

Another approach would be a handout that explains a little bit about the world. WotC could have provided a format for this. As is, they didn't even suggest that DMs needed to go into it as far as skills and such are concerned.

As to whether there's a problem or not, I'm far from the only person to bring this up specifically as it pertains to 5e. You can tell us that we're all wrong and the system is exactly the way you want it to be. But that isn't going to shut us up.

I'm personally wouldn't say you're wrong. I would say your preference is different than mine and that I prefer that they not change the system to meet with your preference and abandon mine.

[strangebloke]

Neh, I'm with Easy Lee here.

Look, a DM is free to edit things however he wants anyway. What the DMG and PHB provide is a large shrug that leaves DMs with no guidance.

In 3.5, the DC was determined by the environment, and your modifiers were determined by the characteristics of the PC and how they interacted with the environment. So, the DM has to tell me, 'roll with a -4, you're in plate armor,' and I know that before I decide to dodge out of the way.

In 5e, the DC is determined by the difficultly of the task. 'Difficulty class = difficulty' is not really helpful guidance. There's no verbage to tell what factors should be taken into account when determining a DC. Is the DC for this check 30? Or is it 25? If the DC is higher for me to swim because I'm in heavy armor, the DC is by default hidden from me. I might not know that I'm dooming myself.

What I ended up doing at my table after a lot of trial and error was this: DC only accounts for environmental factors, such that everyone is rolling against the same DC. Any unique interaction between PC characteristics and the environment can only impose advantage or disadvantage. So a guy in plate trying to swim a river has disadvantage, and knows that before he makes the check. A halfling would have disadvantage to jump, a goliath who grew up in the mountains would have disadvantage to a history check about court politics.

Secondly, in order to make more interesting interactions, and to avoid low-level, high-variance checks, I counted anything less than five below the DC as a 'partial success, with complications.' IE: if you're trying to climb a DC 15 cliff, and you get a 13, you might make it to the top, but it took you twice as long as normal, and your arms are sore, so you have disadvantage on your STR checks for the next minute. If you're trying to jump, maybe you are able to grab onto the ledge that you were trying to jump to, and you need to do an atheltics check to pull yourself up without a really solid grip on the other side. I normally allow for a 'save' in a case where a bad skill check could really hurt you.

This makes skill usage stronger overall. In my experience, players don't even want to try risky skill checks, and that's a bad thing. If you're a rogue specializing in acrobatics, you should run across that steel cable and shoot arrows at the enemy without fear!

Reference Points:

Joe Normal: Healthy young-adult human with no class or formal training, and straight 10s for stats. Basically, assume that anything a normal guy can do consistently without risk of failure is DC 0. Anything that's on the risky side is DC 5. DC 10 is difficult, and DC 15 is near impossible. DC 20 is technically possible, but if so its pure dumb luck. If you want a more mundane game? Make NPCs beefier! More hitdie, characteristics and skills. Maybe Normal Joe now has straight 12s!

Expert: Has training, relevant stats, and expertise. No risk for him is DC 5. slight risk is DC 10, genuinely difficult is 15, etc.

Everyone better than this is a hero, and a cut above mere mortals, and so we kind of don't have a good reference point.

So when setting a DC, you must ask yourself: 'Would an expert in this check definitely know this information? If so, the DC is less than 5. If he might not, its greater than 5. Joe Normal probably knows that a wizard can cast illusions, make zombies, summon things, etc, but probably not much more. An expert definitely knows all the schools of magic and probably could recognize the casting of all spells below 3rd level.

Obviously, if a PC is not capable of failing, don't bother rolling.

[Breashios]

However, the more variability you add, the less of a game you have left.
This appears based on flawed supporting evidence above it in the OP.

Everything in they hypothetical example under The Consequences of Variability is an assumption about how things could be handled to give the desired outcome. There are other ways to achieve this outcome that do not require such dramatic changes.

When we are playing a "realistic" world adventure at our table we just ask - Would it be realistic? and the player has their character act accordingly. Yes, playing in the "realistic" world makes magic more powerful, but it is still a limited resource. The spells necessary to duplicate the ability check success take up spots that magic users might prefer to fill with other spells. Even if they have the required spell they may not wish to use it when someone has a good chance to succeed using a skill.

Yes we have a great table. You might not have players that will work to help create the "feel" everyone else is looking for in their campaign. Then the DM has to provide some guidance. But that is the DMs job. Our DMs are awesome and we'd probably just ignore the fixed target examples if they didn't work, so we'd just be on the other side of this argument.

Bottom line. Leave it up to the table's desire adjudicated by the DM. If the Rule of Fun is in play and everyone can agree more or less, shouldn't be an issue.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd recommend against roll playing. Your OP is a roll playing advocacy presentation.

An awful lot of skill checks don't need to be rolled at all, to include generic tree climbing.

Player says "I do this" and unless failure is interesting to what's going on and gets a DC assigned to it, DM either says yes, or (if it's bloody impossible), says no, and we continue play.

If the player begins to argue about it the DM replies "It's not your turn anymore" and addresses what the next player is doing.

I think some of you are overcomplicating things.

[Unoriginal]

Hypothetical example: in your game, you want wearing plate to be realistic. So you make it impossible to swim in full plate, and you compound the effects of difficult terrain when someone is wearing plate, and you impose penalties on their dexterity checks, and you make it impossible for them to comfortably fire a bow because of the gauntlets, and impose exhaustion for walking around hot areas while wearing plate...but then you realize plate is becoming too weak for its benefit.

OR: you realize you don't know enough about plate armors to portray them realistically.

It is possible to swim in full plate, it wouldn't hinder you enough to make difficult terrain worse, it wouldn't restrain you enough to put penalties on dexterity checks, and walking in hot area should not be bad enough to get exhaustion automatically (arguably, you could say the wearer count as having less Con for when exhaustion come into play, but otherwise...). I am not sure how much wearing gauntlets hinder using a bow, however.

OR: you realize that realism is not a primary concern for a reason in a game where a knight can slap a dragon to death while their magic-using buddy is flying in order to save an elf that was mind-blasted by a squid-faced alien from the future.



I'd recommend against roll playing. Your OP is a roll playing advocacy presentation.

An awful lot of skill checks don't need to be rolled at all, to include generic tree climbing.

Player says "I do this" and unless failure is interesting to what's going on and gets a DC assigned to it, DM either says yes, or (if it's bloody impossible), says no, and we continue play.

If the player begins to argue about it the DM replies "It's not your turn anymore" and addresses what the next player is doing.

I think some of you are overcomplicating things.

A good point, though I'd argue the DM should contextualize why something is impossible, generally.

[90sMusic]

Athletics is a skill for a reason. You shouldn't just "succeed" at climbing unless you have a climb speed granted by a race, class, or spell feature.

It isn't about not being heroic, it's about that 80 year old, frail wizard that walks on his staff and fights with his mind being unable to just HULK OUT and climb a tree or a mountain with no effort. That is dumb, even in a "heroic" high fantasy setting.

I will say though, some people use skill checks incorrectly. They either don't understand how it is supposed to work or just "choose" to ignore the rules and do whatever they want.

For example, the PHB very clearly indicates how much weight you can lift for your strength score. It very clearly indicates how much weight you can push or pull for your strength score. It very clearly indicates the distance and height you can jump. But a lot of DMs will make you roll for things like dragging a heavy body, even if it's weight is well within your push/pull limit described in the PHB. They'll make you roll athletics checks to see how far you can jump, even though it is clearly and explicitly defined in the PHB.

For darkvision, you are supposed to have disadvantage on perception checks based on sight while in dim light. How many times have you played in a game where that was used? It's almost unheard of. DMs treat darkvision like you have flashlight eyes and as a result, the ignorant community feel darkvision is overpowered because it makes darkness "pointless". But it isn't the rules' fault, it is the DMs and players not following the rules that are the problem.

Passive perception is another one. If your passive perception is 20, you are supposed to noticed stealthed enemies who are trying to hide from you who rolled less than 20, without making a check. How often does this happen in practice? DM's want you to roll for EVERYTHING, even when some things are meant to be done with passive scores. Some of them just get very upset and butthurt at the idea of someone with 20+ passive perception always noticing traps and stealthed enemies, but that is just how it is intended to work. You should use passive perception for characters who aren't actively looking for something and use that score to see if they happen to notice something. Rolling for perception is supposed to be done when you actually make the conscious choice to look around and try to find something, see something, or just look around searching in general. But it almost never plays out that way, DMs make you do an active roll even when it's just to see if you notice some giant purple people eater walking down the street behind you. That is a passive perception thing, not active.

I think if folks just learned the rules and stuck to them in general, you wouldn't have these sorts of problems. But DM's just get too "roll happy" and absolutely DESPISE the idea of automatically succeeding at certain things without a chance of failure. I've seen some of these wretch DMs even try to stop rogues from using reliable talent before and invalidating their class feature just to give them a chance of failure. It's rather pathetic honestly.

[Finieous]

Oh, well that clears up everything.

How do you expect me to respond to your claim that my preference for task resolution logically entails that we wind up with "less of a game"? I guess I could say, "I'm sorry you feel that way (but not really)."

Is that better?

[strangebloke]

Athletics is a skill for a reason. You shouldn't just "succeed" at climbing unless you have a climb speed granted by a race, class, or spell feature.

It isn't about not being heroic, it's about that 80 year old, frail wizard that walks on his staff and fights with his mind being unable to just HULK OUT and climb a tree or a mountain with no effort. That is dumb, even in a "heroic" high fantasy setting.


two things:
1. Athletics is a skill for a reason. On this we agree. What we disagree on is that it needs to be applied for mundane things that joe normal with no proficiency and a 10 in strength can do without risk of failure. Most normal dudes can climb an apple tree.

2. That 80 year old frail wizard still has an 8 in STR. He can still run 60 feet in six seconds. He can still jump eight feet. He's pretty deadly in a knife fight. Why is tree climbing the only thing he can't do? If you want him to be weak and frail a la Raistlin, you should talk to your DM. I'd imagine that you'd portray that as having 4-6 STR, DEX, and CON, and is constantly encumbered.

[Unoriginal]

Athletics is a skill for a reason. You shouldn't just "succeed" at climbing unless you have a climb speed granted by a race, class, or spell feature.

It isn't about not being heroic, it's about that 80 year old, frail wizard that walks on his staff and fights with his mind being unable to just HULK OUT and climb a tree or a mountain with no effort. That is dumb, even in a "heroic" high fantasy setting.


Athletics is a skill because some people are trained into doing specific things better than others, including athletic pursuits.

You should just succeed things that are inconsequential, too easy to justify a roll, or simply that you have all the time in the world to manage.

Climbing a tree even an old wizard, who is still presumably fit enough to go on an adventure, should manage, maybe with a bit of help from his group (may also include the Barbarian going "it seems carrying books doesn't help you carry your own weight, my friend" or other quips of the same effect).

Climbing a tree as quickly as possible to escape a Nightmare while it's raining is significantly harder, which is why a check is called for.



I will say though, some people use skill checks incorrectly. They either don't understand how it is supposed to work or just "choose" to ignore the rules and do whatever they want.

For example, the PHB very clearly indicates how much weight you can lift for your strength score. It very clearly indicates how much weight you can push or pull for your strength score. It very clearly indicates the distance and height you can jump. But a lot of DMs will make you roll for things like dragging a heavy body, even if it's weight is well within your push/pull limit described in the PHB. They'll make you roll athletics checks to see how far you can jump, even though it is clearly and explicitly defined in the PHB.

For darkvision, you are supposed to have disadvantage on perception checks based on sight while in dim light. How many times have you played in a game where that was used? It's almost unheard of. DMs treat darkvision like you have flashlight eyes and as a result, the ignorant community feel darkvision is overpowered because it makes darkness "pointless". But it isn't the rules' fault, it is the DMs and players not following the rules that are the problem.

Passive perception is another one. If your passive perception is 20, you are supposed to noticed stealthed enemies who are trying to hide from you who rolled less than 20, without making a check. How often does this happen in practice? DM's want you to roll for EVERYTHING, even when some things are meant to be done with passive scores. Some of them just get very upset and butthurt at the idea of someone with 20+ passive perception always noticing traps and stealthed enemies, but that is just how it is intended to work. You should use passive perception for characters who aren't actively looking for something and use that score to see if they happen to notice something. Rolling for perception is supposed to be done when you actually make the conscious choice to look around and try to find something, see something, or just look around searching in general. But it almost never plays out that way, DMs make you do an active roll even when it's just to see if you notice some giant purple people eater walking down the street behind you. That is a passive perception thing, not active.

I think if folks just learned the rules and stuck to them in general, you wouldn't have these sorts of problems. But DM's just get too "roll happy" and absolutely DESPISE the idea of automatically succeeding at certain things without a chance of failure. I've seen some of these wretch DMs even try to stop rogues from using reliable talent before and invalidating their class feature just to give them a chance of failure. It's rather pathetic honestly.

Well, it seems to be the DMs going "you can't do that without a check, you're a normal person 'cuz you're a martial" while they would not see anything wrong with giving casters a pass if they were using magic in those situations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My preference is for the game itself to have a single world, a single power level. That makes things much easier on the players, regardless of how stifling some DMs find it. (Besides, art comes from adversity. Creators of all kinds are more creative when working within a set of rules than when given free reign. It has to do with the trait Openness, but I won't get into that here.)


Absolutely not. Systems that are tied strongly to one world (e.g. World of Darkness) are intrinsically boring to me. If I wanted to play in a fixed world where I can't change the parameters, I'd play a CRPG. They're much better at that sort of thing, and prettier as well. One of the things I love about TTRPGs is the freedom to explore "so what if..." It's one of the reasons I prefer DM'ing to playing. Every group that goes through parts of my world changes it. And those changes interact with each-other and inspire new changes. Do note--DMs are allowed to have fun as well as players. Forced standardization would mean you'd have fewer DMs and restrict it to basically AL only (or something so similar as to be indistinguishable). If you don't want variation, don't play AL. Then all your worries go away.

The rules of 5e D&D are a toolset. A framework for a UI. They're a very different beast than the rules of a board game (for example). They give tools for resolving actions. They don't actually prescribe anything. They give the DM and the party tools. As to the variability thing--this is never a problem unless you're playing the same character under multiple DMs. In which case, the DMs should collectively (or as part of the written adventure you're following) get together and standardize and then make it clear to the players from the outset what the standard is. This lack of communication is the problem, not the rules. Effectively, they're playing with what amount to house-rules. Unannounced house rules at that.

Within a game, all you need to know is that higher is better. Your character does not (and cannot) know the DC--that's an entirely meta-game concept. You know that by investing resources (proficiency/expertise picks, ability scores) into a particular ability or skill, you get better at it. Someone with a skill of +3 will statistically outperform someone with a skill of +0 (same way that that works for AC and attack bonuses). Knowing the exact %-chance of success is neither here nor there, nor is it something you can access in real life. So why worry about it for a game character? The description should provide enough to judge if it's easy, medium or hard. That gives you a pretty good idea of the DC right there, if the DM is following the DMG. IF they're not describing things well enough...that's a problem no set of fixed DCs can solve.

I'm in the process of writing a guide to setting DCs for a junior DM I oversee (as part of a school club). In doing so, I've found that what people claim are "bolted-on patches" are actually organic outgrowths of the basic philosophy of the game. I'll post a slightly-modified version of that guide (with a handy-dandy flowchart) to a different thread when I'm done.

[KorvinStarmast]

A good point, though I'd argue the DM should contextualize why something is impossible, generally. Yeah, agree, good point.

[Easy_Lee]

In this thread, I've seen a lot of ideas so far. Having everyone roll to hit the same DC for any task and imposing advantage or disadvantage based on environmental factors is, I think, a good idea. I also think it's a good idea for most climbing to be automatic in a heroic game. I also think it's a good idea for climbing to be difficult in a realistic game.

WotC should have given us a default. That way players and DMs would know when things were different.

We all agree that individual DMs should be consistent. They aren't.

We all agree that individual DMs should tell the players everything they need to know about the world ahead of time. They don't.

We all agree that players will have a good time if they have a good DM. Not all DMs are good DMs. And not all players have a choice.

5e compounds these problems. Skills are a key factor in that. All I'm saying is that WotC needed to make some base assumptions, lay down a base power level for skills - the same as they did for attacks, armor, carrying capacity, and so on. DMs can, and do, change that stuff when they want.

But DMs who set Check DCs on the fly aren't technically changing anything, because that's the default state of 5e. That's the part I take issue with: not that DMs do it, but that it's the default state and players receive no warning.

[90sMusic]

two things:
1. Athletics is a skill for a reason. On this we agree. What we disagree on is that it needs to be applied for mundane things that joe normal with no proficiency and a 10 in strength can do without risk of failure. Most normal dudes can climb an apple tree.

2. That 80 year old frail wizard still has an 8 in STR. He can still run 60 feet in six seconds. He can still jump eight feet. He's pretty deadly in a knife fight. Why is tree climbing the only thing he can't do? If you want him to be weak and frail a la Raistlin, you should talk to your DM. I'd imagine that you'd portray that as having 4-6 STR and CON, and is constantly encumbered.

Most "normal dudes" cannot just climb any tree or wall or whatever else. A lot of trees don't have branches low enough to the ground to use like a ladder and you have to jump up to grab hold of one. Once you're up in the branches, climbing a tree is pretty easy unless it's one of those really enormous trees where branches on the same side can be 5 and 6 feet apart, but that is still a lot of physical work to climb such a tree and lift your bodyweight up over and over again while holding on. I would LOVE to see you attempt to climb a semi-grown pine tree and tell me how easy it is. They are all over my yard and the lowest branches are 10 to 15 feet off the ground for most of them. How are you going to shimmy up that trunk without exerting any effort and with 100% chance of success? Even with tools to make it easier, there's still a chance you aren't going to make it up there.

And as for climbing anything else... It varies. Why don't you go find one of those fake rock wall places where they attach ropes to people and let them climb those fake walls. Those things have very easy to grab handholds, made specifically to climb, and very few people still make it up them very far. Climbing is not that easy, it takes a lot of strength to do. Something like a ladder makes it as easy as it can be, but even going up a ladder far enough will wind most people.

And ALL OF THIS, is without considering carrying 100+ pounds of equipment in your backpack while you do it.

No sir, argue all you like, but if I put a 100 pound backpack on you and offered you $1000 to climb one of those pine trees, you aren't going anywhere. Probably isn't even possible without tools or very specific training.

THAT is why athletics exists. Climbing aint easy, certainly not easy enough to be a gimmie.

As for the wizard with 8 strength jumping 8 feet, this is just another example of people not knowing or understanding the rules. High jump is 3 feet plus strength modifier. That wizard is only jumping 2 feet high.

As for his movement speed, yeah he isn't being slowed down by his age, but that is more of a gameplay mechanics issue. They would have to make an entire system of extra rules layered on top of what is already there to say how much movement speed you lose with age or lose with lower ability scores, etc etc or make some kind of check and have it determine how far you get and so on. 5e is supposed to be rules light, so it makes sense they left that out since it's a bit not needed and would undoubtedly bog the game down.

But climbing? Yeah, you need to make a check for that unless you're going up a ladder. The DC is variable though based on the difficulty of the climb. Something with easy handholds would be anywhere from 5 to 10 and shouldn't be hard to make unless you are weaker than the average person.

Also, even if you roll a natural 1, it isn't an automatic failure on skill checks. A natural 1 with 16 strength and proficiency in athletics, even at level 1 is still a 6 athletics check meaning you can always succeed on the truly trivial stuff, even if you suck at rolling. So the game still reflects you being more successful if you are stronger, etc.

So if your lowest possible roll is higher than the DC, it should be handwaved and no point rolling since you will succeed, but otherwise, there is always a chance of messing up. Especially if you aren't an athletic person and not very strong, you aren't immune to falling and an expert at climbing.

[DivisibleByZero]

As to whether there's a problem or not, I'm far from the only person to bring this up specifically as it pertains to 5e. You can tell us that we're all wrong and the system is exactly the way you want it to be. But that isn't going to shut us up.
I'm personally wouldn't say you're wrong. I would say your preference is different than mine and that I prefer that they not change the system to meet with your preference and abandon mine.

Precisely.
Just because some people have a problem with it doesn't mean that everyone does. Nor does it mean that anyone is right or wrong.
It simply means that different people have different desires and different points of view. I never said that you were wrong or that you should shut up. I simply said that I disagree about there being a problem in the first place.

Just because some DMs or players have difficulty with the concept of Inconsequential (0), Very Easy(5), Easy(10), Moderate(15), Difficult(20), Very Difficult(25), Nearly Impossible(30) does not mean that the system is at fault.
I mean, you're all clamoring on about guidelines.... but there they are.... there are your examples and guidelines.... just like they are in the PHB.
Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)
I'm AFB, but I'm fairly certain those are it. If you need more than that, you're going to first have to explain to me how that's the system's fault.
How you or I or anyone else decides to interpret those differing grades is irrelevant. All that matters is that you're consistent with them at your table. If so, the game runs just fine.
If not, the system isn't the problem. The DM is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But climbing? Yeah, you need to make a check for that unless you're going up a ladder. The DC is variable though based on the difficulty of the climb. Something with easy handholds would be anywhere from 5 to 10 and shouldn't be hard to make unless you are weaker than the average person.


Adventurers are presumed competent at adventuring things. That 80-y.o. decrepit wizard? He's not a PC, unless you're running STR, CON, and DEX all around 6 (or lower). And then you have larger problems. NPCs don't use ability checks when interacting with things unless the PCs are involved anyway, so it doesn't matter for them. Remember--the rules are only to help resolve interactions between the PCs and their environment. It's a UI, not a physics simulation.

Edit: A DC 10 check means that an average commoner fails 45% of the time. That's not easy for them. It's easy from the reference of an adventurer who probably has either proficiency or a higher modifier. Even a 1st level character with +0 STR and +2 proficiency will still fail 35% of the time. Someone with maxed STR but no proficiency will still fail 20% of the time. That's no easy check.

All climbing requires a check is a house-rule. I quote from the PHB (emphasis added):



While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot...unless the creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check.


Unless all the surfaces you're climbing are are "slippery vertical surfaces" or have "few handholds", climbing does not require a check. Period. Anyone saying otherwise is making a house-rule or ignoring the rules.

Second edit: and in doing so, you're removing a Thief Rogue's class feature. They can climb at regular speed. If it takes a check (which is a STR check not many of them are good at)...you just nerfed that ability into the ground. For no good reason.

Examples of Athletics given in the PHB:

climbing a sheer or slippery cliff, avoiding hazards while climbing, or clinging to a surface against opposition
Jumping unusually large distances or trying to pull off a stunt midjump
Swimming in trecherous currents, storm-tossed waves, or areas of thick seaweed. Or swimming against active opposition (something trying to pull you under or otherwise interfere).


Note the common theme. It's working against opposition. Normal jumping, running, climbing, and swimming shouldn't take checks. Anyone who can survive as an adventurer can handle those automatically. It's only when there's opposition (and thus failure would be interesting).

Another basic principle is that checks should not happen unless failure is interesting. That means repeatable checks (where nothing is lost but time and time doesn't matter) are pointless. Either they succeed on the first attempt or they take 10x normal time and succeed (if it was possible at all). Every failure should have consequences that change the nature of the situation, forcing a new strategy to overcome the mutated challenge.

[90sMusic]

one with few handholds requires a successful Strength

One with few handholds.

That applies to virtually everything. A 10 foot stone wall is not typically going to have handholds and will be hard to climb even if it isn't wet or slick. Even if it's only a 5 foot wall, someone in shape could pull themselves up over it or sling their leg up onto it, but not everyone is going to be able to do that. There are no handholds anywhere on it's surface except at the top. Now if it had a little hole in the center of it that you could put your foot in, that is easily a handwaved situation as essentially anyone could make it up there.

A tree without low branches to grab onto is just a thick cylinder without handholds and will be hard to climb, even if it isn't slick or wet.

Having handholds is a very important distinction and most things adventurers try to climb don't have proper handholds, especially not spaced closely enough together to go up or down easily and without effort in the same manner you'd go up or down a ladder.

Using athletics and strength checks for climbing is certainly not a houserule, automatically succeeding on climbing anything not slippery is.

[Haldir]

I find this whole thread rather ludicrous. It's not as if 3.P didn't including a byline that said DM's should add modifiers as they see fit. 5e just does away with a silly baseline that almost always got modded to hell anyway. 5e trusts DMs to do whats right to tell their stories, which is a perfectly fine baseline assumption for a game. You join a game of D&D because you trust a DM to tell a good story. It's inherent in the game regardless if there is or isn't a chart of Difficulty Checks.

[DivisibleByZero]

Using athletics and strength checks for climbing is certainly not a houserule

This.
When anything in the PHB says "At the DM's option <this>" then that means the rule is that the DM decides.
That's not an houserule. That's simply the rule. Rules designating DM Fiat and an Houserule are two different things.


I find this whole thread rather ludicrous. It's not as if 3.P didn't including a byline that said DM's should add modifiers as they see fit. 5e just does away with a silly baseline that almost always got modded to hell anyway. 5e trusts DMs to do whats right to tell their stories, which is a perfectly fine baseline assumption for a game. You join a game of D&D because you trust a DM to tell a good story. It's inherent in the game regardless if there is or isn't a chart of Difficulty Checks.

QFMFT Hallelujah!

[Unoriginal]

One with few handholds.

That applies to virtually everything. A 10 foot stone wall is not typically going to have handholds and will be hard to climb even if it isn't wet or slick. Even if it's only a 5 foot wall, someone in shape could pull themselves up over it or sling their leg up onto it, but not everyone is going to be able to do that. There are no handholds anywhere on it's surface except at the top. Now if it had a little hole in the center of it that you could put your foot in, that is easily a handwaved situation as essentially anyone could make it up there.

A tree without low branches to grab onto is just a thick cylinder without handholds and will be hard to climb, even if it isn't slick or wet.

Having handholds is a very important distinction and most things adventurers try to climb don't have proper handholds, especially not spaced closely enough together to go up or down easily and without effort in the same manner you'd go up or down a ladder.

Using athletics and strength checks for climbing is certainly not a houserule, automatically succeeding on climbing anything not slippery is.

You'll note that it is "at the DM's option" to call for a roll in case of a slippery surface or one with a few handholds.

Also I'm pretty sure a pseudo-medieval stone wall has enough crannies to count as "many handholds".

Furthermore, if *one* of the PCs can climb the thing despite the lack of many handholds, they can then throw a rope for their friends so that the "few handholds" is not an issue anymore.

[strangebloke]

Most "normal dudes" cannot just climb any tree or wall or whatever else. A lot of trees don't have branches low enough to the ground to use like a ladder and you have to jump up to grab hold of one. Once you're up in the branches, climbing a tree is pretty easy unless it's one of those really enormous trees where branches on the same side can be 5 and 6 feet apart, but that is still a lot of physical work to climb such a tree and lift your bodyweight up over and over again while holding on. I would LOVE to see you attempt to climb a semi-grown pine tree and tell me how easy it is. They are all over my yard and the lowest branches are 10 to 15 feet off the ground for most of them. How are you going to shimmy up that trunk without exerting any effort and with 100% chance of success? Even with tools to make it easier, there's still a chance you aren't going to make it up there.

And as for climbing anything else... It varies. Why don't you go find one of those fake rock wall places where they attach ropes to people and let them climb those fake walls. Those things have very easy to grab handholds, made specifically to climb, and very few people still make it up them very far. Climbing is not that easy, it takes a lot of strength to do. Something like a ladder makes it as easy as it can be, but even going up a ladder far enough will wind most people.


Where did I say that anyone should be able to climb anything? All I'm saying is that, as an overweight guy with no proficiency in athletics and STR and CON 8, I can climb some trees with zero risk of failure. I can climb a knotted rope with zero risk of failure. I can even conquer those feared murder-machines known as ladders without falling to my death! This, to me, puts all of those things at most at DC -1.

A level one rogue with expertise in climbing and climbing tools is a pretty fair representation of an expert, yeah? So what kind of climb can an expert do without risk of failure? Craggy mountain cliffs? Short Palm trees? Those are all DC 5 or so. Maybe DC 10 if you think that a real-world expert would have a significant chance of falling to their death.

Everything beyond is the realm of heroes. The rogue at my table has a +13 to athletics with reliable talent. If he says that he wants to scale a 30 foot shear cliff face, he just does. No check required.

Guy at the gym fallacy in spades here.



And ALL OF THIS, is without considering carrying 100+ pounds of equipment in your backpack while you do it.

This is the real problem right here. Would you as a DM tell me that you raised the DC by 5 because I didn't explicitly tell you that I left my backpack on the ground? Because by default the DC is unknown to me. This is where those stupid. 'Well of course my pack was on the ground! But you didn't say that you left it down there!'

You're also massively underselling STR, by the way. A guy with 16 STR can 'easily destroy a small stone statue with his bare hands.' This is what the creators of 5e think is reasonable. It might be different at your table, but if I'm a new player at your table, I have no way of knowing that until I fall to my death while trying to get a better view.



As for the wizard with 8 strength jumping 8 feet, this is just another example of people not knowing or understanding the rules. High jump is 3 feet plus strength modifier. That wizard is only jumping 2 feet high.

Long Jump. I read the rules... did you?

Even a two foot jump is pretty impressive for a guy who can't walk without a cane.


As for his movement speed, yeah he isn't being slowed down by his age, but that is more of a gameplay mechanics issue. They would have to make an entire system of extra rules layered on top of what is already there to say how much movement speed you lose with age or lose with lower ability scores, etc etc or make some kind of check and have it determine how far you get and so on. 5e is supposed to be rules light, so it makes sense they left that out since it's a bit not needed and would undoubtedly bog the game down.

Or, here's a thought: the creators of the game didn't want to make your character's age a point of optimization. If we did as 3x did and had aging penalties/bonuses, every cleric and wizard in the game would be 70 and cranky as hell... as level one adventurers. If you want to play a feeble guy, talk to your DM, and just pointbuy down to 4-6. It's an utterly trivial fix. This fixes your movespeed as well if you're using encumbrance, since you'll basically always be encumbered.


But climbing? Yeah, you need to make a check for that unless you're going up a ladder. The DC is variable though based on the difficulty of the climb. Something with easy handholds would be anywhere from 5 to 10 and shouldn't be hard to make unless you are weaker than the average person.

Also, even if you roll a natural 1, it isn't an automatic failure on skill checks. A natural 1 with 16 strength and proficiency in athletics, even at level 1 is still a 6 athletics check meaning you can always succeed on the truly trivial stuff, even if you suck at rolling. So the game still reflects you being more successful if you are stronger, etc.

So if your lowest possible roll is higher than the DC, it should be handwaved and no point rolling since you will succeed, but otherwise, there is always a chance of messing up. Especially if you aren't an athletic person and not very strong, you aren't immune to falling and an expert at climbing.

I agree with all of this, as I said. 'Difficulty of the climb determines difficulty class of the climb' is a tautology. Side note: people die when they are killed. This doesn't offer me any guidance, though, on how difficult a ' DC 18' is. The DMG says 'moderate to difficult.' I disagree. DC 18 is the sort of thing that an expert can do less than 50% of the time.

[strangebloke]

I find this whole thread rather ludicrous. It's not as if 3.P didn't including a byline that said DM's should add modifiers as they see fit. 5e just does away with a silly baseline that almost always got modded to hell anyway. 5e trusts DMs to do whats right to tell their stories, which is a perfectly fine baseline assumption for a game. You join a game of D&D because you trust a DM to tell a good story. It's inherent in the game regardless if there is or isn't a chart of Difficulty Checks.

Ok...

I had a cleric who had to try four times, with magic aid, to climb onto a 5-foot box. How does this enhance the story?

Also, a point: By default, if, in 3.P the DM added modifiers because of who I was and/or what I was wearing, I knew about it. If you change the DC, as in 5e, by default I do not know about it.

[Slipperychicken]

5e could do with some more comprehensive guidelines about skill DCs. We don't need everything spelled out, just one or two examples at certain DC levels (i.e. 0,5,10,15,20,25,30) for each skill to ground us, then individual groups can take it from there.



This is the real problem right here. Would you as a DM tell me that you raised the DC by 5 because I didn't explicitly tell you that I left my backpack on the ground? Because by default the DC is unknown to me. This is where those stupid. 'Well of course my pack was on the ground! But you didn't say that you left it down there!'

Raising the DC wouldn't be correct anyway. A heavily-encumbered PC would have disadvantage, not a higher DC.

[Haldir]

Ok...

I had a cleric who had to try four times, with magic aid, to climb onto a 5-foot box. How does this enhance the story.

Also, a point: By default, if, in 3.P the DM added modifiers because of who I was and/or what I was wearing, I knew about it. If you change the DC, as in 5e, by default I do not know about it.

Sounds like a problem with a DM, not a problem with a game. Technically this GM broke the climbing rules by demanding a check for something that was trivial. It was not a difficult surface by any reasonable standard therefore there was no call for a check.

Edit, Just for Reference-


Originally Posted by PHB, pg 182
While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot...unless the creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

Please do not use anecdotal evidence of DM's not following the rules as an argument against the rules. Bad form.

[DivisibleByZero]

5e could do with some more comprehensive guidelines about skill DCs. We don't need everything spelled out, just one or two examples at certain DC levels (i.e. 0,5,10,15,20,25,30) for each skill to ground us, then individual groups can take it from there.

The OP explains exactly why they didn't do this.


The most common argument given against the latter two is that it restricts the DM to running his campaign at a particular power level. Some campaigns are high fantasy, where climbing a cliff would be easy for the players. Others are lower power, where players might struggle to climb a stubborn tree.
<snip>
I believe I understand why WotC went with this approach. No fixed skill checks means that D&D 5e can be adapted to suit a wide variety of games.

Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.

[strangebloke]

5e could do with some more comprehensive guidelines about skill DCs. We don't need everything spelled out, just one or two examples at certain DC levels (i.e. 0,5,10,15,20,25,30) for each skill to ground us, then individual groups can take it from there.

Raising the DC wouldn't be correct anyway. A heavily-encumbered PC would have disadvantage, not a higher DC.

Exactly my point. The DC should be PC agnostic. A cliff has a DC. It does not have a DC for Larry while he's wearing heavy armor. A player get's a modifier based on his character sheet. If a player interacts with the challenge in a weird way, you give advantage/disadvantage. Even spelling out this much in the DMG would be a huge help. I'm not saying this because I got screwed as a player... I'm saying this because it took me a lot of trial and error as a DM to get this down.


Sounds like a problem with a DM, not a problem with a game. Technically this GM broke the climbing rules by demanding a check for something that was trivial. It was not a difficult surface by any reasonable standard therefore there was no call for a check.

Edit, Just for Reference-



Please do not use anecdotal evidence of DM's not following the rules as an argument against the rules. Bad form.

It is against the rules. The point you quoted states 'at the DM's option.' Meaning that requiring any 'climb' check ever is actually optional. By default anything that can be climbed, can be climbed without a check. However, read through this thread. I'm arguing against folks that think that you should have checks for everything, including for things like apple trees and knotted ropes.



Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.
No, because they never explicitly explain who the point of reference here is. Given the numbers they give, their point of reference is a 6th level PC with good stats and proficiency. A level 1 guy with proficiency and good stats would fail even the 'easy' check about 25% of the time. If my guy is a con-man, does it make sense that he can't consistently pull of an 'easy' bluff?

Also, I think that OP's argument is silly. Yes, its nice to be able to play different styles of game, whether 'heroic' or 'gritty.'
...isn't that why adventures come with suggested levels?

[Easy_Lee]

If this was purely a DM problem, then the skills issue wouldn't come up so much more often in 5e than it did in previous editions. We can argue over exactly why 5e has so many DMs who can't give reasonable, consistent Check DCs. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, this problem is more common now.

And just so we're clear, baselines for typical checks don't interfere with DMs who want to throw out those baselines. DMs already throw out any rules they don't like, anyway.

[Slipperychicken]

Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?

[Easy_Lee]

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?

This is it, in a nutshell. DMs who want to use their own DCs can do so. But DMs who want to go with the norm don't have a norm.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, because they never explicitly explain who the point of reference here is. Given the numbers they give, their point of reference is a 6th level PC with good stats and proficiency. A level 1 guy with proficiency and good stats would fail even the 'easy' check about 25% of the time. If my guy is a con-man, does it make sense that he can't consistently pull of an 'easy' bluff?

The point of reference is irrelevant. That the DM is consistent is the only thing that matters. That's the entire premise of the Gritty vs Heroic variability.

As for your 1st level con man.... 75% victory rate for a beginner with a little training is absolutely reasonable. 75% is a fairly good consistency rating.

[DanyBallon]

Like I told Pex many time (we agree to disagree on this topic :smallbiggrin:) we already have a framework that give us an example of wath an easy, medium, hard save is. While it may shift around the numbers presented in the example from a DM to another, if you create your character to be better in a skill than most, then whatever the skill DC, you will succeed more often (unless you always roll low) than other characters.

I.e. You have two 1st level character with the exact same ability score, and one is proficient in climbing, and one isn't. Now let say DM1 set DC for climbing a steep cliff at DC 15 and DM2 set the DC for the same cliff at DC 10 from his own IRL experience.
One thing for sure, characters having to roll vs the DC 10 will succeed more often than vs DC 15, on that we all agree, but still, the proficient character having a net +2 on his roll will succeed more often then the non-proficient character. And I believe this is all that matter when you try creating a character specialized in a skill, it's not about beating the hardest DC over and over, but being better than non-specialized characters at a given task. Once in a while a character might get lucky and do better than the expert on a few rolls, but in the long run, the expert will end up being the most reliable. In this regard, I think the designers did a great job with the skill system as it can be adapt to different game style, and to DM with different IRL experience, and/or opinion, and yet provide players a mean to make sure their character expertise matter whatever the DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?

The reference is not real life. It's the game world. Does the DM want animal training (which is not really covered by skills anyway), lockpicking, or stealing wallets (which is allowed only at DM's call by the text itself) to be very easy (succeed 80% of the time) for an untrained commoner? Easy (succeed 55% of the time), medium (succeed 30% of the time) or hard (succeed 5% of the time by pure luck)?

Note that the names are really based around people with a +4 modifier (either ability or proficiency or a combination). That puts easy checks at 75% success, medium at 50% success, and hard at 25% success. This makes very easy checks pointless--someone with a +4 will always succeed at them (no auto-failure on a 1). The DMG is clear that those are the only DCs needed. No need to try to distinguish a 14 from a 15. Assign one of the set [10, 15, 20] and go with it. That's it. There's nothing more to it.

Individual circumstances are handled by advantage or disadvantage (or by declaring autosuccess or autofailure in extreme cases). Not by modifiers to the DC. Stacking modifiers are only very rarely a thing in 5e. Please don't try to bring them back--it makes my poor little brain hurt.

[DivisibleByZero]

Like I told Pex many time (we agree to disagree on this topic :smallbiggrin:) we already have a framework that give us an example of wath an easy, medium, hard save is. While it may shift around the numbers presented in the example from a DM to another, if you create your character to be better in a skill than most, then whatever the skill DC, you will succeed more often (unless you always roll low) than other characters.

I.e. You have two 1st level character with the exact same ability score, and one is proficient in climbing, and one isn't. Now let say DM1 set DC for climbing a steep cliff at DC 15 and DM2 set the DC for the same cliff at DC 10 from his own IRL experience.
One thing for sure, characters having to roll vs the DC 10 will succeed more often than vs DC 15, on that we all agree, but still, the proficient character having a net +2 on his roll will succeed more often then the non-proficient character. And I believe this is all that matter when you try creating a character specialized in a skill, it's not about beating the hardest DC over and over, but being better than non-specialized characters at a given task. Once in a while a character might get lucky and do better than the expert on a few rolls, but in the long run, the expert will end up being the most reliable. In this regard, I think the designers did a great job with the skill system as it can be adapt to different game style, and to DM with different IRL experience, and/or opinion, and yet provide players a mean to make sure their character expertise matter whatever the DM.

Give this man a cookie. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

The point of reference is irrelevant. That the DM is consistent is the only thing that matters. That's the entire premise of the Gritty vs Heroic variability.

As for your 1st level con man.... 75% victory rate for a beginner with a little training is absolutely reasonable. 75% is a fairly good consistency rating.

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

Marginally? If you have 16 CHA (a +3) and proficiency (+2), you're succeeding at a DC 10 check 80% of the time. That town drunk (at a total modifier of -2), is succeeding 35% of the time. You're better than double his ability. With bounded accuracy, you're pretty much polar opposites.

Oh, and a level 1 character is not an accomplished anything. He's definitionally a beginner. An apprentice. He's not an experienced conman with a string of successful cons under his belt. He's participated in one or two, maybe with some success.

So yes, your definition of easy is kinda off from what the game expects. Sorry.

Edit: Oh, and one other thing--truly easy checks (by your definition) just happen, no roll needed. If there isn't a meaningful chance of failure, your attempts auto-succeed. That's a bright-line DMG rule. Checks are for things where there is a meaningful chance of interesting failure. There's even a variant rule to let you succeed on all checks with DC < modifier - 5 (so for you, any DC 10 check). Ability checks should be as meaningful as saving throws, with consequences of similar magnitude that change the situation. If you're rolling them for other things, you're playing in an unsupported manner and can expect things to break.

[DivisibleByZero]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

And so you're in the Heroic camp.
That's literally the only difference. You want an Heroic game, and you want the rules to make that possible.
But here's the thing....
Are you ready?






The rules ALREADY make that possible.

And here's the other thing....
Setting it the way that you personally want it would preclude anyone from being able to play a Gritty game without houseruling things.

But the way that the rules are now?
They allow BOTH types of game under the same rule set. They also allow any and all variations in between and beyond, and they do it all under the same rule set without any tweaking needed except for expectations. And those expectations can be handled with a simple conversation before the first session.

[Unoriginal]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

Supposing a lvl 1 con ma with 16 Cha:

Town Drunk: -2

Con Man: +6

How is a difference of 40% "marginally better" ?

[strangebloke]

Like I told Pex many time (we agree to disagree on this topic :smallbiggrin:) we already have a framework that give us an example of wath an easy, medium, hard save is. While it may shift around the numbers presented in the example from a DM to another, if you create your character to be better in a skill than most, then whatever the skill DC, you will succeed more often (unless you always roll low) than other characters.

I.e. You have two 1st level character with the exact same ability score, and one is proficient in climbing, and one isn't. Now let say DM1 set DC for climbing a steep cliff at DC 15 and DM2 set the DC for the same cliff at DC 10 from his own IRL experience.
One thing for sure, characters having to roll vs the DC 10 will succeed more often than vs DC 15, on that we all agree, but still, the proficient character having a net +2 on his roll will succeed more often then the non-proficient character. And I believe this is all that matter when you try creating a character specialized in a skill, it's not about beating the hardest DC over and over, but being better than non-specialized characters at a given task. Once in a while a character might get lucky and do better than the expert on a few rolls, but in the long run, the expert will end up being the most reliable. In this regard, I think the designers did a great job with the skill system as it can be adapt to different game style, and to DM with different IRL experience, and/or opinion, and yet provide players a mean to make sure their character expertise matter whatever the DM.

It does matter though. Math time.

CH1: +4 to athletics
CH2: +0 to athletics

DM1: DC 15
DM2: DC 10
DM3: DC 20

CH1 at table of DM1: 50% chance.
CH2 at table of DM1: 30% chance.
CH1 at table of DM2: 75% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 55% chance.
CH1 at table of DM3: 25% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 5% chance.


Now, think through this a bit.

At DM1's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.7
At DM2's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.3
at DM3's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 4!

So, the importance of getting proficiency in that skill might be much more or less depending on what my DM thinks constitutes a difficult climb. If my DM think's trees are generally around a 15, that's not something that's going to come up when I'm building my character. But if I'm building a DEX-based wood elf fighter, it... could be a serious issue. Unless a DM has a specific reason otherwise, he should just let people climb trees, since by RAW that's the way things are.

Expectation is important.

[DanyBallon]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

Succeeding 75% of the time is in my opinion perfectly fine for an easy task, some time even the best con man can make a blunder and fail to bluff someone.

And as for your 1st level con man being marginally better than the town drunk, I think you are stretching it a bit.
Let say that you con man have CHA 16, and is proficient, if not expert, that's at least +5 vs -2 for the CHA 6 non-proficient drunk, a net +7 difference between the two, that's huge on a d20 roll!!!

[PhoenixPhyre]

If my DM think's trees are generally around a 15, that's not something that's going to come up when I'm building my character. But if I'm building a DEX-based wood elf fighter, it... could be a serious issue. Unless a DM has a specific reason otherwise, he should just let people climb trees, since by RAW that's the way things are.


If your DM thinks that trees are generally DC 15...I don't know what to say. Children (not exactly the strongest creatures) are notorious for climbing trees. That would impose failure on the majority of tree-climbing attempts by everyone except STR-focused characters or those with proficiency/expertise in athletics.

I definitely agree with the 3rd sentence. Them's the rules, just as important as the RAW for hiding or attacks.

Note that the verbiage "at the DM's discretion" is tied to giving a check at all. The default for climbing anything is no check. For particularly difficult things, the DM can (but is not required to) impose a check. There is a strong default for no check for climbing whatsoever. Same with swimming. Or jumping (up to the max distances set out).

[Eric Diaz]

[B]In short, choosing to run a mundane rather than heroic game is as significant a decision as deciding to house rule plate armor or other fixed effects. It may not seem like it, but it has just as big of an effect on the game.

Consider also that skill checks are the main area of the game where this sort of variability exists. Spells have fixed effects, attacks do a fixed amount of damage, and most features work exactly as they're written. It's only skills where we have no idea where the power level will be until we ask the DM.

I believe I understand why WotC went with this approach. No fixed skill checks means that D&D 5e can be adapted to suit a wide variety of games.

However, the more variability you add, the less of a game you have left.

In conclusion, I don't think that variability was the right decision. Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e. Otherwise, we aren't all playing the same game.

I think you make some great points and agree with some of your premises, just not the conclusion.

We can never be "playing the same game", because of different settings and GMs among other things.

Settings: if I'm playing Dark Sun, where food and water are scarce, am I justified in changing the rules? Or does the outlander background now becomes OP?

GMs: with loose DCs, GMs can set the DCs to the intended "tone". Say, one GM wants high-level PCs to climb dangerous mountains under heavy rain, so he sets the climb DC at 20-25, and such challenges happen often. Other GM wants it to be near impossible, so the DC is 30, but the situation never comes up. The only thing that would be a problem, I think, is if the PCs are required to make such climb and the DC is 30.

If we are using the same DCs, but my dungeons have slippery DC 30 walls that the players never manage to climb, and your dungeons have rough DC 15 that PCs easily defeat, we are not really "playing the same game".

With that said, I think 5e could choose one way over the other. It would gain consistency, it would loose flexibility. There is no win-win that I can see.

Also, some issues are less obvious than others. Take this for example:

"If climbing is difficult, spider climb, fly, levitate, and so on become more powerful. If swimming is easy, water walk and aquatic transformations become weaker. If persuasion checks rarely work, then spells like Command, Suggestion, dominate effects, or even Friends become more powerful. If stealth is easy, then Invisibility and Pass Without Trace are weaker."

This is true, but what "climbing is difficult" means? It means the DC is high for the PCs. But if 5e had an explicit rule where "climbing a common tree is DC 5", and I put a slippery tree in my game (DC 20), climbing would be more difficult in MY games - even if we are using the exact same DCs for the exact same things!

"Impossible to swim in full plate" is not realistic "per se", but I'd assume some limitation to be expected (disadvantage seem more reasonable, or double encumbrance while swimming etc). "Compound the effects of difficult terrain when someone is wearing plate" seems unjustified, because the rules ALREADY take those things in consideration. Likewise, "impose penalties on their dexterity checks, and you make it impossible for them to comfortably fire a bow because of the gauntlets" have no basis at all in 5e.

Etc.

EDIT: haven't read the whole thread, but am reading it now and it seems more people might have made a similar point, so forgive me for being repetitive.

[DanyBallon]

It does matter though. Math time.

CH1: +4 to athletics
CH2: +0 to athletics

DM1: DC 15
DM2: DC 10
DM3: DC 20

CH1 at table of DM1: 50% chance.
CH2 at table of DM1: 30% chance.
CH1 at table of DM2: 75% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 55% chance.
CH1 at table of DM3: 25% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 5% chance.


Now, think through this a bit.

At DM1's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.7
At DM2's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.3
at DM3's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 4!

So, the importance of getting proficiency in that skill might be much more or less depending on what my DM thinks constitutes a difficult climb. If my DM think's trees are generally around a 15, that's not something that's going to come up when I'm building my character. But if I'm building a DEX-based wood elf fighter, it... could be a serious issue. Unless a DM has a specific reason otherwise, he should just let people climb trees, since by RAW that's the way things are.

Expectation is important.

Is your character better than a non-proficien one? yes?! then the design goal is achieved! How much you increase your chance doesn't really matter. If on the other hand, your math would show that you don't increase your chance in a given situation, then the system would have been proven flawed, but it isn't

[strangebloke]

And so you're in the Heroic camp.
That's literally the only difference. You want an Heroic game, and you want the rules to make that possible.
But here's the thing....
Are you ready?






The rules ALREADY make that possible.

And here's the other thing....
Setting it the way that you personally want it would preclude anyone from being able to play a Gritty game without houseruling things.

But the way that the rules are now?
They allow BOTH types of game under the same rule set. They also allow any and all variations in between and beyond, and they do it all under the same rule set without any tweaking needed except for expectations. And those expectations can be handled with a simple conversation before the first session.

You could play either style if we had fixed DCs. You'd just play high-level if you wanted heroic and low-level if you wanted gritty. That's already the way that things are, assuming that you're using the Monster Manual. I'm just trying to imagine a 'heroic' game where you fight bullywugs and goblins for the first three encounters. Or a gritty game where the PCs can't climb a tree but can teleport 9/10ths of the way around the world, fly, and kill Lichs with orbital smite towers.

RE: the town drunk. I was wrong. Marginally was the wrong word. But think about if this was real-life: One guy is a trained (even if he's something of a novice) liar, and he's quite talented. The other guy is a slovenly idiot who is barely credible when telling the truth... and one of them is only twice as likely to succeed.

[Unoriginal]

I think the biggest consequence for variability is that people will make a lot of threads about it on internet forums.

[DivisibleByZero]

You could play either style if we had fixed DCs. You'd just play high-level if you wanted heroic and low-level if you wanted gritty.

Fail.
You're basically saying that you can't play a Gritty high level game, and that you can't play an Heroic low level game. But the thing is, under the current rules, you absolutely can. With your proposed changes of adding set DCs, that's no longer true without houseruling.
The current rules are better without those set DCs (and using only guidelines) because they allow all of those types of play at any level.

[strangebloke]

Is your character better than a non-proficien one? yes?! then the design goal is achieved! How much you increase your chance doesn't really matter. If on the other hand, your math would show that you don't increase your chance in a given situation, then the system would have been proven flawed, but it isn't

Except that training in one skill versus another represents opportunity cost. If my DM makes stealth really easy, but makes sleight of hand really hard, then expertise in sleight of hand became much more important than expertise in stealth for my sneaky character.

If my sneaky rogue is only a tiny bit better at stealth than the clumsy fighter, such that he can make a stealth check I can't 1/4 times, that materially diminishes the value of my class features.

[Slipperychicken]

The reference is not real life. It's the game world. Does the DM want animal training (which is not really covered by skills anyway), lockpicking, or stealing wallets (which is allowed only at DM's call by the text itself) to be very easy (succeed 80% of the time) for an untrained commoner? Easy (succeed 55% of the time), medium (succeed 30% of the time) or hard (succeed 5% of the time by pure luck)?

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

[Eric Diaz]

Think of it this way: playing a paladin or cleric in a campaign that has a lot of undead versus a campaign that has fewer undead also causes variability. We wouldn't want 5e to make all these choices for us. Of course, we can fit the rules to the setting; I just created 10 house rules to adapt 5e to Dark Sun (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/09/dark-sun-10-house-rules-for-5e-part-ii.html), for example, because I wouldn't use the rules as written.

Also, I completely agree DCs (and all rules, really) should certainly be clear and consistent within a single campaign.

[Sigreid]

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

For this specific example I would set the DC to the target's passive perception. I would give disadvantage to the pick pocket roll as they are described as being alone in a well lit area. I would permit the rogue to remove the disadvantage by making a successful stealth roll, again against the passive perception of the target. If the rogue chose to try the stealth roll a failed roll would eliminate the chance for a pick pocket roll as he was not only spotted, but spotted acting suspicious. While I wouldn't give the DC to the rogue player he would have the rest of this information up front, and be told how alert the target appears.

[Unoriginal]

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

How do you want to be realistic about something involving an orc?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

You're skipping important steps here that resolve the question. Is there a meaningful chance of interesting consequences if he fails? Seems (from your description) that there aren't. Either he takes it without being seen (and then kills the guard) or kills the guard and then takes the purse. No point in even having a check. Auto-success on the taking the purse part. See below for the state of the "not being seen" part.

Ability checks are for things with interesting failure states. If the failure wouldn't be interesting, don't have a check. That's a big difference from earlier editions. You can't use the same philosophy of skills from 3.5e in 5e without friction. It's just not set that way, on purpose. Every saving throw or ability check (and many attack rolls too) should do something interesting on success or failure.

Note: Impartiality is not part of a DM's job. Fun is. You're not simulating a world, you're allowing game-play in a world. DMs should be fans of the characters--that doesn't mean letting them automatically succeed, but it does mean that you have a vested interest in them doing interesting things.

As a side note--in a well-lit, open dungeon, you're not hidden as soon as the guard walks around the corner. Pick-pocketing only works in crowds or with distractions. Realistically, this is a DC: Nope check to avoid being detected. You may be able to overpower him before he can sound an alarm, but he's going to see you, like it or not.

[strangebloke]

Fail.
You're basically saying that you can't play a Gritty high level game, and that you can't play an Heroic low level game. But the thing is, under the current rules, you absolutely can. With your proposed changes of adding set DCs, that's no longer true without houseruling.
The current rules are better without those set DCs (and using only guidelines) because they allow all of those types of play at any level.

Spells scale according to fixed rules.
Enemy spells scale according to fixed rules.

Damage scales according to fixed rules.
HP scales according to fixed rules.

Attack values are based off of fixed rules.
AC values are based off of fixed rules.

Skill bonuses scale according to fixed rules.
Skill DC's scale... to something. DM's, just do whatever here.

I run a campaign that started out fairly 'gritty.' Five PC deaths in a year of play. Players have to follow encumbrance rules and specify who is holding the torch. Combat is on a grid. Players have to track rations and ammunition. I've even sprung some pretty dirty traps on my guys, despite how little I like traps. NPCs will do their darndest to scheme and kill the PCs, and will be dodgy as heck about it, poisoning the wine at an inn, burning down bridges from under them, etc. In general, the status quo is very difficult to perturb and even though the PCs are (now) quite high-level, there are many endemic problems that they can't fix. I've been tight-wadded with money and aallowed them very few opportunties to obtain magic items.

As things have gone on though, it is very hard to realistically sell the gritty feel without houseruling. Once Revivify is online, characters essentially do not die outside of a TPK or a disintegrate. All challenges related to overworld travel are trivialized by teleportation. Mooks have to be ind great numbers to pose a real threat, with spells like cloudkill. Pretty much the only way to threaten them is high-level, magic-wielding NPCs with hordes of mooks to back them up, which to me seems less 'gritty' and more 'heroic.' There are ways to make this all seem pretty gritty, anyway, but it takes work and doesn't involve skill checks.

Without houseruling, your capacity to take on, say, 100 goblins is very much a factor of your level, regardless of your DM. Your ability to take on trees ranges from 'trivial' to 'nigh impossible,' completely due to your DM's (often unstated) discretion.


Think of it this way: playing a paladin or cleric in a campaign that has a lot of undead versus a campaign that has fewer undead also causes variability. We wouldn't want 5e to make all these choices for us. Of course, we can fit the rules to the setting; I just created 10 house rules to adapt 5e to Dark Sun (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/09/dark-sun-10-house-rules-for-5e-part-ii.html), for example, because I wouldn't use the rules as written.

Also, I completely agree DCs (and all rules, really) should certainly be clear and consistent within a single campaign.
Yeah, but! 'This is an undead heavy game' is exactly the kind of thing a DM needs to tell his players. I don't think that 'tree DC' is something that has ever come up in a pre-campaign meeting.

[Easy_Lee]

I noticed nobody replied to one of my posts, so I'll restate the point more clearly.

The baseline AC for Full Plate is 18. A DM can change that if he wishes, but a DM who wants to use the default is free to do so.

There is no baseline DC for most Checks that players attempt. A DM must set these on the fly. A DM who wants to use the default can't because there is no default.

Full Plate AC affects attack rolls, one of the three types of D20 rolls. Having no default roll for most checks is more significant than if Full Plate AC was missing. It's comparable to having no default calculations for AC at all.

You might think this empowers DMs to come up with DCs as they see fit. But DMs already had that power. On the contrary, the lack of defaults burdens those DMs who want to use the default.

And that's in addition to the lack of guidance for players.

[Sigreid]

I noticed nobody replied to one of my posts, so I'll restate the point more clearly.

The baseline AC for Full Plate is 18. A DM can change that if he wishes, but a DM who wants to use the default is free to do so.

There is no baseline DC for most Checks that players attempt. A DM must set these on the fly. A DM who wants to use the default can't because there is no default.

Full Plate AC affects attack rolls, one of the three types of D20 rolls. Having no default roll for most checks is more significant than if Full Plate AC was missing. It's comparable to having no default calculations for AC at all.

You might think this empowers DMs to come up with DCs as they see fit. But DMs already had that power. On the contrary, the lack of defaults burdens those DMs who want to use the default.

And that's in addition to the lack of guidance for players.

And if they spell out the defaults that leads to a certain number of arguments with players when you have a different number in mind.

[DanyBallon]

Except that training in one skill versus another represents opportunity cost. If my DM makes stealth really easy, but makes sleight of hand really hard, then expertise in sleight of hand became much more important than expertise in stealth for my sneaky character.

If my sneaky rogue is only a tiny bit better at stealth than the clumsy fighter, such that he can make a stealth check I can't 1/4 times, that materially diminishes the value of my class features.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have expectations where as, non proficient character shouldn't even have a decent chance to succeed, otherwise you feel like your character features are less meaningful and it affect the fun you have playing the game?

In 3.P, don't know for 4e as I'm not familiar enough with it, the way they "fixed" this issue they made skills scaling so much that unless you maxed out a skill, there was no chance for you to succeed, meaning that you needed to carefully choose which skills to pick. In 5e, by moving skill checks to being ability checks, the intent was to have the character be able to contribute more or less even if not proficient, while still allowing proficient characters to keep an edge over non-proficient character. Then they also added a simple line that suggest that you don't need to roll for every checks. This sentence being vague enough allow DM to recreate the feeling of 3.P by not allowing non-proficient character to roll, thus keeping the proficient one meaningful if it's a problem at the table.

On the other hand, having example for everything can be a limiting factor if their are some rule-lawyer at the table.

In the end, no solution is perfect, but as far as I'm concerned, I prefer the 5e way, as it is more flexible to adapt a given situation, while a rule-heavy solution like it was before, is more limiting for me and my players.

[Unoriginal]

Would it really make you guys like the game better if there was a list that said "this is easy, DC 10" or "this is hard, DC 20" for a bunch of actions?

[Finieous]

For this specific example I would set the DC to the target's passive perception. I would give disadvantage to the pick pocket roll as they are described as being alone in a well lit area. I would permit the rogue to remove the disadvantage by making a successful stealth roll, again against the passive perception of the target. If the rogue chose to try the stealth roll a failed roll would eliminate the chance for a pick pocket roll as he was not only spotted, but spotted acting suspicious. While I wouldn't give the DC to the rogue player he would have the rest of this information up front, and be told how alert the target appears.

Whoa, slow down there, buddy! This would suggest that even with a fixed DC for this specific task handed to the DM (victim's PP), the DM will have to use judgment to determine the outcome of the character's action. How's a DM supposed to know to impose disadvantage for the lighting? How's the DM supposed to know to let the rogue overcome the disadvantage with a Stealth check? Where's all that in chart form?

It's almost as though judgment is inescapable in running an RPG and is therefore a skill good DMs should strive to cultivate! We're just looking for some friggin' charts here, man!

[Sigreid]

Whoa, slow down there, buddy! This would suggest that even with a fixed DC for this specific task handed to the DM (victim's PP), the DM will have to use judgment to determine the outcome of the character's action. How's a DM supposed to know to impose disadvantage for the lighting? How's the DM supposed to know to let the rogue overcome the disadvantage with a Stealth check? Where's all that in chart form?

It's almost as though judgment is inescapable in running an RPG and is therefore a skill good DMs should strive to cultivate! We're just looking for some friggin' charts here, man!

ROFL :smallbiggrin:

[DanyBallon]

I noticed nobody replied to one of my posts, so I'll restate the point more clearly.

The baseline AC for Full Plate is 18. A DM can change that if he wishes, but a DM who wants to use the default is free to do so.

There is no baseline DC for most Checks that players attempt. A DM must set these on the fly. A DM who wants to use the default can't because there is no default.

Full Plate AC affects attack rolls, one of the three types of D20 rolls. Having no default roll for most checks is more significant than if Full Plate AC was missing. It's comparable to having no default calculations for AC at all.

You might think this empowers DMs to come up with DCs as they see fit. But DMs already had that power. On the contrary, the lack of defaults burdens those DMs who want to use the default.

And that's in addition to the lack of guidance for players.

I think, that you are not comparing apple to apple in you example, and let me try to explain why. I may be wrong, but here's how I see it:

The Full Plate AC18 is not a baseline but a single value in the AC table. A leather armor AC11 being an other. Being very generic, you could have leather armor being an easy to hit type at DC11, while full plate being a hard to hit type at DC18. AC being a kind of ability check that have gave much more example of specific DC, where as the skill section only give us a simplier description with easy, medium, hard, very hard, etc.

Is this making sense?

[DanyBallon]

Whoa, slow down there, buddy! This would suggest that even with a fixed DC for this specific task handed to the DM (victim's PP), the DM will have to use judgment to determine the outcome of the character's action. How's a DM supposed to know to impose disadvantage for the lighting? How's the DM supposed to know to let the rogue overcome the disadvantage with a Stealth check? Where's all that in chart form?

It's almost as though judgment is inescapable in running an RPG and is therefore a skill good DMs should strive to cultivate! We're just looking for some friggin' charts here, man!

I hope you're kidding. You're kidding right? :smalltongue:
If so please edit your text to blue, otherwise some people might think you're serious :smallbiggrin:

[CaptainSarathai]

There are default DCs though. Ask if the task is:
Very Easy: 5
Easy: 10
Moderate: 15
Hard: 20
Impossible: 25

My issue with say, climbing a tree, is that DMs ask for rolls too often. The magical level and so on of your campaign has little variance on tree climbing. Mundane NPCs should be expected to have 8s in their stats across the board. 10 is considered notably above average, 8 is "average, for a human." A small human child can climb trees and really only fails during unusual circumstances (rolls a 1). So the DC for tree climbing is less than 5. Think about it, a -2 to your roll puts DC5 at failing 30% of the time. Expecting players to roll for tree climbing isn't depicting a "low magic" setting, it's depicting a "low competency" setting.

DMs are also fond of making people roll without having a plan for failure.
"Oh, yeah, the Macguffin is at the top of the tree, it should be an easy (dc5) climb."
"Oh, you rolled a 1 and fell? Nobody got up the tree? Uh... Go ahead and roll again, guys."
It just wastes time. If the players have infinite amounts of time for the roll, they're gonna get up the tree eventually, even the guy who needs a nat 20 to get to the top.

So I don't really care that there's not a standard difficulty. If I had a DM (or player) respond to my request to say, kick down a door, by flipping through a 5 page chart of DCs to figure out the door DC, I'd probably just leave.
As a DM, I usually use the sample DCs based on how much a want the PCs plan to succeed.
"You come to a door - it has heavy iron bars and a very ornate locking mechanism, what do you do?"
My intent is for them to try picking the lock, and if they fail the first time, trigger a trap which slowly fills the room with poisonous gas until they get through the door. So when the Barbarian says
"I try to kick it down!"
Uh, no, buddy - I really want you to pick that lock. So we're gonna put that door-kicking DC at something the Barb is highly unlikely to hit. Give him the illusion of getting a chance, but but tell him that it's a damn sturdy door, it's gonna be pretty hard (aka, DC20).
If the Rogue is on hand and can pick the lock, and gets a +6 to his rolls, then I want him to fail a little more than half the time, to have the best odds of them seeing trap, taking a little gas damage, and adding some tension. So let's make the lock DC about 17 (11+6 = 17). A normal person isn't gonna be able to pick that lock, but a hero sure could. It be a story worthy of legend. And isn't that what our players are doing? Being legendary?

[strangebloke]

In the end, no solution is perfect, but as far as I'm concerned, I prefer the 5e way, as it is more flexible to adapt a given situation, while a rule-heavy solution like it was before, is more limiting for me and my players.

I don't have a problem with skill checks being weak. I'm fine if everyone can attempt a check with a decent chance of success. I have an issue with not knowing that until I've already built my character.

I guess, in a general sense, I'd feel better if skill checks were based off of 3d6 or something. Just because they happen less often, it can feel really weird how my tree-climbing guy sometimes, mysteriously, is unable to climb trees.


Would it really make you guys like the game better if there was a list that said "this is easy, DC 10" or "this is hard, DC 20" for a bunch of actions?

In the same sense that it makes me feel better that there's a chart specifying the AC for full plate and half plate... yes. Athletics is interesting because you can do things with it, like grapple or knock someone prone. Handle Animal is comparatively boring because, depending on your DM, it might be super useful, or it might be worthless.

Deception, Stealth, Perception, Insight, and sometimes Athletics have defined abilities that they roll against.

If you think the DCs are too low/high for your campaign, you can always just tell everyone at campaign start that you're working with +/-5 DC compared to the chart.



Whoa, slow down there, buddy! This would suggest that even with a fixed DC for this specific task handed to the DM (victim's PP), the DM will have to use judgment to determine the outcome of the character's action. How's a DM supposed to know to impose disadvantage for the lighting? How's the DM supposed to know to let the rogue overcome the disadvantage with a Stealth check? Where's all that in chart form?

It's almost as though judgment is inescapable in running an RPG and is therefore a skill good DMs should strive to cultivate! We're just looking for some friggin' charts here, man!

...I know its a joke but I can't help myself.

Presumably the consequence of success is that he does the thing that he was trying to do. Presumably the consequence of failure is that he does not. IE: a failed climb check means that you do not climb. In fact, I'd say that its key that the DM tell the player any potential consequences of failing before the check is made.


snip

I will acknowledge that I basically use the flowchart that phoenixpyre put up, (and took down?) but this is more or less what I've trying to get at in all my ranting. Zman has a great tweaks thing he put up here earlier. Among other things, it tweaks the AC of Medium armor. That's great! But its also great that we have default AC values.

[DanyBallon]

I don't have a problem with skill checks being weak. I'm fine if everyone can attempt a check with a decent chance of success. I have an issue with not knowing that until I've already built my character.


You see, that's a feeling I don't truly don't understand, and is often the core issue in the discussion I have with Pex on skills in 5e. Would you care to try to explain me how it affect you and your gameplay? You can do this in private if you don't want to derail this thread :smallsmile:

[Eric Diaz]

I noticed nobody replied to one of my posts, so I'll restate the point more clearly.

The baseline AC for Full Plate is 18. A DM can change that if he wishes, but a DM who wants to use the default is free to do so.

There is no baseline DC for most Checks that players attempt. A DM must set these on the fly. A DM who wants to use the default can't because there is no default.

Full Plate AC affects attack rolls, one of the three types of D20 rolls. Having no default roll for most checks is more significant than if Full Plate AC was missing. It's comparable to having no default calculations for AC at all.

You might think this empowers DMs to come up with DCs as they see fit. But DMs already had that power. On the contrary, the lack of defaults burdens those DMs who want to use the default.

And that's in addition to the lack of guidance for players.

What would the "default" loo like other than that?

Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

Seems to me 15 is the default.

But I'd assume you want something like this:

Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5 - climbing a wall your height
Easy 10 - climbing a regular tree
Medium 15 - climbing a regular tree under heavy rain
etc.

But consider what I said above: what does "climbing is difficult" means? It means the DC is high for the PCs. But if 5e had an explicit rule where "climbing a common tree is DC 5", and I put a slippery tree in my game (DC 20), climbing would be more difficult in MY games - even if we are using the exact same DCs for the exact same things!

EDIT: consider this - you have default AC because you have default adversaries. To do something like that with DCs, you'd have to have "default challenges". It is not impossible, but saying "climbing a common tree is DC 5" is not enough unless you also say "tier 1 characters should not face DCs higher than 20".

There is another issue here - not all skills are equal (unlike attack bonuses against AC, which are very similar). So you'd have to create guidelines such as "tier 1 characters should not face DCs higher than 20, unless they have a rogue with expertise and only she is required to succeed".

Not a bad idea, really. 4e did something like that, but I didn't like it much (it seemed like it encouraged fixing higher DCs at higher levels, without making the tasks any different - so coherence goes out the window).

In fact, page 238 of the DMG deals with the issue. Maybe you would like more examples of specific skill uses - is that it? It is doable, but it doesn't really matter, because you already know what DCs you're likely to face when you create your PC.


I guess, in a general sense, I'd feel better if skill checks were based off of 3d6 or something. Just because they happen less often, it can feel really weird how my tree-climbing guy sometimes, mysteriously, is unable to climb trees.

This is a whole different issue, but I agree.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will acknowledge that I basically use the flowchart that phoenixpyre put up, (and took down?) but this is more or less what I've trying to get at in all my ranting.

Sorry about that--the image got corrupted due to a caching issue. I'm going to post it to a different thread one I have it working again.

[strangebloke]

I think, that you are not comparing apple to apple in you example, and let me try to explain why. I may be wrong, but here's how I see it:

The Full Plate AC18 is not a baseline but a single value in the AC table. A leather armor AC11 being an other. Being very generic, you could have leather armor being an easy to hit type at DC11, while full plate being a hard to hit type at DC18. AC being a kind of ability check that have gave much more example of specific DC, where as the skill section only give us a simplier description with easy, medium, hard, very hard, etc.

Is this making sense?

Making sense. I just disagree.

Like, if I want to homebrew lorica for my Roman campaign, I'm going to make custom armor, right? But I will have guidelines to base it off of, because I know, for instance, that its probably pretty close to a breastplate.

If a player in my game wants to do something kinda cool, like tame a wild griffon he's captured, then I just have to half-ass it and say, uh... 25. Then my player gets pissed because that's way too high and I'm like, well, I don't know... I thought it was just... very hard... Not for you, for... an undefined person. But 25 is very hard so that's why I put it there.

Whereas, if the game said 'taming a wild horse is a 10.' I could look at that and say, ok, a griffon's probably twice as hard. Or maybe it's only slightly harder.


You see, that's a feeling I don't truly don't understand, and is often the core issue in the discussion I have with Pex on skills in 5e. Would you care to try to explain me how it affect you and your gameplay? You can do this in private if you don't want to derail this thread :smallsmile:

Well, I don't know why it's that hard to understand. I want to build my character to do certain things. I'm upset when I can't do that.

Storytime: First 5e character was a wood elf tempest cleric, sailor background. I was Dex based, and had a great acrobatics score, but pretty bad athletics. We get on a ship, first level, and I'm like, 'my perception is awesome! I'll take the crow's nest!' I couldn't do it. I couldn't climb to the fricking top of the mast. I failed once trying to get up. and when I tried to get down once combat started, I fell and hurt myself. Everyone laughed at the 'sailor' who can't climb the ropes. It was not fun for me. The only time I got to be a sailor on the rigging was in my backstory.

Now, if I'd known that the DM was (against the rules, apparently, but I didn't know that at the time) going to require a DC 12-15 Athletics check to climb into a crow's nest, I would have prioritized getting that proficiency. But I didn't, so I didn't.


What would the "default" loo like other than that?

But I'd assume you want something like this:

Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5 - climbing a wall your height
Easy 10 - climbing a regular tree
Medium 15 - climbing a regular tree under heavy rain
etc.

But consider what I said above: what does "climbing is difficult" means? It means the DC is high for the PCs. But if 5e had an explicit rule where "climbing a common tree is DC 5", and I put a slippery tree in my game (DC 20), climbing would be more difficult in MY games - even if we are using the exact same DCs for the exact same things!


The point is that you establish a baseline for what can be expected. If a DM wants to say, 'climbing is harder in my game,' fine. But at least he has to tell me that.

It's also great for me as a DM when a player wants to do something, if I can say, hey! I have an exact DC here that people have put a lot more thought into than I would have.

Sidebar: Your DCs for climbing are ridic!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Making sense. I just disagree.

Like, if I want to homebrew lorica for my Roman campaign, I'm going to make custom armor, right? But I will have guidelines to base it off of, because I know, for instance, that its probably pretty close to a breastplate.

If a player in my game wants to do something kinda cool, like tame a wild griffon he's captured, then I just have to half-ass it and say, uh... 25. Then my player gets pissed because that's way too high and I'm like, well, I don't know... I thought it was just... very hard... Not for you, for... an undefined person. But 25 is very hard so that's why I put it there.

Whereas, if the game said 'taming a wild horse is a 10.' I could look at that and say, ok, a griffon's probably twice as hard. Or maybe it's only slightly harder.

Well, I don't know why it's that hard to understand. I want to build my character to do certain things. I'm upset when I can't do that.

Storytime: First 5e character was a wood elf tempest cleric, sailor background. I was Dex based, and had a great acrobatics score, but pretty bad athletics. We get on a ship, first level, and I'm like, 'my perception is awesome! I'll take the crow's nest!' I couldn't do it. I couldn't climb to the fricking top of the mast. I failed once trying to get up. and when I tried to get down once combat started, I fell and hurt myself. Everyone laughed at the 'sailor' who can't climb the ropes. It was not fun for me. The only time I got to be a sailor on the rigging was in my backstory.

Now, if I'd known that the DM was (against the rules, apparently, but I didn't know that at the time) going to require a DC 12-15 Athletics check to climb into a crow's nest, I would have prioritized getting that proficiency. But I didn't, so I didn't.

The point is that you establish a baseline for what can be expected. If a DM wants to say, 'climbing is harder in my game,' fine. But at least he has to tell me that.

It's also great for me as a DM when a player wants to do something, if I can say, hey! I have an exact DC here that people have put a lot more thought into than I would have.

Sidebar: Your DCs for climbing are ridic!

But here's my disconnect. You can't meaningfully set a baseline when the in-group variability is as big as it is. You can for armor--each armor is a well-defined thing with little (at the game level) variation. Trees (to continue to use this horrible horrible example)? Trees vary wildly.
Take, for example a sequoia:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/General_Sherman_tree_looking_up.jpg/224px-General_Sherman_tree_looking_up.jpg


Without a way to make a harness (or have other special gear), you're not climbing that normally. DC: Nope without special gear. Trivial with special gear (like a harness/rope and/or spiked shoes/climbing spike).

On the other hand, take an oak tree:


https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/images/T/Live-Oak-Tree-350w.jpg


This should be doable without a problem for just about anyone who doesn't have physical disabilities. DC (for adventurers): Yup.

Without any magic or special-ness, you run the gamut from impossible without special gear (and easy with that gear) to trivial. How do you fit that onto a table? Any attempt will end up either having a bloated mess that really only shows what the authors thought about trees, or you have something that relies on the DM's judgement to find the best match. Also, who picks the kind of tree? The DM does. Most of the published modules don't have enough information to pin it down at all.

And most other skills are worse with the amount of variation you can have before magic or non-earth species come into play. And then you have to deal with variations from setting to setting, and enabling those antagonistic players who complain "but the book says...." and slow down the game for everyone. In the end, there's no way around the DM picking the DC. There wasn't in 4e or in 3.5e. It was just all hidden from the players. 5e wisely ripped off the blindfold and made it a feature, not a dirty secret.

Last point: THERE IS A DEFAULT DC FOR CLIMBING. DC: YUP (but counts as difficult terrain). Anything else screws over Thief rogues by making them lose a class feature. Let's please find another example for this issue. Please?

[Easy_Lee]

What would the "default" loo like other than that?

Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30



Is an iron lock easy, medium, hard, no check required? What about a mithril lock?

In 3.5e, we had examples of these things for every skill. They weren't comprehensive, but gave a baseline for DMs. We don't have that in 5e and, as proven many times, can have entire threads arguing radically different DCs for the same check.

[DanyBallon]

Making sense. I just disagree.

Like, if I want to homebrew lorica for my Roman campaign, I'm going to make custom armor, right? But I will have guidelines to base it off of, because I know, for instance, that its probably pretty close to a breastplate.

If a player in my game wants to do something kinda cool, like tame a wild griffon he's captured, then I just have to half-ass it and say, uh... 25. Then my player gets pissed because that's way too high and I'm like, well, I don't know... I thought it was just... very hard... Not for you, for... an undefined person. But 25 is very hard so that's why I put it there.

Whereas, if the game said 'taming a wild horse is a 10.' I could look at that and say, ok, a griffon's probably twice as hard. Or maybe it's only slightly harder.

You just don't seem to realize that in both case, the DC (AC for the armor) is arbitrary set, and whatever how good you guess is, there will be someone to argue that you've set it wrong. In the case of the armor, there are more example in the table, but still you are the one deciding that the new armor is close to a breastplate. Why can't you just say that taming a wild griffon should be harder than a moderate task, but maybe not a hard one then you set the DC to 19 instead? The final DC is set based on your expectations and nothing more.




Well, I don't know why it's that hard to understand. I want to build my character to do certain things. I'm upset when I can't do that.

Storytime: First 5e character was a wood elf tempest cleric, sailor background. I was Dex based, and had a great acrobatics score, but pretty bad athletics. We get on a ship, first level, and I'm like, 'my perception is awesome! I'll take the crow's nest!' I couldn't do it. I couldn't climb to the fricking top of the mast. I failed once trying to get up. and when I tried to get down once combat started, I fell and hurt myself. Everyone laughed at the 'sailor' who can't climb the ropes. It was not fun for me. The only time I got to be a sailor on the rigging was in my backstory.

Now, if I'd known that the DM was (against the rules, apparently, but I didn't know that at the time) going to require a DC 12-15 Athletics check to climb into a crow's nest, I would have prioritized getting that proficiency. But I didn't, so I didn't.



Tell me how it would help you plan better your character ahead, if the DM decide not to use the example in the book? Your example is exactly just that, even if you in the PHB there was a table saying that climbing into a crow nest is a DC 8, your DM decided to set it to DC10-12, you'd be screwed anyway...Unless you want these table to be set in stone, which remove any attempt to creativity, you won't be able to prepare for the upcoming game. Even worse, having codified example could set your expectation to a certain level, and you will be even more disappointed if the DM move away from the table, as it would have in your first game.
In the case you are always playing with the same players, then it doesn't really matter if they're published tables or not as you'll get use to how your table set DCs.

[Sigreid]

Is an iron lock easy, medium, hard, no check required? What about a mithril lock?

In 3.5e, we had examples of these things for every skill. They weren't comprehensive, but gave a baseline for DMs. We don't have that in 5e and, as proven many times, can have entire threads arguing radically different DCs for the same check.

This is a bad example. What a lock is made out of will change how hard it is to break, but won't change how hard it is to pick. That would be more of a complexity/quality thing.

[DanyBallon]

Is an iron lock easy, medium, hard, no check required? What about a mithril lock?

In 3.5e, we had examples of these things for every skill. They weren't comprehensive, but gave a baseline for DMs. We don't have that in 5e and, as proven many times, can have entire threads arguing radically different DCs for the same check.

It's quite easy to answer; it's up to the DM. All you need to know is that there's a lock that you need to open. The DM could describe the iron lock as a pretty common lock that you've seen before (the player can guess that it will be easy or moderate, but could be wrong if the lock is of high quality but disguise to look like a common lock), as for Mithral lock, the character can guess the since it you better quality material, it may be harder to unlock, if not impossible. Knowing the specific DC is metagaming, when you try to put yourself in character, having vague DC description makes more sense. At least, this is how I see it.

[DivisibleByZero]

Spells scale according to fixed rules.
Enemy spells scale according to fixed rules.

Damage scales according to fixed rules.
HP scales according to fixed rules.

Attack values are based off of fixed rules.
AC values are based off of fixed rules.

Skill bonuses scale according to fixed rules.
Skill DC's scale... to something. DM's, just do whatever here.

Fail again.
Skill DCs don't scale. That's literally one of the founding concepts behind Bounded Accuracy.
And that's why the simple Very Easy to Nearly Impossible sample works regardless of class or level or proficiency.
Skill DCs are based off of fixed rules, just like AC. That's what the Very Easy to Nearly Impossible model is. It's fixed rules telling you how to set DCs.

[Unoriginal]

Mundane NPCs should be expected to have 8s in their stats across the board. 10 is considered notably above average, 8 is "average, for a human."

Actually average for human mundane NPcs is around 10 on all stats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is an iron lock easy, medium, hard, no check required? What about a mithril lock?

In 3.5e, we had examples of these things for every skill. They weren't comprehensive, but gave a baseline for DMs. We don't have that in 5e and, as proven many times, can have entire threads arguing radically different DCs for the same check.

Depends. The material really doesn't matter--the craftsmanship does. It also depends on the world, the city, and the culture. Examples from my world (because I know it best):

In Byss (a country that doesn't use metal much), any metal lock is a rarity. Native-made locks are poorly made and focus more on intimidation power than actual craftsmanship.

In Hammerhead (a dwarven/gnomish underground city), even the poorest iron lock is leaps, bounds, and light-years better than the best locks found elsewhere.

In more normal areas like Kaelthia (the capital of the Council Lands), there are iron locks that are fancy (5 tumblers with anti-pick devices) and there are iron locks that a blind child could open with a baseball bat.

You can't set meaningful guidelines for skills without crushing that natural variation and impoverishing the game. You could never do so. What happened in 3.5 is that those tables were meaningless above low levels--all skill checks became binary due to either being specialized (in which case there was virtually no chance of failure) or not being specialized (in which case you always failed at anything relevant). Or, a wand of knock solved all the problems effortlessly.

[Unoriginal]

Lock:
A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves’ tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your GM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices.

See? They even provides some DCs to help you visualize things.

[Eric Diaz]

Is an iron lock easy, medium, hard, no check required? What about a mithril lock?

In 3.5e, we had examples of these things for every skill. They weren't comprehensive, but gave a baseline for DMs. We don't have that in 5e and, as proven many times, can have entire threads arguing radically different DCs for the same check.

I don't think this is useful to me; if I'm writing an adventure, I will say the lock to the hidden chamber is DC 20, regardless of what it is made of, if I can assume, for some reason, that this particular lock
is harder to pick. If I'm running some else's adventure, I expect the DC to be written beforehand.

Now, I cannot imagine a DM going "okay, I'm sure this lock should be made of mithril, but I wonder what the DC is?". Seem to me that the opposite is more common "this lock should be a higher DC than the others - how can I show the players it is specially built here?". Even that is rare IMO - but I guess sometimes I might go "roll, DC 20", and if the PC says "what? 20?", I might go "yeah, this lock seems specially intricate when compared to other locks in this dungeon".

So, I can see some example DCs might be useful, but not for me.


The point is that you establish a baseline for what can be expected. If a DM wants to say, 'climbing is harder in my game,' fine. But at least he has to tell me that.

It's also great for me as a DM when a player wants to do something, if I can say, hey! I have an exact DC here that people have put a lot more thought into than I would have.

Sure - but what "climbing is harder in my game" means? Does it mean you need to roll DC 20 to climb a simple tree - which is a bit ridiculous IMO - or that you're going against the giants and you will often have to roll against DC 20 to climb mountains? See, these are effectively the same thing, and DCs with examples just wouldn't help.


Sidebar: Your DCs for climbing are ridic!

It was just an example, but show me something better (so I can see where you're coming from) and we will go from there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See? They even provides some DCs to help you visualize things.

That defines the stock lock as one that a commoner with proficiency (+2 total modifier) picks 40% of the time on the first try, and always if he spends a minute trying. Interesting. Makes a sane starting point, anyway.

The DMG also provides a table for persuasion. I really should start using it when my school campaigns start...

[Pex]

My conclusion was, "Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e." There are a couple of ways WotC could have done this.

My preference is for the game itself to have a single world, a single power level. That makes things much easier on the players, regardless of how stifling some DMs find it. (Besides, art comes from adversity. Creators of all kinds are more creative when working within a set of rules than when given free reign. It has to do with the trait Openness, but I won't get into that here.)

Another approach would be a handout that explains a little bit about the world. WotC could have provided a format for this. As is, they didn't even suggest that DMs needed to go into it as far as skills and such are concerned.

As to whether there's a problem or not, I'm far from the only person to bring this up specifically as it pertains to 5e. You can tell us that we're all wrong and the system is exactly the way you want it to be. But that isn't going to shut us up.

That's an understatement. :smallbiggrin:

Variance between tables is bad because it means I lose control of how I create my character and a little bit of playing my character. I could be proficient in all Intelligence skills because I want to know things. However, the DM at that table won't let me roll to identify the creature we're fighting, its strength and abilities, or the DC is 20 perhaps and even then I only get lore, not specifics to develop combat strategy. In another game my character is not proficient in Intelligence skills, but a DC 10 check lets me know to use fire against trolls. If I rolled 15+ I'm reminded acid works too. The ability of my character to knows things has become absolutely irrelevant to my character building decisions. It applies to any skill. Do I roll to climb a tree? Do I automatically get to climb trees? My strength score and proficiency or not in athletics is irrelevant to that decision. It depends on who is DM that day. It's my character. I should have a say on what he can do. Session 0 doesn't help because you can't foresee every possible scenario, and I shouldn't have to ask the DM what rules we are using this time. House rules there may be, fine, but not the fundamental playing of the game.

Having defined values of DCs does not mean having a value for every possible scenario. That is also impossible and nonsense. Defined values are benchmarks. The defined values would be for the most likely common scenario, climbing a tree, a rope, a wall, so a reference point can be used when a player wants to climb a pole of ice. If I want to be good at climbing trees I know how much effort I need to put in strength and athletics to be as good as I want to be. I needn't be subject to DM whim on his interpretation on ease of climbing trees even to detail of whether it's an apple tree or palm tree. The game sets a reference point. It could even offer the DM to increase or decrease DCs depending on going for a more gritty or cinematic feel. Most DMs will probably use the default value, but the option is there. That is information that can be relayed in Session 0, and I can create my character accordingly.

[Unoriginal]

That defines the stock lock as one that a commoner with proficiency (+2 total modifier) picks 40% of the time on the first try, and always if he spends a minute trying. Interesting. Makes a sane starting point, anyway.

The DMG also provides a table for persuasion. I really should start using it when my school campaigns start...

If said Commoner can have proficiency in thief's tool, sure

[Pex]

I'd recommend against roll playing. Your OP is a roll playing advocacy presentation.

An awful lot of skill checks don't need to be rolled at all, to include generic tree climbing.

Player says "I do this" and unless failure is interesting to what's going on and gets a DC assigned to it, DM either says yes, or (if it's bloody impossible), says no, and we continue play.

If the player begins to argue about it the DM replies "It's not your turn anymore" and addresses what the next player is doing.

I think some of you are overcomplicating things.

Are you sure you don't need to roll to climb a tree? When the subject was brought up in the original thread they were saying of course you need to roll because not all trees are the same. Further detail went into whether it was an apple tree or a palm tree. That's the point. Different DMs have different interpretations of what needs a roll or not, and if there is a roll what the DC is because what's easy for one DM is hard for another. A character's competency in doing stuff depends on who is DM that day, not the player creating his own character.

[Dimers]

Would it really make you guys like the game better if there was a list that said "this is easy, DC 10" or "this is hard, DC 20" for a bunch of actions?

It'd make me more comfortable as a player, and more supported as a DM, to have several lists that give sample skill DCs and what doesn't need rolling at all. Like, a list to emulate a crapsack world where life is cheap, a list to reproduce feats described in ancient epic poetry, a list that encourages careful planning and intelligence-gathering, contrasted with a list that gets the traps and social stuff out of the way so your beer-and-pretzels players can lay the smack down on their mindlessly evil foes ...

Then the DM can just pick a list and say, "This is the kind of game I'm running. Be hopeless/awesome/careful/aggressive/etc. as appropriate."


But I'd assume you want something like this:

Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5 - climbing a wall your height
Easy 10 - climbing a regular tree
Medium 15 - climbing a regular tree under heavy rain
etc.

Something like, "In an epic game, you don't need to roll Athletics for climbing trees. Barehand-climbing the Cliffs of Despair is an Easy check. Picking up a river to reroute it is a Medium check. Inhaling a tornado and holding it until you want to breathe it out to disperse a Wish-generated miles-wide poison cloud is a Hard check."

And then in contrast, "In tier one of a zero-to-hero game, you don't need to roll Athletics to run over slightly uneven ground. Climbing twice your height up a tree with lots of branches is an Easy check. Sprinting to stay ahead of a pissed-off bear is a Medium check. Leaping across a twenty-foot ravine is a Hard check (or Very Hard if you have no running start)."

A couple pages of examples could help everyone in a group understand what kind of play they're aiming at.


Sure - but what "climbing is harder in my game" means? Does it mean you need to roll DC 20 to climb a simple tree - which is a bit ridiculous IMO - or that you're going against the giants and you will often have to roll against DC 20 to climb mountains?

Perfect! :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

Are you sure you don't need to roll to climb a tree? When the subject was brought up in the original thread they were saying of course you need to roll because not all trees are the same. Further detail went into whether it was an apple tree or a palm tree. That's the point. Different DMs have different interpretations of what needs a roll or not, and if there is a roll what the DC is because what's easy for one DM is hard for another. A character's competency in doing stuff depends on who is DM that day, not the player creating his own character.

And no published DC list is going to change anything to this.

[DanyBallon]

That's an understatement. :smallbiggrin:

Variance between tables is bad because it means I lose control of how I create my character and a little bit of playing my character. I could be proficient in all Intelligence skills because I want to know things. However, the DM at that table won't let me roll to identify the creature we're fighting, its strength and abilities, or the DC is 20 perhaps and even then I only get lore, not specifics to develop combat strategy. In another game my character is not proficient in Intelligence skills, but a DC 10 check lets me know to use fire against trolls. If I rolled 15+ I'm reminded acid works too. The ability of my character to knows things has become absolutely irrelevant to my character building decisions. It applies to any skill. Do I roll to climb a tree? Do I automatically get to climb trees? My strength score and proficiency or not in athletics is irrelevant to that decision. It depends on who is DM that day. It's my character. I should have a say on what he can do. Session 0 doesn't help because you can't foresee every possible scenario, and I shouldn't have to ask the DM what rules we are using this time. House rules there may be, fine, but not the fundamental playing of the game.

Having defined values of DCs does not mean having a value for every possible scenario. That is also impossible and nonsense. Defined values are benchmarks. The defined values would be for the most likely common scenario, climbing a tree, a rope, a wall, so a reference point can be used when a player wants to climb a pole of ice. If I want to be good at climbing trees I know how much effort I need to put in strength and athletics to be as good as I want to be. I needn't be subject to DM whim on his interpretation on ease of climbing trees even to detail of whether it's an apple tree or palm tree. The game sets a reference point. It could even offer the DM to increase or decrease DCs depending on going for a more gritty or cinematic feel. Most DMs will probably use the default value, but the option is there. That is information that can be relayed in Session 0, and I can create my character accordingly.

The game already define benchmark; they're called very easy (5), easy(10), moderate(15), hard(20), very hard(25) and nearly impossible(30). Being more specific leads to people taking the given examples as absolute truth, and this is a limiting factor for DM creativity and in my opinion makes the game boring. I want to be able to play in a world where iron locks are DC 20, because it's the toughest material available, and playing in an other where iron-making is flawed and iron lock are not as sturdy hence the DC is 10. When I play a game, I want to discover the world through the eyes and experience of my character, not from a rulebook and metagame data.

[Saeviomage]

See? They even provides some DCs to help you visualize things.
... yeah, in the equipment section.

The DC given for unlocking something in under 6 seconds is possibly realistic if not generous.

Using the whole skill rules (where anything not impossible can be automatically succeeded at by taking 10 times as long) for lock picking is... passable. They screw up because there's no avenue for makeshift tools, and disallowing unskilled individuals is silly given that proficiency requires 2000 hours of intensive one-on-one training.

So we've got rules in 3 places (2 different parts of the equipment section, DMG skills advice, PHB skills advice), and those rules contradict each other at least once.

It's a prime example of a scenario where the skill system needed more direction and more attention. Locks are common things that most people have little experience with, and without putting in a lot of thought, they end up being boring and detrimental to the game. So it makes sense that the only reference for how to handle them is a footnote in the equipment section, right?

There is enough page count in the PHB and DMG wasted on useless garbage that all the skills could have easily gotten some treatment to make them much more useful and nobody would have noticed the things that you removed.

[Sigreid]

It'd make me more comfortable as a player, and more supported as a DM, to have several lists that give sample skill DCs and what doesn't need rolling at all. Like, a list to emulate a crapsack world where life is cheap, a list to reproduce feats described in ancient epic poetry, a list that encourages careful planning and intelligence-gathering, contrasted with a list that gets the traps and social stuff out of the way so your beer-and-pretzels players can lay the smack down on their mindlessly evil foes ...

Then the DM can just pick a list and say, "This is the kind of game I'm running. Be hopeless/awesome/careful/aggressive/etc. as appropriate."



Something like, "In an epic game, you don't need to roll Athletics for climbing trees. Barehand-climbing the Cliffs of Despair is an Easy check. Picking up a river to reroute it is a Medium check. Inhaling a tornado and holding it until you want to breathe it out to disperse a Wish-generated miles-wide poison cloud is a Hard check."

And then in contrast, "In tier one of a zero-to-hero game, you don't need to roll Athletics to run over slightly uneven ground. Climbing twice your height up a tree with lots of branches is an Easy check. Sprinting to stay ahead of a pissed-off bear is a Medium check. Leaping across a twenty-foot ravine is a Hard check (or Very Hard if you have no running start)."

A couple pages of examples could help everyone in a group understand what kind of play they're aiming at.



Perfect! :smallsmile:

Well, I personally prefer not to have the lists. Among other things I do not necessarily want the players to have too good an idea how hard a task is. They can ask, and I'll give them what I think their best guess is. They don't need a exact number. This is probably where I have my greatest conflict with Pex who seems to want to always know exactly how hard things are before he tries.

[Pex]

I find this whole thread rather ludicrous. It's not as if 3.P didn't including a byline that said DM's should add modifiers as they see fit. 5e just does away with a silly baseline that almost always got modded to hell anyway. 5e trusts DMs to do whats right to tell their stories, which is a perfectly fine baseline assumption for a game. You join a game of D&D because you trust a DM to tell a good story. It's inherent in the game regardless if there is or isn't a chart of Difficulty Checks.

That "silly baseline" is what we want. That's the point! It's a starting point for whatever skill so players and DMs alike know what can and can't be done based on a character's stats. The +/-2 "DM's best friend" that 3E uses in 5E would more likely be applying advantage/disadvantage.

[strangebloke]

Fail again.
Skill DCs don't scale. That's literally one of the founding concepts behind Bounded Accuracy.
And that's why the simple Very Easy to Nearly Impossible sample works regardless of class or level or proficiency.
Skill DCs are based off of fixed rules, just like AC. That's what the Very Easy to Nearly Impossible model is. It's fixed rules telling you how to set DCs.

Ah, that was a fail. Skill DCs do not scale.

But my larger point stands. AC doesn't scale either. Both AC and skill checks have rules for determining their DC. While the guidelines for AC are incredibly complex, the guidelines for skill DC are... 'This is Hard. This is Harder. This is really Hard.' I mean no kidding, system, higher rolls are harder to obtain. If only I'd known that before.

Here's a fun question: What does 'Difficult: DC 20' actually mean? Who finds it difficult? How difficult do they find it? (They find it more than moderately difficult, apparently.)


But here's my disconnect. You can't meaningfully set a baseline when the in-group variability is as big as it is.

Last point: THERE IS A DEFAULT DC FOR CLIMBING. DC: YUP (but counts as difficult terrain). Anything else screws over Thief rogues by making them lose a class feature. Let's please find another example for this issue. Please?

Your first point: Yes, this is a problem, but there are things that have less in-group variation. For instance, it would be easy to say:

Tame a wild foal(downtime): DC 5 animal handling
Tame a wild Mare(downtime): DC 7 animal handling
Tame a wild stallion(downtime): DC 10 animal handling
Tame a wild stallion as an action: DC 20 animal handling

It's easy to mod as well. It's easy to say, well, this is a particularly nasty horse, so we'll upgrade it to a 13.

Climbing, you could just say:

Climb a smooth surface 20ft high as part of movement on a turn: DC 10 athletics.
Climb a smooth surface 30ft high as part of movement on a turn: DC 20 athletics.

Your second point: yes, climbing is a pretty bad example, but its what everyone was running with. I didn't remember about the rules for that one, although I'd been following it.


snip

Look, examples are nice, ok? I homebrew most of the monsters I throw at my party, but I still own and use the monster manual a lot. As it happens, they put a lot more thought into their monsters than I did, and I can learn what is or isn't reasonable.

Same for mundane prices. I don't know that I've every sold anything 'at cost' printed in the PHB, because markets are different. But once again. I'd hate to come up with prices from scratch.

Climbing is admittedly a poor example. This is, however, illustrative of a more general problem. The PC in my story could just as easily have been a knight who discovered that the DM required handle animal checks every time that a bright spell effect went off.

Moreover, there are lots of small, easily forgotten rules about specific skills like the one regarding climbing. A general set of guidelines would help a lot more than a bunch of specific rulings.

[Eric Diaz]

Something like, "In an epic game, you don't need to roll Athletics for climbing trees. Barehand-climbing the Cliffs of Despair is an Easy check. Picking up a river to reroute it is a Medium check. Inhaling a tornado and holding it until you want to breathe it out to disperse a Wish-generated miles-wide poison cloud is a Hard check."

And then in contrast, "In tier one of a zero-to-hero game, you don't need to roll Athletics to run over slightly uneven ground. Climbing twice your height up a tree with lots of branches is an Easy check. Sprinting to stay ahead of a pissed-off bear is a Medium check. Leaping across a twenty-foot ravine is a Hard check (or Very Hard if you have no running start)."

A couple pages of examples could help everyone in a group understand what kind of play they're aiming at.

Seems reasonable. As I said, that is not useful to me - I use "it will be Hard to leap across the ravine, it's pretty wide" more often than that "the ravine is 20 feet wide, I wonder what the DC is?", but I can see how some people might found it useful. It doesn't change the fact that the DCs are still the same across multiple descriptions, which IMO was the point of the OP, but having such guidelines you certainly avoid many internet discussions (and start new ones such as "if I can auto-suceed in barehand-climbing the Cliffs of Despair in an epic game, how come a week without water or falling from 100 feet will kill me?"... but I digress).

[Unoriginal]

Except it's bull****, because even modern day locks are trivial to pick, even with improvised tools, and modern locks are so far beyond medieval ones that medieval locks look like toddlers toys.


First: maybe real medieval locks, but this is a pseudo-medieval game with dragons and Wizards.

Second: DC 15 is Medium, most trained people can do it without too much troubles.

Third: You are disagreeing with the DC provided by the book. I guess if you were the DM, you'd change the DC to correspond to your idea of the situation, right?

Mmmmh, it's almost like what everyone who don't think set DC lists are necessary has been saying.

[Pex]

The OP explains exactly why they didn't do this.



Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.

How difficult is it to climb a tree? We have people in this very thread offering different difficulties of whether there should even be a roll at all, so that's not enough guidance.

[Eric Diaz]

Here's a fun question: What does 'Difficult: DC 20' actually mean? Who finds it difficult? How difficult do they find it?

Page 238 of the DMG deals with the issue. The explanation isn't great, but it assumes a first level character (or "most people"). How hard? "About 95% chance of failure", I think.

[Unoriginal]

How difficult is it to climb a tree? We have people in this very thread offering different difficulties of whether there should even be a roll at all, so that's not enough guidance.

How difficult it is to climb a tree is, according to the books, "not at all, you don't need a check to do it unless the DM decides so."

The fact people are disagreeing about even this should show why making a list with DCs wouldn't change anything.

[DanyBallon]

Look, examples are nice, ok? I homebrew most of the monsters I throw at my party, but I still own and use the monster manual a lot. As it happens, they put a lot more thought into their monsters than I did, and I can learn what is or isn't reasonable.

Same for mundane prices. I don't know that I've every sold anything 'at cost' printed in the PHB, because markets are different. But once again. I'd hate to come up with prices from scratch.

Climbing is admittedly a poor example. This is, however, illustrative of a more general problem. The PC in my story could just as easily have been a knight who discovered that the DM required handle animal checks every time that a bright spell effect went off.

Moreover, there are lots of small, easily forgotten rules about specific skills like the one regarding climbing. A general set of guidelines would help a lot more than a bunch of specific rulings.
I agree that example are a good thing to have at a table, but examples given in a rulebook often end up as being regard as absolute truth and this specifically is bad as it creates unneeded arguement around the table if a DM wants to deviate from those example because it fit better his game.

Again, your knight example is a good indication of what I'm saying, no matter how many examples there would be in the PHB, nothing will prepare you to roll animal handling checks when a bright spell goes off. This is specific to this DM world.

What you can do though is prior to game one, ask your DM to give you a list of typical DCs in his game world, or maybe ask him about skill checks your character may roll the most. This is far more productive than having a common set of examples that may end up being considered as rules...

[Unoriginal]

You know what, we should do an experiment.


Let's imagine a game of D&D 3.5. A Rogue wants to climb a castle's walls and get into its tower. It is raining, and it's at night.


What is the DC for climbing?

[Pex]

Whoa, slow down there, buddy! This would suggest that even with a fixed DC for this specific task handed to the DM (victim's PP), the DM will have to use judgment to determine the outcome of the character's action. How's a DM supposed to know to impose disadvantage for the lighting? How's the DM supposed to know to let the rogue overcome the disadvantage with a Stealth check? Where's all that in chart form?

It's almost as though judgment is inescapable in running an RPG and is therefore a skill good DMs should strive to cultivate! We're just looking for some friggin' charts here, man!

Having charts is not supposed to solve everything. Charts are for the starting point.

[DanyBallon]

You know what, we should do an experiment.


Let's imagine a game of D&D 3.5. A Rogue wants to climb a castle's walls and get into its tower. It is raining, and it's at night.


What is the DC for climbing?

You are not providing enough information for a 3.5 game! We need to know if the rogue is using a rope and a grapple, where he is trying to fix the grapple, what type of stone the wall is made of, what is the moon phase, and more importantly, is the stew the rogue had for diner was fresh or rancid? Because in 3.5 there is a modifier for almost everything :smalltongue:

I'm sorry I couldn't resist :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

Wow, my magic elf games have never been this serious.

When in doubt pretty much any check I need my players to roll ends up being DC 15, it's just a nice middle of the road number to aim for that isn't too easy or too hard. Advantage and disadvantage get thrown in if circumstances call for it.

It's pretty rare that I use 20 or 25 though there are cases, but i almost never use 5 or 10. Those are pretty much just given unless I have reason to believe the PC will balls it up.

The easiest thing for me to say would be DC 15 is the default DC for something that is challenging but obtainable for a heroic fantasy sort of game, shift it up 5 for gritty realism and down 5 for epic adventure. Examples being spotting something 'off' in a room you enter, convincing a reluctant NPC to obey you, lifting a shut portcullis, breaking into a locked chest, picking up on the subtext of a conversation, etc.

[DivisibleByZero]

How difficult is it to climb a tree? We have people in this very thread offering different difficulties of whether there should even be a roll at all, so that's not enough guidance.

Once again, we don't all have to agree. That doesn't matter. Every game will be slightly different, in a huge number of respects, not just skills. The only thing that matters is that the DM is consistent.

[strangebloke]

I'm not saying that I miss 3.5's method. I'm just saying that a chart would help.

[Pex]

And no published DC list is going to change anything to this.

That's exactly what it would do. It could have a table like:

Climbing (Athletics check)
DC 0: apple tree, steady ladder
DC 5: knotted rope
DC 10: palm tree, wall corner
DC 15: wall with handholds
DC 20: smooth surface

No more arguing on the competency of my character to climb a tree.

Details are for example only. Debating the numbers for climbing a tree or even if there should be a roll at all, as was done in this thread and earlier thread, proves my point since such a table doesn't exist ergo my character's ability to climb is dependent on who is DM that day not my choice for my character.


The game already define benchmark; they're called very easy (5), easy(10), moderate(15), hard(20), very hard(25) and nearly impossible(30). Being more specific leads to people taking the given examples as absolute truth, and this is a limiting factor for DM creativity and in my opinion makes the game boring. I want to be able to play in a world where iron locks are DC 20, because it's the toughest material available, and playing in an other where iron-making is flawed and iron lock are not as sturdy hence the DC is 10. When I play a game, I want to discover the world through the eyes and experience of my character, not from a rulebook and metagame data.

Are you going to tell me at character creation the DC of locks? Do I have to ask every DM I play with the DC of locks in his game? My competence in picking locks depends on who is DM, not my choices in creating my character. If the rules listed iron locks as DC 10 and special material locks are DC 20 then I know the competence of my character in lockpicking regardless of who is DM. There is a benchmark norm to relate to. Then if you want to make iron locks DC 20 you can say so, and I can adjust my frame of reference accordingly. Having a listed table of default DCs never prevents you as DM making iron locks DC 20. Not having a listed table of default DCs means I don't know the competency of my character's ability of lockpicking until it comes in up in game and by then it's too late.


How difficult it is to climb a tree is, according to the books, "not at all, you don't need a check to do it unless the DM decides so."

The fact people are disagreeing about even this should show why making a list with DCs wouldn't change anything.

Some of the people who are disagreeing are on your side of the debate.

The bolded part is exactly the point though. My character's ability to do something is irrelevant to the choices I make for my character. It's all DM whim. Great for the DM, like he needs more power. No fun for me as a player having no power to decide my character's strengths and weaknesses.


You know what, we should do an experiment.


Let's imagine a game of D&D 3.5. A Rogue wants to climb a castle's walls and get into its tower. It is raining, and it's at night.


What is the DC for climbing?

Maybe I'm falling into a gotcha trap, but I'll bite.

Rough surface like a brick wall. DC 25
Raining means it's slippery. +5 DC

If rogue has darkvision night time is irrelevant.
If rogue doesn't have darkvision DM call. Can use DM's best friend and apply +2 DC for poor vision since it's not completely dark. Night time can still be irrelevant since it's also about feeling the wall as it is looking for grips. The randomness of the d20 roll is that factor of whether the rogue can find grips or not. This is minutiae detail.

DC is 30. No personal objection if someone else goes with 32. Doesn't go against my gripe of different DMs having different interpretations because the starting point was the same, DC 25 for the rough surface built like a brick wall. Having a table does not prohibit DM adjudication.

Heh. 3E has climbing a tree at DC 15. I'm glad 3E allows for Take 10. By 3E standards my 4 year old self had some ranks in climb. :smallyuk:

[Saeviomage]

First up, sorry about the ninja edit. Took a read of my own stuff and realised that if you actually track down and use all the rules, the specific example of opening a lock is ok with some caveats... but mostly due to the "you can do literally anything if you take 10 times as long to do it" rule from the DMG, which has it's own problems.

First: maybe real medieval locks, but this is a pseudo-medieval game with dragons and Wizards.

So... all the rest of the technology is more-or-less medieval, but locks alone are somehow very advanced?


Second: DC 15 is Medium, most trained people can do it without too much troubles.

Well... no. Exceptional trained people have a bonus of +5 (+3 stat, proficient, level 1-4). So they fail a DC 15 a little less than half the time. I've yet to hear of any real profession where a 45% failure rate would be considered acceptable.

Heck a DC 10 is "easy"... and most trained people will still fail 20% of the time, which is probably still beyond what should be acceptable for an individual who has 2000 hours of training and considerable natural aptitude.


Third: You are disagreeing with the DC provided by the book. I guess if you were the DM, you'd change the DC to correspond to your idea of the situation, right?

Mmmmh, it's almost like what everyone who don't think set DC lists are necessary has been saying.
... So the argument is that because the book does give a DC for something... and gets it wrong... that a set DC list will always be wrong?

This seems like an invalid argument.

[Easy_Lee]

How difficult it is to climb a tree is, according to the books, "not at all, you don't need a check to do it unless the DM decides so."

The fact people are disagreeing about even this should show why making a list with DCs wouldn't change anything.

Except that this discussion didn't come up all the time in previous editions, but is a recurring thing now. What's changed?

One difference is the emphasis on the DM to make decisions. How hard is this lock to pick? Most often, DMs don't base this on how hard it should be to pick, but how hard they want it to be for the narrative. Case in point:


I don't think this is useful to me; if I'm writing an adventure, I will say the lock to the hidden chamber is DC 20, regardless of what it is made of, if I can assume, for some reason, that this particular lock is harder to pick. If I'm running some else's adventure, I expect the DC to be written beforehand.

And DMs don't always make good choices. Some of the most memorable and enjoyable D&D moments are when the unexpected happens. But the unexpected never happens when all the spotlight is on the DM and his rulings, his ideas, his narrative...

A lack of consistent, understood skill checks disempowers the players to make informed decisions. Even if you want DCs to vary by table, DMs aren't going to be consistent. It isn't like DMs are handing out lists of DCs, is it? Hell no they aren't. The DCs are exactly what the DM wants them to be at the time. 5e encourages that sort of DM behavior. And not only is that kind of crap transparent, it ruins games.

This all comes down to a DM versus players mentality. Some DMs don't want their players to know anything ahead of time, because they think it takes away suspense and challenge. Those DMs don't understand what the game is really about.

[Sigreid]

First up, sorry about the ninja edit. Took a read of my own stuff and realised that if you actually track down and use all the rules, the specific example of opening a lock is ok with some caveats... but mostly due to the "you can do literally anything if you take 10 times as long to do it" rule from the DMG, which has it's own problems.

So... all the rest of the technology is more-or-less medieval, but locks alone are somehow very advanced?

Well... no. Exceptional trained people have a bonus of +5 (+3 stat, proficient, level 1-4). So they fail a DC 15 a little less than half the time. I've yet to hear of any real profession where a 45% failure rate would be considered acceptable.

Heck a DC 10 is "easy"... and most trained people will still fail 20% of the time, which is probably still beyond what should be acceptable for an individual who has 2000 hours of training and considerable natural aptitude.

... So the argument is that because the book does give a DC for something... and gets it wrong... that a set DC list will always be wrong?

This seems like an invalid argument.

Little caveat here. My interpretation of the rules would be with A DC 15 lock most locksmiths will be able to pick the lock without trouble, but will not be able to do it in an action (less than 6 seconds). The ability to do that is the perview of the exceptionally skilled (PC rogue level).

[strangebloke]

Little caveat here. My interpretation of the rules would be with A DC 15 lock most locksmiths will be able to pick the lock without trouble, but will not be able to do it in an action (less than 6 seconds). The ability to do that is the perview of the exceptionally skilled (PC rogue level).

Right, things that everyone can do (without time pressure) are free to be higher DC.

[Eric Diaz]

Except that this discussion didn't come up all the time in previous editions, but is a recurring thing now. What's changed?

One difference is the emphasis on the DM to make decisions. How hard is this lock to pick? Most often, DMs don't base this on how hard it should be to pick, but how hard they want it to be for the narrative. Case in point:



And DMs don't always make good choices. Some of the most memorable and enjoyable D&D moments are when the unexpected happens. But the unexpected never happens when all the spotlight is on the DM and his rulings, his ideas, his narrative...

A lack of consistent, understood skill checks disempowers the players to make informed decisions. Even if you want DCs to vary by table, DMs aren't going to be consistent. It isn't like DMs are handing out lists of DCs, is it? Hell no they aren't. The DCs are exactly what the DM wants them to be at the time. 5e encourages that sort of DM behavior. And not only is that kind of crap transparent, it ruins games.

This all comes down to a DM versus players mentality. Some DMs don't want their players to know anything ahead of time, because they think it takes away suspense and challenge. Those DMs don't understand what the game is really about.

I'm not sure I understand. What is the difference between "how hard it should be to pick" and "how hard they want it to be for the narrative"? Does it make more sense for you to say "this lock is DC 20 because it is made of mithril" than to say "this lock is DC 20 because the builder chose to put a particularly complex lock in the castle's treasure vault?"

All those observations about "A lack of consistent, understood skill checks disempowers the players to make informed decisions" and " Some DMs don't want their players to know anything ahead of time" make no sense at all to me; it seems obvious to me that the PCs will know is a task is easy, medium or hard before attempting it, because I will tell them. I see no reason to hide the DCs except in rare circumstances (say, perception rolls, if I were making perception rolls).

I can see no situation where this would happen:

GM: "Do you want to climb this mountain?"
PC: "Well, does it look difficult?"
GM: "You have no idea. You have to roll to see if you succeed."

At the very least, the GM should say "this seems like a difficult task".

Even worse, I can see no reason for this to happen:

PC: "Can I try to pick the lock without activating the trap? Is it difficult?"
GM: "You have no idea."
PC: "Well, what is the lock made of?"
GM: "Mithril."
PC (who memorized the big list of DCs for all relevant skills before coming to the game): "A-ha! DC 25 it is! Got you!"

And this second example seems to be what you're proposing as a solution to "empowers the players to make informed decisions", instead of the more simple:

PC: "Can I try to pick the lock without activating the trap?"
GM: "It seems like a Very Hard task, but you can try".

EDIT: if you dislike my examples, please show me one example of what you're saying.

[strangebloke]

We've given lots of examples.

Here are some major issues with things as they stand.
*pre-campaign signaling. Are all of the acrobatics checks going to be Very Hard? Or are they all Easy? Will my character be allowed to do cool things with handle animal? Is my DM going to never allow survival rolls to do anything useful?

*Unreasonable DCs because the DM came up with it on the spot and/or because the DM falls into the 'guy at the gym' trap.
Acrobatics says I can use it to land upright when falling off of a cart. What's a reasonable DC for that?
Acrobatics also says I can use it to walk across thin ice? What's the check for that? Seems Very Hard?

*DMs who make DCs for specific players at specific times. The cliff has a different DC depending on who is scaling it.

*The guidelines that exist are actually bad and conflict with other statements. Scaling anything that isn't a smooth or slippery surface is trivial by RAW, but many DMs make a tree DC 15 because they think 'trees are moderately difficult to climb.'

*DCs are hidden by default. Therefore, with no common reference point for DMs or player, the player and DM will come to different conclusions. If the DM signals the DC 'it is very hard *wink* *wink*' that sort of solves the problem... but this is nowhere a thing that the DM has to do.

The point is, that clear guidelines of what needs a check, what doesn't, and what kind of DC can be expected. Just having a guideline makes for a lot more clarity, and costs nothing.

[Safety Sword]

Wow, my magic elf games have never been this serious.

When in doubt pretty much any check I need my players to roll ends up being DC 15, it's just a nice middle of the road number to aim for that isn't too easy or too hard. Advantage and disadvantage get thrown in if circumstances call for it.

It's pretty rare that I use 20 or 25 though there are cases, but i almost never use 5 or 10. Those are pretty much just given unless I have reason to believe the PC will balls it up.

The easiest thing for me to say would be DC 15 is the default DC for something that is challenging but obtainable for a heroic fantasy sort of game, shift it up 5 for gritty realism and down 5 for epic adventure. Examples being spotting something 'off' in a room you enter, convincing a reluctant NPC to obey you, lifting a shut portcullis, breaking into a locked chest, picking up on the subtext of a conversation, etc.

My enchanted dwarf game must be WAY out there.

I make up DCs to make an appropriate and fun challenge for my players to overcome.

[BurgerBeast]

Apologies, but I have not read the entire thread. This is a reply to the OP.

I think you're mistaken to say the problem is one of variability. At least, I think it is fair to say many of the people who don't like fixed checks simultaneously think that bounded accuracy produces too much variability in rolled checks.

I think the problem is more properly described as predetermination.

If I have a +7 to a skill, then my success rates are affected in a predetermined way. The uncertainty, in a certain sense, disappears.



DC of task
rolled (active) success rate
fixed (passive) success rate


12
80%
100%


13
75%
100%


14
70%
100%


15
65%
100%


16
60%
100%


17
55%
100%


18
50%
0%


19
45%
0%


20
40%
0%


21
35%
0%


22
30%
0%



Half (or more of) the fun of the game is the uncertainty. Under the fixed roll system, the uncertainty is gone.

Just imagine if attack rolls were switched over to fixed. Each swing would either auto-hit or auto-miss based on AC, and there'd be no need to roll. Combat with passive attack rolls and auto-damage. A lot of the fun disappears.

Or, in the real world, imagine that sport had no uncertainty. There would be no chance that the underdog could ever win. They'd be predetermined to lose. Where's the fun in that?

[edit: Also note, in looking at the table, that passive checks make you proportionally better at harder tasks in some cases. In the table, a DC 12 task goes from 80% to 100%, improving your success rate by 25%. But a DC 17 task goes from 55% to 100%, improving your success rate by 82%. This is annoying for many people, myself included.]

[DanyBallon]

We've given lots of examples.

Here are some major issues with things as they stand.
*pre-campaign signaling. Are all of the acrobatics checks going to be Very Hard? Or are they all Easy? Will my character be allowed to do cool things with handle animal? Is my DM going to never allow survival rolls to do anything useful?

What's the matter? If you build your character to be good at acrobatics, then you'll still be better than character who aren't!


*Unreasonable DCs because the DM came up with it on the spot and/or because the DM falls into the 'guy at the gym' trap.
Acrobatics says I can use it to land upright when falling off of a cart. What's a reasonable DC for that?
Acrobatics also says I can use it to walk across thin ice? What's the check for that? Seems Very Hard?

What's the matter? If you build your character to be good at acrobatics, then you'll still be better than character who aren't!


*DMs who make DCs for specific players at specific times. The cliff has a different DC depending on who is scaling it.

This one is a bit trickier and no matter what benchmark is set in the PHB, it won't solve anything because the DM has decided that the task is story driven... As for myself, I try not to use this method... But there's is one certainty is that if there is a benchmark in the PHB, there will be an arguement between a rule lawyer type player and the DM and this will definitely stall the game and be no fun for all.


*The guidelines that exist are actually bad and conflict with other statements. Scaling anything that isn't a smooth or slippery surface is trivial by RAW, but many DMs make a tree DC 15 because they think 'trees are moderately difficult to climb.'

What's the matter? If you build your character to be good at a task, then you'll still be better than character who aren't! Knowing the DCs is metagaming, your character don't know about them, he only learns through experience that some stuff are easier to climb than others


*DCs are hidden by default. Therefore, with no common reference point for DMs or player, the player and DM will come to different conclusions. If the DM signals the DC 'it is very hard *wink* *wink*' that sort of solves the problem... but this is nowhere a thing that the DM has to do.

What's the matter? If you build your character to be good at a given task, then you'll still be better than character who aren't!

The DM describing you explicitely or not how difficult the task looks to you is part of the DM job, then as a player you can refer to the existing benchmark already provided in the PHB to guess the exact DC, but this is metagaming.


The point is, that clear guidelines of what needs a check, what doesn't, and what kind of DC can be expected. Just having a guideline makes for a lot more clarity, and costs nothing.

The point is that it's already covered in the PHB with the existing benchmark (very easy, easy, moderate, etc.).
By creating your character to be good at a task, you'll be better than character that aren't which is all that should matter, not what numbers needs to be beaten.
And lastly, 3.P proved us that rule lawyers are a thing, a bad thing as they lead to needless arguements and unfun for all at the table. The more you put in a rule book, the more they believe it to be set into stone and the game can never deviate from this.
Additionnal example of what a task DC is can always be asked to the DM, or be written down in session 0, but IMO they have no place in the PHB.

Sorry if it came out rude, but I just can't understand why some people are so focused on knowing the DCs before hand. It won't change a single thing in the effectiveness of your character. Proficient characters will succeed more often than non-proficient ones.

[SiCK_Boy]

I consider myself to be part of the camp that would like to have more examples to rely on in the manuals (PHB, DMG, MM). This is something I would appreciate both as a player, to give me a sense of what the baseline should be and help me make decisions (both in character building and during the game), and as a DM (to help me understand the intent of the rulemakers and try to play as close as possible to the game as intended). I do not see it as stifling or restricting to a DM; but I see this as giving everyone (player and DM) a common ground understanding of how the game (and the game world) should work.

A DM is always free to change stuff. But the DM who decides to change stuff should, in my opinion, do two things:
- Inform his players (if possible, as part of session 0, or otherwise during gameplay when applicable) that he changes stuff
- Explain or justify, as must as possible, why he is doing so (what is the purpose, what is the reason for the change)

The main reason for that is to prevent misunderstandings that, in my experience, lead to frustration (mostly for players) and negatively impact everyone's game experience.

I'll give two examples: if the DM announces to the players that they encounter a red dragon, and players then go ahead and buff themselves with fire-prevention effects, only to have that red dragon breath lightning instead (because the DM decided he did not want to use stock monsters or be bound by what the Monster Manual said), I would be pretty pissed off as a player. In the best of world, the DM should have done one of many things here: explain beforehand that dragons, in this world, have non-standard breath weapons (and maybe specify which dragon uses what, or leave that as a knowledge-skill check question if players want to know). If this is just specific to this one dragon, maybe the DM could have given a chance to players to observe the dragon breathing lightning. And if this is some kind of cursed dragon and the DM really wanted to surprise his players, he should at the very least let them know that he is aware that this is a weird dragon, but that there are reasons for this situation and that players can (or will) find out why or how in due time. What he certainly should not do is just tell his players to suck it up and stop making assumptions about monsters, or that he wanted to challenge them with something unexpected (with no in-world reason for that specific challenge besides DM's whim, when all other red dragons before and after will be standard fire-breathing monsters).

Another example: the DM decides that in his world, Plate Armor gives only AC 16 (instead of 18; and for some weird reason, chain mail also provides 16 armor as usual). If, as a player, I only discover that rule when I plunk down those 1 500 gp on an armorer's counter, I again would be pretty pissed off. There could be some valid reasons for the DM to make this change: maybe he wants to limit how high player's AC can go (a metagame reason), maybe the armorsmiths in this world have just not discovered how to build effective plate armors (in-world reason), etc. Again, what is important is that this kind of stuff be known beforehand, and if not, be explained as soon as possible during the game (ideally, before it matters, and before a player makes a choice based on a false assumption or some misunderstanding about the state and functioning of the world).

I think the same logic should apply to skill (ability) checks and DC.

The issue with the current guidelines (very easy, easy, moderate, hard, very hard, nearly impossible) is that the definitions for each are subjective. At a minimum, we would need an explicit definition of what is moderate (moderate is something that a person with a +5 modifier succeeds at 50 % of the time, as an example). I know people have inferred those definitions (assuming a basic human with or without proficiency), but I don't remember those being explicitly stated by the game designers.

In the current state, you are left at the DM's mercy (as a player), and the DM is left without guidance, and is thus much more at risk of not deciding DC in a consistent and "objective" manner (if he knew "why" things were the way they were - besides just I'm the DM and I decide - it would be easier for the DM to also rationalize and explain his decisions to the players).


What's the matter? If you build your character to be good at acrobatics, then you'll still be better than character who aren't!

I think you are missing the point. When building characters, there is a cost to choosing any one skill to be proficient with (because no character can have proficiency in all skills). One could even argue it also applies at level up (you could pick a feat instead of an ability score increase to improve your proficiencies). Nobody is arguing that the non-proficient character will succeed more than the proficient character. The point is rather that it would be nice, as a player, to understand if picking any one skill is worth it or not.

As an example, assuming a world where my character will be required to perform as many animal handling checks as lockpicking (thieves' tools) checks, and I have equal Dexterity and Wisdom (I know, weird adventurer who'll spend his career riding a horse while unlocking doors in every village he goes through). If the DM's baseline assumption is that all locks will be DC 15, but all animal handling will be DC 25, then it raises the question or whether it is even worth it to pick proficiency in animal handling (being proficient will barely impact my success rate in the first few levels against DC 25 - it only becomes relevant much later in the game once the proficiency bonus increases and I've had a chance to get a couple of ability score increases). This is the information that a player needs to make informed decision about his character, based on the state of the world. If there were examples in the books, it would give everyone a common ground, and DM could still change it, but would feel it's more important to explain and justify it beforehand (as part of a session 0, for example).


But there's is one certainty is that if there is a benchmark in the PHB, there will be an arguement between a rule lawyer type player and the DM and this will definitely stall the game and be no fun for all

Instead, we have these kind of threads and discussions and arguing popping up over forums all the time. I've probably never met these kind of rule lawyers, so that may be why I don't see it as being such a problem; in my mind, if a DM is able to properly explain the reasons for his decisions, players will go with them. What creates frustration is when a player discovers the painful consequences of something that he could not have guessed just by reading the game instructions, and then is simply told that the DM is god and that is that. Because many DM do not take the time to explain their own action resolution mechanisms (which is what all this skill check discussion is about) - either because they don't want to, don't care to, or don't understand it themselves - having these baseline examples in the game manuals would really help everyone. And I don't think it would stifle creativity or restrict DM.


The DM describing you explicitely or not how difficult the task looks to you is part of the DM job, then as a player you can refer to the existing benchmark already provided in the PHB to guess the exact DC, but this is metagaming.


The point is that it's already covered in the PHB with the existing benchmark (very easy, easy, moderate, etc.).
By creating your character to be good at a task, you'll be better than character that aren't which is all that should matter, not what numbers needs to be beaten.

I have to very strongly object to these last points. I suggest you read AngryGM's article on metagaming. I don't like to use climbing as an example, but it is a good one because the consequence of failing (usually falling) as such a clear and immediate impact on character survivability (as far as I know, no DM argues against the 1d6 per 10 feet of falling damage rule - I won't go into arguments about the 20d6 limit here). When discussing a climb check, unless it is in the context of a race between two characters, the important point is how can I beat that specific number, not whether I'm better than the next guy.

My character looks at a high cliff and tries to assess whether he can make it to the top without putting his life too much at risk. The character has a sense of his own "toughness" (as in, how high could I fall without killing myself). This is basically the player knowing his character's hit points total, and knowing the rules of gravity and damage for falling.

I could ask the DM to describe the cliff in all kind of fluffy words (and maybe he already did, mentioning how smooth it looked, noting how there were few handholds in the first 40 feet, but then things got rougher in the next 60 feet until the top). I could just ask the DM how "difficult" it looks (and he could either give me a flat statement - it looks "moderate" or "easy" or "nearly impossible" - or give me a statement through my character's eyes - based on your experience, this looks like a "hard" task). Or he could just make things easier for everyone and tell me it looks like a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) climb, and I'll need to do at least 2 successful checks to make it to the top.

I guess you would not want that 3rd option at your table. Personally, I think that's the best solution for everyone involved. It gives the player the proper information to make an informed decision. And the DM had to have these things in mind anyway (assuming he pre-planned for that cliff and knew climbing it would be a likely option for the players).

Because the medium we use to play is words (the DM talks, with a few visual aids here and there - mostly maps and miniatures). Words are imprecise. They cannot convey the fullness of an actual world in which your characters are living and breathing. Even if they could, no backstory could convey the fullness of a life of experience and give all that knowledge to a player. That is why we use abstractions in this game. Check DC are an abstraction. They are there to give a technical, objective meaning, to stuff that words can (and should) try to describe, but can never perfectly convey. In the same way that we don't expect the DM to narrate every single second of combat, every parry, feint, every move an enemy makes, and we just accept that he tells us we need to hit AC 16, we should be fine with accepting that the DM tells us a cliff is a DC 15 or 20 to climb (and I think it's important that he gives the actual number, but I could accept if he only used a specific qualifier - as long as everyone understands that the word "easy" means 5, "nearly impossible" 30, etc.). Because the DM cannot convey the full description of the entire cliff face, nor can he convey or understand my character's life experience climbing cliffs.

Knowing this information doesn't remove the uncertainty of my climb. It simply allows me to decide how much I want to risk my life trying it. I will still need to roll the dice, and I could roll a 1 and fall to my death.

Anyway, sorry if it looked like I was just picking on DanyBallon. This whole thread is interesting, and I'd like to hear more from those who don't want to have examples in the manual: how do you handle these things at your table? Why would you feel restricted if there were more examples in the rules?

[DanyBallon]

I'll give two examples: if the DM announces to the players that they encounter a red dragon, and players then go ahead and buff themselves with fire-prevention effects, only to have that red dragon breath lightning instead (because the DM decided he did not want to use stock monsters or be bound by what the Monster Manual said), I would be pretty pissed off as a player. In the best of world, the DM should have done one of many things here: explain beforehand that dragons, in this world, have non-standard breath weapons (and maybe specify which dragon uses what, or leave that as a knowledge-skill check question if players want to know). If this is just specific to this one dragon, maybe the DM could have given a chance to players to observe the dragon breathing lightning. And if this is some kind of cursed dragon and the DM really wanted to surprise his players, he should at the very least let them know that he is aware that this is a weird dragon, but that there are reasons for this situation and that players can (or will) find out why or how in due time. What he certainly should not do is just tell his players to suck it up and stop making assumptions about monsters, or that he wanted to challenge them with something unexpected (with no in-world reason for that specific challenge besides DM's whim, when all other red dragons before and after will be standard fire-breathing monsters).

Let me ask you a few question; how did the characters new before hand to prepare themselves vs fire? Did they already had an encounter with a red dragon? Or are dragons common enough to have this information beforehand? If so, in both case, they should be already be aware that they don't breath fire in this game world. Otherwise, the only way to know that red dragons breath fire or lightning is to experience it, or talk to someone who had... everything else is just mythos and can end up being false.



Another example: the DM decides that in his world, Plate Armor gives only AC 16 (instead of 18; and for some weird reason, chain mail also provides 16 armor as usual). If, as a player, I only discover that rule when I plunk down those 1 500 gp on an armorer's counter, I again would be pretty pissed off. There could be some valid reasons for the DM to make this change: maybe he wants to limit how high player's AC can go (a metagame reason), maybe the armorsmiths in this world have just not discovered how to build effective plate armors (in-world reason), etc. Again, what is important is that this kind of stuff be known beforehand, and if not, be explained as soon as possible during the game (ideally, before it matters, and before a player makes a choice based on a false assumption or some misunderstanding about the state and functioning of the world).
In this case, I agree that the DM would be best advise to inform the players of the change in game session 0. Still there are means for the characters to learn in game full plate are more effective than chainmail.


I think you are missing the point. When building characters, there is a cost to choosing any one skill to be proficient with (because no character can have proficiency in all skills). One could even argue it also applies at level up (you could pick a feat instead of an ability score increase to improve your proficiencies). Nobody is arguing that the non-proficient character will succeed more than the proficient character. The point is rather that it would be nice, as a player, to understand if picking any one skill is worth it or not.

As an example, assuming a world where my character will be required to perform as many animal handling checks as lockpicking (thieves' tools) checks, and I have equal Dexterity and Wisdom (I know, weird adventurer who'll spend his career riding a horse while unlocking doors in every village he goes through). If the DM's baseline assumption is that all locks will be DC 15, but all animal handling will be DC 25, then it raises the question or whether it is even worth it to pick proficiency in animal handling (being proficient will barely impact my success rate in the first few levels against DC 25 - it only becomes relevant much later in the game once the proficiency bonus increases and I've had a chance to get a couple of ability score increases). This is the information that a player needs to make informed decision about his character, based on the state of the world. If there were examples in the books, it would give everyone a common ground, and DM could still change it, but would feel it's more important to explain and justify it beforehand (as part of a session 0, for example).

There is effectively a cost to picking a skill, ASI, feat, we could even argue that there is one into picking a race and class/sub-class. Where I disagree with you is that it shouldn't affect why you make this choice. Your doing it because you want your character to be better at it than the norm and it's exactly what your getting.


I have to very strongly object to these last points. I suggest you read AngryGM's article on metagaming. I don't like to use climbing as an example, but it is a good one because the consequence of failing (usually falling) as such a clear and immediate impact on character survivability (as far as I know, no DM argues against the 1d6 per 10 feet of falling damage rule - I won't go into arguments about the 20d6 limit here). When discussing a climb check, unless it is in the context of a race between two characters, the important point is how can I beat that specific number, not whether I'm better than the next guy.

My character looks at a high cliff and tries to assess whether he can make it to the top without putting his life too much at risk. The character has a sense of his own "toughness" (as in, how high could I fall without killing myself). This is basically the player knowing his character's hit points total, and knowing the rules of gravity and damage for falling.

I could ask the DM to describe the cliff in all kind of fluffy words (and maybe he already did, mentioning how smooth it looked, noting how there were few handholds in the first 40 feet, but then things got rougher in the next 60 feet until the top). I could just ask the DM how "difficult" it looks (and he could either give me a flat statement - it looks "moderate" or "easy" or "nearly impossible" - or give me a statement through my character's eyes - based on your experience, this looks like a "hard" task). Or he could just make things easier for everyone and tell me it looks like a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) climb, and I'll need to do at least 2 successful checks to make it to the top.

I guess you would not want that 3rd option at your table. Personally, I think that's the best solution for everyone involved. It gives the player the proper information to make an informed decision. And the DM had to have these things in mind anyway (assuming he pre-planned for that cliff and knew climbing it would be a likely option for the players).

It's as if you're telling me that your character would never try a check because you know as a player that there is no chance of success. Your character don't know that until he tries it, or maybe your character is a pessemist that with a huge fear of failing disorder, in which case it would explain why he don't try anything he is not familiar with.



Anyway, sorry if it looked like I was just picking on DanyBallon. This whole thread is interesting, and I'd like to hear more from those who don't want to have examples in the manual: how do you handle these things at your table? Why would you feel restricted if there were more examples in the rules?

Don't worry, we are having a discussion, and even if some answers may seems personal, their content is still useful to everyone participating in the discussion :smallsmile:

[Easy_Lee]

By creating your character to be good at a task, you'll be better than character that aren't which is all that should matter, not what numbers needs to be beaten.
And lastly, 3.P proved us that rule lawyers are a thing, a bad thing as they lead to needless arguements and unfun for all at the table. The more you put in a rule book, the more they believe it to be set into stone and the game can never deviate from this.
Additionnal example of what a task DC is can always be asked to the DM, or be written down in session 0, but IMO they have no place in the PHB.

Sorry if it came out rude, but I just can't understand why some people are so focused on knowing the DCs before hand. It won't change a single thing in the effectiveness of your character. Proficient characters will succeed more often than non-proficient ones.

If you build your character to be good at acrobatics but every meaningful check requires a 20 or more, then you were a fool to build your character to be good at acrobatics. You should have built a wizard with spells like levitate and feather fall that just flat out work. You had no idea that you were a fool ahead of time. That was up to the DM.

Your attitude toward "rules lawyers" proves that you're coming at this with a bias against players. That's unhealthy. If you look at players as rules lawyers who need to be kept in the dark and told what they have to roll when the DM says, then it's impossible for you to make decisions that are good for players.

Players want to understand not all, but typical DCs ahead of time so that they know what their characters can do. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that...unless, of course, they assume all players are rules lawyers. But that isn't a problem with the players.

There's a disgusting tendency on this forum to assume DMs are noble and fair while players are power-hungry rule-abusers. I've more often seen the inverse at tables. Power corrupts. And in 5e, where DMs are encouraged to make up DCs on the spot, things have only gotten worse. You can talk all day about what DMs should do. But you seem to have no answer for what happens with bad DMs.

In 3.5e, I could still have fun with a bad DM. I knew what my character could do. In 5e, the only recourse is to switch tables.

[Unoriginal]

So... all the rest of the technology is more-or-less medieval, but locks alone are somehow very advanced?

No, locks, like all the rest of the technology, are more-or-less pseudo-medieval, and so they have a certain difficulty for the people who lives in said pseudo-medieval world to open them.




... So the argument is that because the book does give a DC for something... and gets it wrong... that a set DC list will always be wrong?

This seems like an invalid argument.

See, this is what I am talking about.

How can the game be wrong? Either you think that if the PHB defines the difficulty for the task and so, by definition, it is the correct DC for the task, or you think that the PHB's listed DC exemple is irrelevant because you disagree with it and should be corrected.

In which case you do not want a list of DCs to know what the game designers define as very easy/easy/hard/very hard, you want a list that conform to your idea for the difficulty of things... and so we go back at the "no listed DC because DMs define the difficulty" paradigm.



The bolded part is exactly the point though. My character's ability to do something is irrelevant to the choices I make for my character. It's all DM whim. Great for the DM, like he needs more power. No fun for me as a player having no power to decide my character's strengths and weaknesses.

You can decide your character's strengths and weaknesses. What you don't get to decide is the strengths and weaknesses of the world around you, including how difficult or mundane something is.

To quote something you might be familiar with: "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

The DM is the tree that's hard to climb. They're the bloodthirsty lord that doesn't listen to polite arguments. They're the door that can be broken with a STR check.

NONE of that affect who the PC is. Maybe a DM decides everything is hard to climb, but that doesn't change the fact how the PC who is good in STR(Athleticism) is *still* the one who's the best suited to climb relatively to everyone else.



Maybe I'm falling into a gotcha trap, but I'll bite.

Rough surface like a brick wall. DC 25
Raining means it's slippery. +5 DC

If rogue has darkvision night time is irrelevant.
If rogue doesn't have darkvision DM call. Can use DM's best friend and apply +2 DC for poor vision since it's not completely dark. Night time can still be irrelevant since it's also about feeling the wall as it is looking for grips. The randomness of the d20 roll is that factor of whether the rogue can find grips or not. This is minutiae detail.

DC is 30. No personal objection if someone else goes with 32. Doesn't go against my gripe of different DMs having different interpretations because the starting point was the same, DC 25 for the rough surface built like a brick wall. Having a table does not prohibit DM adjudication.

Heh. 3E has climbing a tree at DC 15. I'm glad 3E allows for Take 10. By 3E standards my 4 year old self had some ranks in climb. :smallyuk:

So, if a 3.5 DM had decided the DC was 20 because it's a very old, crumbling wall that was worth DC 15 + 5 for the rain, would the DM had been wrong?

Is the DM had decided people could climb trees without skill check, since 4 years old can do it, would they have been wrong?

[PhoenixPhyre]

First, here's the updated (fixed) flowchart for deciding DCs.


http://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/Check-DC-Flowchart.png

DC: Nope means automatic failure. DC: Yes means automatic success with no dice rolled.

A few notes:

*Most of the checks should be between DC 10 and DC 20, at least until very high levels.

*The DC shouldn't depend on the person making the check--it scales based on an average commoner. Use advantage or disadvantage to cover personal circumstances.

*Interesting consequences are those that change the situation. Usually this means that retrying that same tactic won't work (or will be harder the next time). Damage is boring (except in combat).

*Make sure to explain why you're assigning a DC: Nope. Often this is due to a miscommunication or misunderstanding of the situation.

*At a bonus of +4 (high ability score without proficiency or low ability score plus proficiency), that puts success on an easy check (DC 10) at 75%, a medium one (DC 15) at 50%, and a hard one (DC 20) at 25%. DC 5 is omitted because it's not really useful--someone with a +3 modifier will only fail 10% of the time.



Why would you feel restricted if there were more examples in the rules?

Here are a few of my reasons for not wanting examples:

1. Exclusio alteris impoverishes game worlds and promotes paint-by-the-numbers DMing: A natural way of reading lists is as exclusive--only things on the list are allowed. Giving a list of examples means that, on the margin, DMs will try to stick to those examples. After all, if they didn't then the list was wasted space. But that creates worlds that not only all look alike (same doors, same locks, same trees, same cliffs) but also don't make much sense. "Rough wall like brick" covers a huge range of variability, now all stuffed into a single cramped box. For me, finding new and unusual things, things that are abnormal is the majority of the fun. If I wanted to play an RPGMaker game, I'd do that on computer. You're throwing away a large part of the advantage TTRPGs have over CRPGs.

2. Lists set expectations that encourage metagaming. DCs are an explicitly meta construct. Setting lists like this gives incentives for players to alter their characters' actions to meet the path of least resistance, rather than the in-character path. That is, it's a mechanics-first approach rather than a character- or story-first approach. Note that almost all of the defined DCs, ACs, etc. are in the context of combat. That's because that (both historically and out of necessity) needs a lot more definition to avoid the problem with childhood cops-and-robbers games: "I shot you first", "no, you missed"; "No I didn't" (etc).

3. Lists promote miscommunication and keyword scanning. If players are listening for keywords in descriptions, they're missing the rest of the description that also matters. I see this in school (I'm a teacher) constantly. Context matters. Context, in fact, is more important than the exact words used. "But you didn't say it was a X" (where X is a key word). This is, in essence, a priming effect. If they're primed (by the table) to expect a brick wall to be DC X, they'll have a greater tendency to miss the part where I explained the differences that make this one DC NOT X. This leads to "wait, what?" moments and retcons.

4. Lists give fuel to antagonism between players and DMs. The attitude (most prevalent in 3.5) that says "RAW is supreme, if the book says X, then X" is abhorrent. It promotes use of rules as weapons. Adding examples that can be taken out of context gives fuel to this and promotes "But the book says..." thinking, instead of everybody working together to have fun. It decreases trust between players and DMs.

5. Lists do nothing to protect against bad DMs. Lists don't serve their purpose. Those stories (from Pex and others) of DMs setting absurd DCs for things like climbing trees? That's not a problem with the skill system. I'd be willing to bet that the DMs were unprepared for what you might see, and so were railroading you. Hard. No list of DCs would fix that--instead you'd only get antagonism (see point 4).

6. Lists, devoid of context, don't help DMs get better. DMs, like it or not, will have to set a lot of DCs on the fly. Giving a list of arbitrary-seeming examples does not help create structure. Explaining why those DCs were set the way they were might help, but that's been done already in the DMG. As the saying goes, "give a man a fish and you feed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him forever." The DMG (especially) should teach people to fish, not give them fish without context.

7. Focusing on DCs ignores the important parts of ability checks--the consequences. Rolling ability checks for things without interesting consequences is a pointless waste of time. That's step 2 of the flow chart. Are there consequences that matter? Even if it's a hard thing (high chance of failure), if the only consequence is lost time then that's a DC: Nope (takes 10x as long) check. Out of combat, damage doesn't really matter (unless it's enough to outright kill a character). That's why most traps are boring--there's no real consequences. Setting off an alarm--that matters. Closing a gate (and forcing another path)--that matters. Falling down from a tree (1d6 damage max, since you're just starting to climb)--that doesn't matter unless there's a hungry wolf right behind you. That's why all the examples for skills in the PHB (especially athletics) focus on opposition. If there's no opposition, no interesting consequences, there's no need for a check. Focusing on lists of sample DCs obscures these first two critical steps.

And what's the gain from all of this? A false sense of surety for the small fraction of players who play the same character with multiple DMs in the same universe and care about shifting DCs. From my experience, most players don't notice things like this at all. They're too busy dealing with mechanics, with the story, or just having fun.

[Easy_Lee]

PhoenixPhyre, if known DCs are so bad and 3.5e was so terribly player-empowering, then explain why this exact discussion always comes up in 5e. Because I remember a lot of DMs whining about how good their players were, but I don't remember a single case of a player complaining that he had no idea what his character could do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One other note (unrelated to my last post).

I just counted all the defined "examples of uses of this ability or skill" in the PHB. I count nearly 70 things distinct enough from each other to need their own table. Even if you compress that to one per skill + one for each ability (since ability checks without skills are a thing) + one for tools, you're looking at 24 tables. That's a huge amount of "wasted" (only useful very occasionally and mostly ignored) print space, editing time, and possibilities to get things wrong.

My source for these numbers: I collected all the listed uses and categorized them here:
http://www.admiralbenbo.org/index.php/the-council-lands/47-how-to-use-ability-checks.

[Unoriginal]

PhoenixPhyre, if known DCs are so bad and 3.5e was so terribly player-empowering, then explain why this exact discussion always comes up in 5e. Because I remember a lot of DMs whining about how good their players were, but I don't remember a single case of a player complaining that he had no idea what his character could do.

Maybe because people who share your opinions want to know DCs rather than letting the DM decide them and 5e doesn't provide that?

Maybe it's because skills in 3.PF are largely "let the one who has this skill maxxed do it, it's not worth bothering otherwise", meaning that there was the certainty skill checks are mostly "more or less guaranteed success" if you have the skill maxxed and "no chance in hell" if you don't?


I'm beginning to thing people who want a list of DCs are trying to find some kind of protections against the DM's decisions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

PhoenixPhyre, if known DCs are so bad and 3.5e was so terribly player-empowering, then explain why this exact discussion always comes up in 5e. Because I remember a lot of DMs whining about how good their players were, but I don't remember a single case of a player complaining that he had no idea what his character could do.

Because people are still stuck in the mindset of 3.5. They're missing the whole change and expecting something from the system it doesn't do.

Actually, I've only ever heard this complaint in one place. Here. From the about 4 posters who are particularly voluble about it. And who all came from 3.5. I've never heard it from new players (which is mostly who I play with). I've never heard it from people who skipped 3.5 entirely (who were grognards from the 1e and 2e era). In fact, I've never heard it in real life at all. I used to play in a group with multiple DMs (each DM would sign up to run an episodic adventure, so the DM varied from week to week). No one complained about "not knowing what their character could do."

That is, it's a perception problem, not a system problem. This system was designed to do something entirely different than 3.5's skill system. The underlying philosophies are different, which drives the implementation differences. If you want it to do something else, then of course you're going to get frustrated with it. But if you accept it for what it is, it works wonderfully.

By analogy, you're buying a shovel and complaining that it doesn't work well as a hammer. I mean, it works, sort of, but has lots of flaws. "Why can't we make the head smaller so it provides better force?" Because it's a shovel, and that would ruin it for digging.

edit: and my problem with 3.5's skill system is not the player empowerment issue. That's a problem more generally, but more of a forum problem than anything. It's that the skill system is boring. Everything is reduced to a binary--Am I specialized (or have a spell)? Then I auto-succeed at anything relevant. Am I not specialized (or don't have the spell)? Then I shouldn't even try because I can't succeed at anything relevant. That leads to lots of dice rolling with predetermined outcomes and no interesting consequences for failure. I roll to climb. I roll to climb again. Nope, still on the ground. Roll again. Weee, I'm 5 feet up. Roll. Oops, I fell. etc. That's the worst sin possible for a game--it's boring.

[Unoriginal]

Because people are still stuck in the mindset of 3.5. They're missing the whole change and expecting something from the system it doesn't do.

Actually, I've only ever heard this complaint in one place. Here. From the about 4 posters who are particularly voluble about it. And who all came from 3.5. I've never heard it from new players (which is mostly who I play with). I've never heard it from people who skipped 3.5 entirely (who were grognards from the 1e and 2e era). In fact, I've never heard it in real life at all. I used to play in a group with multiple DMs (each DM would sign up to run an episodic adventure, so the DM varied from week to week). No one complained about "not knowing what their character could do."

That is, it's a perception problem, not a system problem. This system was designed to do something entirely different than 3.5's skill system. The underlying philosophies are different, which drives the implementation differences. If you want it to do something else, then of course you're going to get frustrated with it. But if you accept it for what it is, it works wonderfully.

By analogy, you're buying a shovel and complaining that it doesn't work well as a hammer. I mean, it works, sort of, but has lots of flaws. "Why can't we make the head smaller so it provides better force?" Because it's a shovel, and that would ruin it for digging.


Great points all around, but to be fair, maybe the issue is partially that the DMs of the people who want a DC list are also stuck in a 3.PF mindset and aren't using the skills like 5e suggests.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Great points all around, but to be fair, maybe the issue is partially that the DMs of the people who want a DC list are also stuck in a 3.PF mindset and aren't using the skills like 5e suggests.

Absolutely. My biggest piece of advice for DMs is to forget all mechanical knowledge from the past. Bring over fluff, but work the mechanical bits afresh. Treat it as a new game entirely, not a minor patch. I've had problems with DMs wanting to import philosophies and ideas from previous editions while not matching the underlying structure (leading to lots of stacking modifiers, etc). In that sense, people who grew up with 3.5 often over-specialize--like a bad FORTRAN programmer, they can play 3.5 in any edition. Which leads to bad experiences all around due to friction between the rest of the system and the DM style.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm beginning to thing people who want a list of DCs are trying to find some kind of protections against the DM's decisions.

This is pretty much exactly what it is. Not that they'd ever admit it, or even view it as such.
They want fuel so they can argue that the DC should be *this* instead of *that*. There's really no other reason for it.
I mean, look at the comment which sparked your response:
PhoenixPhyre, if known DCs are so bad and 3.5e was so terribly player-empowering, then explain why this exact discussion always comes up in 5e. Because I remember a lot of DMs whining about how good their players were, but I don't remember a single case of a player complaining that he had no idea what his character could do.

This has "I think the DMs were crying" written all over it, but the ironic part is that the DM isn't the one crying about it. They used to in 3e, according to the post. But now the tables have been turned in their minds, and they seem to hate it as much as their DMs apparently did previously.
The difference is that, under the previous model, the DM had no power to handle his game the way that he wanted, while in this scenario he does. And the entitled players hate that.

[Pex]

Apologies, but I have not read the entire thread. This is a reply to the OP.

I think you're mistaken to say the problem is one of variability. At least, I think it is fair to say many of the people who don't like fixed checks simultaneously think that bounded accuracy produces too much variability in rolled checks.

I think the problem is more properly described as predetermination.

If I have a +7 to a skill, then my success rates are affected in a predetermined way. The uncertainty, in a certain sense, disappears.



DC of task
rolled (active) success rate
fixed (passive) success rate


12
80%
100%


13
75%
100%


14
70%
100%


15
65%
100%


16
60%
100%


17
55%
100%


18
50%
0%


19
45%
0%


20
40%
0%


21
35%
0%


22
30%
0%



Half (or more of) the fun of the game is the uncertainty. Under the fixed roll system, the uncertainty is gone.

Just imagine if attack rolls were switched over to fixed. Each swing would either auto-hit or auto-miss based on AC, and there'd be no need to roll. Combat with passive attack rolls and auto-damage. A lot of the fun disappears.

Or, in the real world, imagine that sport had no uncertainty. There would be no chance that the underdog could ever win. They'd be predetermined to lose. Where's the fun in that?

[edit: Also note, in looking at the table, that passive checks make you proportionally better at harder tasks in some cases. In the table, a DC 12 task goes from 80% to 100%, improving your success rate by 25%. But a DC 17 task goes from 55% to 100%, improving your success rate by 82%. This is annoying for many people, myself included.]

You're misinterpreting the problem. The odds of making a particular DC check with a given modifier to the roll doesn't change by math. That's not the problem. The problem is determining the DC in the first place. The variance is in different DMs assigning different DCs for the same task because of their own opinions on the difficulty rating of the task. What is easy for one DM is hard for another, and there is debate as whether a roll should even be done at all. The DC for climbing a tree is our go to example and yet people who are fine with 5E skills as is disagree on whether there should even be a roll.

[DivisibleByZero]

You're misinterpreting the problem. The odds of making a particular DC check with a given modifier to the roll doesn't change by math. That's not the problem. The problem is determining the DC in the first place. The variance is in different DMs assigning different DCs for the same task because of their own opinions on the difficulty rating of the task. What is easy for one DM is hard for another, and there is debate as whether a roll should even be done at all. The DC for climbing a tree is our go to example and yet people who are fine with 5E skills as is disagree on whether there should even be a roll.

And once again, why is this a problem?
Different DMs will sometimes have different metrics for deciding how difficult a task should be, and will therefore sometimes have different DCs for the same tasks.
Who cares?
All that matters is that YOUR DM is consistent with his metrics.

I don't care if I say something is DC 10 and you say it's DC 15 and someone else says it's DC 5. It doesn't matter.
What matters is that mine is ALWAYS DC 10 and oyurs is ALWAYS DC 15 and his is ALWAYS DC 5.

[SiCK_Boy]

I'm beginning to thing people who want a list of DCs are trying to find some kind of protections against the DM's decisions.

There is certainly a good part of this for me, especially when DM's decisions are not communicated clearly beforehand and lead me, as a player, to make decisions that I would never had made had I known the workings of the world.

But I also want these guidelines from my own DMing perspective, to help me make sure I do not arbitrarily screw my players over.

Overall nice post from PhoenixPhyre. I don't agree with everything, but there's a lot to think about in the points you made, and I can at least better understand where you are coming from.

I can see how having example lists could create issues. Really, what would be more useful than just examples would be an explanation of the underlying mechanic.

That flowchart is the kind of thing that should be in the DMG, but isn't. It shows how the DM should reason and structure his mind when making those kind of decisions. Even more importantly, it defines what is easy, medium, etc. (by stating that a commoner should succeed X% of the time). If you could convert (or just add) what a commoner means as far as check bonus (+4? +2?), then it would be exactly what I'd like.

Maybe it is trying to fit a 3.5 mindset in the wrong game (5.0). I admit that one aspect I totally loved in 3.5 was how they made every creature (PC, Monster) use the same foundational mechanics. I'm still struggling at times with the way monsters (especially NPC monsters) are built in D&D 5. But at least, that part (the concept that some rules don't apply to monsters) is explained in the rules (notably in the DMG sections on creating your own monsters).

Maybe some would call it entitlement. I think of it more as trying to have a common understanding of the rules so that we can play the game without needing a whole list of "houserules" explained as part of session 0.


All that matters is that YOUR DM is consistent with his metrics.

That is one aspect of it, but it's still helpful if the DM can set DCs that have some basis on reality. If he sets the climb DC to 25 for a ladder or a small tree with plenty of low hanging branches, then it means that in this world, children don't climb trees and roofers would be some of the most well payed professionnals in the world (that, or every roofing company will hire wizards who can cast levitate).

Part of it is also useful when using products such as adventure modules. One assumes that those designers worked with the same basic assumptions as the game designers (since they often are the same people, and are at least all working for the same company producing the game). A DM who would respect a pre-made adventure module DC, but just invent crazy stuff when something is not covered, would also create problems at his table at some point (or he would if I was at that table; that would certainly be a point I'd try to speak to him about between sessions).

[KorvinStarmast]

I had a cleric who had to try four times, with magic aid, to climb onto a 5-foot box. How does this enhance the story? It gave you a story to tell on the internet about a DM who doesn't understand the game very well. What you were involved with there was roll playing.

[mephnick]

My question is how many people playing 5e actually play at multiple tables? These forums warp our views on the gaming community because I bet the real number is under 10%.

So for a majority of players the different DM, different DC problem isn't a problem at all. Then it comes down to bad DMs being inconsistent.

[DivisibleByZero]

My question is how many people playing 5e actually play at multiple tables? These forums warp our views on the gaming community because I bet the real number is under 10%.

So for a majority of players the different DM, different DC problem isn't a problem at all. Then it comes down to bad DMs being inconsistent.

Precisely. Which breaks the entire premise of this thread down to being inconsequential. This thread is a complaint about a problem that honestly doesn't exist for the extreme vast majority of players. It's an hypothetical complaint about the fact that every table is or can be different, which is a Feature, not a Bug.

[KorvinStarmast]

Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)
That's plenty of guidance. If you need more, the system is not at fault. failures of imagination is one of those things. Inability to improvise is another issue for DM's to overcome, or not.

This is it, in a nutshell. DMs who want to use their own DCs can do so. But DMs who want to go with the norm don't have a norm. Uh, yeah they do. See above. If a DM hasn't the wit to pick a number, then the DM may be in the wrong role at that table.

Ability checks are for things with interesting failure states. If the failure wouldn't be interesting, don't have a check. That's a big difference from earlier editions.

Note: Impartiality is not part of a DM's job. Fun is. You're not simulating a world, you're allowing game-play in a world. DMs should be fans of the characters--that doesn't mean letting them automatically succeed, but it does mean that you have a vested interest in them doing interesting things. This too.


The baseline AC for Full Plate is 18. There is no baseline DC for most Checks that players attempt. A DM must set these on the fly. Yeah. If you can't handle that, don't DM. (Plus, you are mixing apples and oranges in your argument.
See? They even provide some DCs to help you visualize things. That was a response to you.

Variance between tables is bad -- Variance between tables has been in the game since Arneson's pre published game started. Variance between tables was embraced by Gygax. There are a lot of things 5e tries to do, in drawing from all previous editions. Being less rules lawyery is one of them. Variability is a feature, not a bug, and it's a hell of a lot better organized than OD&D was, and for that matter, AD&D. (Even though I loved the 1e tables since I liked to use them go shape encounters, random and planned). (Heh, I liked Fineous' post. )

From the guy who first published these games where using the imagination was a key to the game ...

Dear Lee;
Dave A. took those rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D. When I played in his "Blackmoor" campaign I fell in love with the new concept and expanded and changed his 20 or so pages of hand-written "rules" into about 100 ms. pages. Dave's group and ours here in Lake Geneva then began eager and enthusiastic play-testing, and the result was the D&D game in January of 1974. It is an ongoing game, as the GREYHAWK booklet shows, and when Dave hands me the ms. for BLACKMOOR I am sure that there will be more alternatives yet.

There seems to be considerable confusion amongst your contributors -- particularly those who tend to be in a flap about incomplete or unpalatable solutions (to them) of D&D rules/questions/problems. The game is complex and complicated. (snip) Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in D&D. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, D&D will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. D&D is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. (snip) Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". (snip) My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. D&D enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.
Feature, not a bug.

[Justin Sane]

The point of reference is irrelevant. That the DM is consistent is the only thing that matters. That's the entire premise of the Gritty vs Heroic variability.

As for your 1st level con man.... 75% victory rate for a beginner with a little training is absolutely reasonable. 75% is a fairly good consistency rating.Treating a could could easily be considered an Easy task. Would you go for a doctor with a fairly consistent 75% success rate treating colds?

[DivisibleByZero]

Treating a could could easily be considered an Easy task. Would you go for a doctor with a fairly consistent 75% success rate treating colds?

Not that this comparison holds any water to begin with, but the reality is that doctors have a friggin TERRIBLE track record of treating the common cold.
If treating a cold were such an easy task, then why are so many people sick all the time?
It's because they don't treat the cold, they treat the *symptoms* of the cold and let it run its course so you are more comfortable while your immune system does what it's supposed to do.
Your argument is invalid.

And an hour has passed with no one commenting on Korvin's post? That's the GitP equivalent of a mic drop.

[Unoriginal]

That was a response to you.

I'm not sure what you mean?

[Easy_Lee]

The difference is that, under the previous model, the DM had no power to handle his game the way that he wanted, while in this scenario he does. And the entitled players hate that.

The DM always has had full power to do anything he wanted. That hasn't changed and likely never will. The difference is that DMs used to have to change a lot of rules in order to fully strip the players of any ability to do something the DM didn't want them to do. But now, in 5e, player power is so low and there are so few knowns that it's easy for DMs to keep the players fully under control.

This isn't healthy for the game. DMs don't make interesting decisions, players do. And that's because player decisions are limited. All of the most memorable D&D sessions are when a player, not the DM, does something clever or unexpected.

There's no room for player cleverness when everything is up to the DM.

And just because you triggered me, PLAYERS AREN'T ENTITLED FOR WANTING TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. I'm a DM, dude. I don't know who you think you're talking to. But the lack of player information bothers me more when I DM than it does when I play.

The DM is no more important, more special, nor superior to any other player. Get that out of your head. One good thing 5e did: anyone can DM now.

[qube]

I think it's very sad this got never adressed, because it's also my position.


Inconsequential (0) Very Easy(5) Easy(10) Moderate(15) Difficult(20) Very Difficult(25) Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance. If you need more, the system is not at fault.
-- DivisibleByZero

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?
-- Slipperychicken

This is it, in a nutshell. DMs who want to use their own DCs can do so. But DMs who want to go with the norm don't have a norm.
-- Easy_Lee

Because


If your DM thinks that trees are generally DC 15...I don't know what to say.
-- PhoenixPhyre

I do know what to say. PhoenixPhyre, say hello to a DM who needs that guidance you argue against.

Note how the initial quote (of DivisibleByZero), in fact talks about such people ( the people who fall under "If you need more," ) ... and also note how instead of given a solution for these people, the thing given is trying to shift blame.

Yes, sure, it's the DMs fault for not being able to decently gauge how hard it is to climb a tree. If only there was a book with guidelines for this DM, that would help DMs who need help, to give a correct DCs. Perhaps with a few examples. We could call it ... a Dungeon Master's Guide, if you will. :smalltongue:


Sometimes it's important to remember, (1) not to look who's to blame, but to acknowledge a limitation, and acknowledge that (2) things that aren't issues for us experienced people, can be real problems for new and unexperienced people.

Ergo, the argument


Every game will be slightly different, in a huge number of respects, not just skills. The only thing that matters is that the DM is consistent.
-- DivisibleByZero

Is, in my humble opinion, utter BS. As a good system would decently assist a DM who needs help, in helping him make good decisions, whatever that decision may be. Having the only criteria being "be consistent" is utterly HORRIBLE.

--------

As fo the critiques of post 124

Exclusio alteris impoverishes game worlds and promotes paint-by-the-numbers DMing

or one could argue that a single example could also lead as inspritation to a dozen variants ... different side of the same coin

Lists set expectations that encourage metagaming

People might feel their character should be aware of his personal capabilities, and should by some degree be capable to gauge the chance he'll fall out of the tree if he tries to climb it

Lists promote miscommunication and keyword scanning

A downside I'll happily take over "make it up yourself"

Lists give fuel to antagonism between players and DMs.

in my experience, "I'm the DM, so what I say goes" is far more antagonising then "the book says X, so the DC is X". Oppositely, the people who have sufficient trust in DMs that he can make things up however he wants are also the people who have sufficient trust in the DM deviating from the tables in the books.

Lists do nothing to protect against bad DMs.
Lists, devoid of context, don't help DMs get better.

they can help guide bad DMs to making good choices

Focusing on DCs ignores the important parts of ability checks--the consequences.

Irrellevant. One can in fact add at the very top of the lists, in bold golden letters "don't forget about the consequences"

And what's the gain from all of this?

It prevents this:


If your DM thinks that trees are generally DC 15...I don't know what to say.
--PhoenixPhyre


Feature, not a bug.As software engineer I can wholeheartedly tell you that this does not mean it's inherently a good thing.

[mephnick]

And an hour has passed with no one commenting on Korvin's post? That's the GitP equivalent of a mic drop.

Thise of us that are right don't need convincing and those that are wrong will never give up their assumed birthright to theorycraft the entire campaign during character creation regardless of DM or style.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not sure what you mean? I was trying to point out that what you said was a reponse to Easy_Lee. Maybe I should have nested the quote?


As software engineer I can wholeheartedly tell you that this does not mean it's inherently a good thing. As a user, and one time manager of a software development team, I can tell you that it may or may not be good, and that each user experience or response to the feature will vary. :smallbiggrin: But I get your point. I've been a victim of MS Office products for about two decades in the offices where I worked. All sorts of "features" come off to me as "not desirable." (I preferred Netscape when IE came out, I now use Chrome as my default, but my son uses Firefox (grandson of Netscape) as his default.

[Unoriginal]

I'm honestly having an hard time imagining why would anyone need guidance to select a DC for a task.

I mean, people don't just think "mmmh, this is X task, I'm thinking it's auto-success/very easy/easy/medium/hard/very hard/impossible" ?

[Sigreid]

Thise of us that are right don't need convincing and those that are wrong will never give up their assumed birthright to theorycraft the entire campaign during character creation regardless of DM or style.

This really falls under the truism that you can't please everyone, and if you try to you will please no one.

[DivisibleByZero]

Note how the initial quote (of DivisibleByZero), in fact talks about such people ( the people who fall under "If you need more," ) ... and also note how instead of given a solution for these people, the thing given is trying to shift blame.

There is no solution given in my post because the PHB gives the solution. DC5-DC30, Very Easy-Nearly Impossible. That's the solution.
Once again, if you need more, then that isn't the system's fault, because everyone's clamoring on about guidelines but the fact is that the guidelines have already been provided. So everyone then starts clamoring on about examples, but examples shouldn't be necessary to begin with.
If you can't approximate the difficulty of any particular task, and you also can't wing it and just make a judgement call on the fly, then perhaps you should be on the other side of the screen.
If you can do so, then there's nothing to complain about.
If you're a player, then as long as the DM is consistent you don't need them and you just want fuel for an argument.
If you're a player and your DM is inconsistent, and you think you could do a better job, then perhaps you should swap roles.

If you're a player and your DM is consistent, no examples are needed.
If you're the DM and you can't handle the fact that there are no examples, then you lack what is literally the most important skill that a DM needs, that being the ability to make judgement calls on the fly. And lacking the single most important skill required means that you shouldn't be the DM.

It doesn't need to be fixed because it isn't broken.

[Unoriginal]

There is certainly a good part of this for me, especially when DM's decisions are not communicated clearly beforehand and lead me, as a player, to make decisions that I would never had made had I known the workings of the world.

Well, three things:

First, having DC exemples don't protect the players from the DM, even Easy_Lee admits so.

Second, it's not a question of the workings of the world, it's a question of the workings of the game/the DM's narrative

Third, how is knowing that taming a wild horse is DC 15 or 20, or any other DC you'd know, going to change the decisions you're making?


But I also want these guidelines from my own DMing perspective, to help me make sure I do not arbitrarily screw my players over.

Why would you arbitrarily screw your players over? You're the one deciding the difficulty of things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(1) I can see how having example lists could create issues. Really, what would be more useful than just examples would be an explanation of the underlying mechanic.

(2) That flowchart is the kind of thing that should be in the DMG, but isn't. It shows how the DM should reason and structure his mind when making those kind of decisions. Even more importantly, it defines what is easy, medium, etc. (by stating that a commoner should succeed X% of the time). If you could convert (or just add) what a commoner means as far as check bonus (+4? +2?), then it would be exactly what I'd like.

(3) Maybe it is trying to fit a 3.5 mindset in the wrong game (5.0). I admit that one aspect I totally loved in 3.5 was how they made every creature (PC, Monster) use the same foundational mechanics. I'm still struggling at times with the way monsters (especially NPC monsters) are built in D&D 5. But at least, that part (the concept that some rules don't apply to monsters) is explained in the rules (notably in the DMG sections on creating your own monsters).


(1) That explanation and flowchart is straight out of the DMG (just they used words). The guidance is there, people just read it with a wrong mindset.

(2) I put that flowchart together in about 15 minutes straight from the DMG's guidance. At the bottom I included the math for a +4 bonus--it makes life real real easy. Easy = 75% success, Medium = 50% success, Hard = 25% success. Coincidentally (no, really!), a +4 is what you'd have if you have either a high modifier and no proficiency or a level 1 character with proficiency (+2) and a 15 score (+2).

(3)This is something I'm glad isn't true any more. The PC rules are for PCs, not for NPCs--there are a lot of pieces on a PC that's expected to last multiple sessions that are unnecessary on monster that should last 3 rounds. Additionally, a lot of PC abilities lend themselves to alpha strikes (nova tactics). This is compensated by having persistent resource drains, so PCs can't dump everything all the time. Monsters can since they're not expected to survive the combat anyway (and certainly aren't worried about multiple fights before a long rest). This means that monsters and PCs are dual to each other--yin and yang.

Consider the following cases (low and high are relative to the other side's power--low health means dies easily, low damage means takes a long time to kill:

a) Low damage, high health PC + high health monster, low damage Monster: long combats. Padded Sumo. 4e in a nutshell
b) High damage, high health PC + high damage, high health monster: rocket tag. High level 3.5 play--first hit wins. This is the same as high damage/low health on each side.
c) high damage, low health PC + low damage, high health monster: tactically challenging combats where PCs can nova (but burn resources doing so). Monsters can't nova (so PCs have a chance of surviving). This is 5e's design point.

As a world-builder, I like the freedom of being able to say that PCs are just a small fraction of what goes on. That spell-caster? He's not a wizard, he's a pyromantic adept. He can do things that (for convenience sake) use the same names and numbers as spells, but he's casting them in a different way. And can do things that don't match spells. Then again, he can't do a lot of things that PCs can do. Their roles are different, so their builds should be different.

It's also a lot easier. Decide what the numbers should be, then make them that way. Rejigger as needed. Cuts my planning time down tremendously and increases my flexibility (so I don't have to say "sorry guys, I don't have anything planned for that." I can just pull and adjust some stock creatures on the fly without needing to work through the entire build.

[Easy_Lee]

It's also a lot easier. Decide what the numbers should be, then make them that way. Rejigger as needed. Cuts my planning time down tremendously and increases my flexibility (so I don't have to say "sorry guys, I don't have anything planned for that." I can just pull and adjust some stock creatures on the fly without needing to work through the entire build.

This mentality is exactly what I take issue with. 5e DMs collectively don't do research, planning, or make any effort to be consistent. They decide what they think the numbers should be on the fly. No matter how much better you like the system, you have to understand how that leads to inconsistency.

And I'm not even telling you not to do it. I'm just advocating for a list of known checks so that players have a good idea of their own godforsaken capabilities. I have no idea why that's so offensive.

Checks aren't even the only area where this is a problem. In fact, we have fewer concrete rules for everything this edition. Just look at the invisibility thread and tell me you like that level of uncertainty when you play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If your DM thinks that trees are generally DC 15...I don't know what to say.
-- PhoenixPhyre

I do know what to say. PhoenixPhyre, say hello to a DM who needs that guidance you argue against.


That was in particular context. There is explicit guidance about climbing. The default DC of climbing is DC: Yup (DC 0). If you set the DC of climbing trees at any positive, non-zero number you better have a darn good reason to do so, specific to the particular tree. And be aware that you're screwing Thief Rogues and creatures with climb speeds.



Sometimes it's important to remember, (1) not to look who's to blame, but to acknowledge a limitation, and acknowledge that (2) things that aren't issues for us experienced people, can be real problems for new and unexperienced people.

Ergo, the argument


Every game will be slightly different, in a huge number of respects, not just skills. The only thing that matters is that the DM is consistent.
-- DivisibleByZero

Is, in my humble opinion, utter BS. As a good system would decently assist a DM who needs help, in helping him make good decisions, whatever that decision may be. Having the only criteria being "be consistent" is utterly HORRIBLE.


There is guidance. There is good guidance. It's just in the DMG, which obviously people haven't read. That flowchart I made? That's straight from the DMG. You want something the system is designed not to do. That's a you problem.




As fo the critiques of post 124

Exclusio alteris impoverishes game worlds and promotes paint-by-the-numbers DMing

(1) or one could argue that a single example could also lead as inspritation to a dozen variants ... different side of the same coin

Lists set expectations that encourage metagaming

(2) People might feel their character should be aware of his personal capabilities, and should by some degree be capable to gauge the chance he'll fall out of the tree if he tries to climb it

Lists promote miscommunication and keyword scanning

(3) A downside I'll happily take over "make it up yourself"

Lists give fuel to antagonism between players and DMs.

(4) in my experience, "I'm the DM, so what I say goes" is far more antagonising then "the book says X, so the DC is X". Oppositely, the people who have sufficient trust in DMs that he can make things up however he wants are also the people who have sufficient trust in the DM deviating from the tables in the books.

Lists do nothing to protect against bad DMs.
Lists, devoid of context, don't help DMs get better.

(5) they can help guide bad DMs to making good choices

Focusing on DCs ignores the important parts of ability checks--the consequences.

(6)Irrellevant. One can in fact add at the very top of the lists, in bold golden letters "don't forget about the consequences"


(1) those aren't different sides of the same coin. I see this as a teacher every day. This is also a legal principle. Language is such that the easiest path of understanding is the most commonly followed one. Tables are easy, text is hard. You'd have to provide strong evidence that the marginal effect is as you say, when all experience and history says the opposite. Codification does not lead to creativity. It never has, not in any field of work.

(2) You can gauge your ability to within 5%? Most people can't. Most people can judge easy, medium or hard (if that). Oddly, that's what's provided. "You think this will be an easy task" gives as much realistic information as you can expect. Being able to look at a lock and decide how easy it is to pick (to the exact %) is asking way too much of reality.

(3) Why? I've given reasons--you've given "I like it better."

(4) Both sides are wrong if they act that way. The instructions aren't "just make it up"--the instructions are in the DMG and much more specific and guided than that. Don't get in the expectation that you know DCs ahead of time, and there's no difficulty. Accept variation. Live with it--it's a basic part of life. Codified DCs are a mirage anyway--there were always large fudge factors involved.

(5) How? They only provide out-of-context information. "We think that all apple trees are DC 0." Ok, that tells nothing about the napple tree (which, as its name suggests, isn't an apple tree). The guidance is all there in the DMG.

(6) But giving lists makes people want to skip that step entirely and focus on the DC, which is the wrong place to focus. In essence, the exact DC is irrelevant most of the time. All that matters is low or high. It only matters as an exact number that 5% of the time you're right on the nose.

Edit: To Easy Lee:


This mentality is exactly what I take issue with. 5e DMs collectively don't do research, planning, or make any effort to be consistent. They decide what they think the numbers should be on the fly. No matter how much better you like the system, you have to understand how that leads to inconsistency.


Context, context, context. That was in the context of monsters. There is lots of planning and research and guidance about making monster numbers that work well. There is also lots of guidance about ability check DCs. You've just chosen to ignore it because it isn't a bright-line set of fixed numbers. Oh, and thanks for slandering 5e DMs. You're very, very, very wrong about that "don't do research, planning, or make any effort" part. I put my effort in where it matters for my players. Exact number DCs for hypothetical cases don't matter. Not at any table I've ever been in. Not anywhere but for the 4 or 5 of you on this forum who are trying to import your 3.5-era ideas into a system ill-suited for it. That's why it's offensive. You're trying to break my system that works well for me in order to solve a marginal issue for a very small number of people that's actually due to not being willing to shift perspectives. I get it. You want 3.75 (as far as skills go). Sorry, that cannot and will not work in 5e. The philosophy of the game is completely different and is inextricably opposed to that of 3.5. They cannot coexist.

[DivisibleByZero]

This mentality is exactly what I take issue with. 5e DMs collectively don't do research, planning, or make any effort to be consistent. They decide what they think the numbers should be on the fly. No matter how much better you like the system, you have to understand how that leads to inconsistency.

And I'm not even telling you not to do it. I'm just advocating for a list of known checks so that players have a good idea of their own godforsaken capabilities. I have no idea why that's so offensive.

Checks aren't even the only area where this is a problem. In fact, we have fewer concrete rules for everything this edition. Just look at the invisibility thread and tell me you like that level of uncertainty when you play.

Then ask your DM at the start of the campaign, in session zero, if you need that kind of control. You want a list? Ask him for one.
Problem solved.
That's the only way to do it, because every table is going to be slightly different.

As for less concrete rules, I don't need to read any threads anywhere about it.
The answer is Yes, I do prefer it with fewer concrete rules. So does everyone at my table.

Just because you're unhappy with certain things doesn't mean that everyone is and that it should be changed. I don't want to turn this into an edition war, but the fact is that people who need that kind of tedious structure should probably be playing 3e/4e, or better yet a different game entirely.

[Justin Sane]

Here's a TL;DR for this thread: "I don't need it, so nobody should have it."

Edit: Because, seriously - for the people advocating against having guidelines for DCs, how much trouble would it be for you to state during Session 0 something like "By the way, I think those numbers are trash and don't help at all - I'm completely ignoring them"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's a TL;DR for this thread: "I don't need it, so nobody should have it."

Edit: Because, seriously - for the people advocating against having guidelines for DCs, how much trouble would it be for you to state during Session 0 something like "By the way, I think those numbers are trash and don't help at all - I'm completely ignoring them"?

Yeah, not so much. I gave 6 reasons explicitly why I don't want them, plus the argument from wasted space and effort. None of them were what you said.

[DivisibleByZero]

Here's a TL;DR for this thread: "I don't need it, so nobody should have it."

No, the TL;DR of this thread is: "Not everyone needs or even wants it, so it shouldn't become RAW and potentially mess up some peoples' games."
If you want that kind of structure, the structure your game that way. But don't make it hard and fast and then say "Oh, well DMs can just ignore it or change it as they feel the need" because DMS can do that already. Only in reverse. We're saying that you can set it how you want. You're saying that it SHOULD be set to a certain level and then we can change it how we want.
It's the exact same problem, but in reverse. You think there's a problem, so you want to solve the problem by handing that problem off to other people.

You want a list, make a list. You want examples, make yourself some examples and share them with your players. But don't force feed structure into a game that was designed to be less structured. Go play 3e/4e instead if that's your bag.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's a question for those who think that characters need to know their capabilities:

Can you really look at a wall (or other task) and know your probability of climbing it within 5%? No. No one can. Experts can get close due to long experience, but most of us know things like

1) I'm bad at climbing walls. This one looks tough. I probably don't have much of a shot.
OR
2) I'm good at climbing walls. Although this one looks tough, I can usually climb things like this.
OR
3) I'm the world's leading expert in wall-climbing. I routinely climb worse than this.

Note--this maps onto the hard/medium/easy spectrum exactly.

Modifiers, scores, probability curves, DCs--these are entirely meta constructs. They're game constructs. CHARACTERS DON'T KNOW THESE THINGS. They exist entirely out of the universe. Making decisions based on the numbers is metagame thinking in a bad way (making decisions based on the fact that it's a game, not on the characters involved). What ever happened to "Never tell me the odds?"

Yes, this means that DMs should say "It looks like an Easy check" or whatever. Your character would know that. Your character would not know more (and wouldn't even know that ahead of time). There are no "generic brick walls" or "generic tightropes" or "generic slippery surfaces" out there.

You want a certainty that is not present in real life and that makes the game boring (uncertainty is one of the major reasons we use dice and a major source of fun for a lot of people. Certain (as in 0% uncertainty) things shouldn't take checks).

[Easy_Lee]

No, the TL;DR of this thread is: "Not everyone needs or even wants it, so it shouldn't become RAW and potentially mess up some peoples' games."


So you'd rather every DM come up with this list themselves, rather than having a single list that you can just ignore? That's selfish. There's no other word for it.

It's a hell of a lot easier to ignore published DCs than it is to be consistent in making them up. I've learned how to be consistent, because I keep a list in the back of my mind. Not everyone can do that, and fewer want to.


Here's a question for those who think that characters need to know their capabilities:

Can you really look at a wall (or other task) and know your probability of climbing it within 5%? No. No one can. Experts can get close due to long experience, but most of us know things like

Yes I can, and I'm not even trained to climb walls. As far as my professional training goes, if I couldn't estimate LOE for my work, I'd be in deep trouble.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you'd rather every DM come up with this list themselves, rather than having a single list that you can just ignore? That's selfish. There's no other word for it.

It's a hell of a lot easier to ignore published DCs than it is to be consistent in making them up. I've learned how to be consistent, because I keep a list in the back of my mind. Not everyone can do that, and fewer want to.

a) consistency is overrated. Being consistent when things change is called being wrong. No one cares that this brick wall is different from the last brick wall. That's because there is no generic brick wall that is "right." Every wall is different.

b) again with the slander. Every DM must (as in it is an inevitable part of a DMs job) make on-the-spot decisions. Acknowledging that fact and providing guidance to make better decisions is a much better learning strategy than "memorize this list and force everything to be from the list" or "memorize this list and punt when things aren't on the list." Memorization leads to railroading--only specific values are possible. Anything outside those values must be forced to fit (or causes discomfort which discourages going off the rails).



Yes I can, and I'm not even trained to climb walls. As far as my professional training goes, if I couldn't estimate LOE for my work, I'd be in deep trouble.


Estimate. That's a key word. People can estimate, but usually only into buckets. Especially in things they're not experts in. Adventurers aren't experts in anything--they're dilettantes in many different fields. And I doubt that told, "a brick wall. What probability exists that you can climb it?", you can get within 5% reliably. Experts get closer (but only in areas of their expertise).

[Unoriginal]

This mentality is exactly what I take issue with. 5e DMs collectively don't do research, planning, or make any effort to be consistent. They decide what they think the numbers should be on the fly. No matter how much better you like the system, you have to understand how that leads to inconsistency.

And I'm not even telling you not to do it. I'm just advocating for a list of known checks so that players have a good idea of their own godforsaken capabilities. I have no idea why that's so offensive.

Checks aren't even the only area where this is a problem. In fact, we have fewer concrete rules for everything this edition. Just look at the invisibility thread and tell me you like that level of uncertainty when you play.

What are a list of known checks going to do for your character, if the DM keeps thinking the DCs on the fly?

And how can a player not know their character's capabilities? Do the DM take their character sheets after the session 0 and never give them back?

[DivisibleByZero]

So you'd rather every DM come up with this list themselves, rather than having a single list that you can just ignore? That's selfish. There's no other word for it. .

You'd rather we have to make up a set of rules for DCs that vary from what's in the book rather than you making up your own just like we already do right now?
That's selfish. There's no other word for it.

See? Same problem, just in reverse.
You want to "solve" the problem by handing it off to us. And yet we're the selfish ones....

[KorvinStarmast]

This mentality is exactly what I take issue with. 5e DMs collectively don't do research, planning, or make any effort to be consistent. They decide what they think the numbers should be on the fly. No matter how much better you like the system, you have to understand how that leads to inconsistency. At a given table, you have not demonstrated that.

I will concede, however, that some of the conventions on surprise, stealth, hiding, and perception are awkward.

So you'd rather every DM come up with this list themselves, rather than having a single list that you can just ignore? No, it's called how to DM. Training wheels not required. It appears that you are an experienced enough DM that it isn't outside of your usual abilities.

It's a hell of a lot easier to ignore published DCs than it is to be consistent in making them up. Actually, with a published list you run into more rules lawyer problem, not fewer.

Yes I can, and I'm not even trained to climb walls. As far as my professional training goes, if I couldn't estimate LOE for my work, I'd be in deep trouble. Then you don't actually have a problem that needs solving.

[Unoriginal]

Ignoring published DCs is the same thing that making DCs up, just with more "but it's not RAW" arguments.

[DivisibleByZero]

Actually, with a published list you run into more rules lawyer problem, not fewer.

Ignoring published DCs is the same thing that making DCs up, just with more "but it's not RAW" arguments.

This.
The system that we have for 5e is leaps and bounds better than what you're all proposing.
If you want a list, make a list. If you want examples, make examples.
Don't force feed it to us so that you have ammunition to argue at the table.

[Justin Sane]

Yeah, not so much. I gave 6 reasons explicitly why I don't want them, plus the argument from wasted space and effort. None of them were what you said.You mean the ones from this post? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22382859&postcount=124) Because except the 7th one (which I actually agree with), there's a serious case of [citation needed] going on there. You might have valid points - I'm just not convinced.


No, the TL;DR of this thread is: "Not everyone needs or even wants it, so it shouldn't become RAW and potentially mess up some peoples' games."If only there was some rule, written somewhere, that allows DMs to actually modify the rules...

If you want that kind of structure, the structure your game that way. But don't make it hard and fast and then say "Oh, well DMs can just ignore it or change it as they feel the need" because DMS can do that already. Only in reverse. We're saying that you can set it how you want. You're saying that it SHOULD be set to a certain level and then we can change it how we want.
It's the exact same problem, but in reverse. You think there's a problem, so you want to solve the problem by handing that problem off to other people.Well, yeah. If you don't think that's a valid perspective, let me sell you a boardgame - inside the box there are only 7 cubes, each of a different color. The rules leaflet says something like "the owner of the game decides how it's played." Would you buy it?

You want a list, make a list. You want examples, make yourself some examples and share them with your players. But don't force feed structure into a game that was designed to be less structured. Go play 3e/4e instead if that's your bag.How is "less structured" being sold as a good thing, here? Even systems that are much more narrative than 5E are better structured.

Also, for the record: I really think the "go play 3e/4e" remarks are unnecessarily dismissive and insulting. I'm having this conversation out of my love for 5e, and your experiences and opinions are not more important or valid than mine.


Edit [wow, this thread moves fast]:

No, it's called how to DM. Training wheels not required.Are you seriously claiming new DMs don't need training wheels?

[Easy_Lee]

What are a list of known checks going to do for your character, if the DM keeps thinking the DCs on the fly?

And how can a player not know their character's capabilities? Do the DM take their character sheets after the session 0 and never give them back?

Can my character consistently climb a rock wall? Can my character consistently pick a mithril lock? If I want to be able to do these things, the DC will tell me whether skill proficiency, expertise, or going all the way and rolling a Bard is necessary. In fact, if these numbers are high enough, I'll have to roll a Wizard if I want to be good at climbing and opening locks.

Do you see my point?

And I'm not slandering DMs. DMs make stuff up on the fly when they don't know the answer. Nobody has most of the answers with 5e. That's why the RAW thread is so long. That's why nobody agrees on how Invisibility works. That's why we keep having these Check threads.

I'm going to hazard a guess: not everyone in this thread knows how to DM. You're not supposed to play Super-God over the world. You're supposed to arbitrate the rules, describe settings, and control NPCs. That's all. If you use a campaign book, coming up with anything at all on the fly is totally optional, as long as the campaign book and game rules are clear.

There's a reason why DMs have to make up a hell of a lot more on the fly in 5e. And it isn't because 5e has superior mechanics.


Don't force feed it to us so that you have ammunition to argue at the table.

Don't make nasty assumptions about people you disagree with. You must realize we can turn that back on you just as easily, by assuming that you're a controlling DM who likes to micromanage his players.

[SiCK_Boy]

I do not see how things would be worse if there was more guidance provided - and this goes beyond the skill checks; these issues come up in other areas as well, but this specific thread is about skill checks DC. Again, some claim that the guidance is all there, but I disagree on that.

Maybe focusing on examples is not the best approach. I respect a lot of the arguments that PhoenixPhyre brought forward, and it is possible that examples lists, without additional supporting explanation on the underlying principles and mechanics of the game, would create unexpected problems (or create situations that some people would find frustrating).


Can you really look at a wall (or other task) and know your probability of climbing it within 5%? No. No one can. Experts can get close due to long experience, but most of us know things like

1) I'm bad at climbing walls. This one looks tough. I probably don't have much of a shot.
OR
2) I'm good at climbing walls. Although this one looks tough, I can usually climb things like this.
OR
3) I'm the world's leading expert in wall-climbing. I routinely climb worse than this.

Note--this maps onto the hard/medium/easy spectrum exactly.

Modifiers, scores, probability curves, DCs--these are entirely meta constructs. They're game constructs. CHARACTERS DON'T KNOW THESE THINGS. They exist entirely out of the universe. Making decisions based on the numbers is metagame thinking in a bad way (making decisions based on the fact that it's a game, not on the characters involved). What ever happened to "Never tell me the odds?"

Characters do know their own skill to the percentage point. The player knows exactly what his modifier for a given ability is, and he knows if he's proficient or not. I would not play a game where the rules would force me to ignore those numbers consciously for the sake of "acting" in-character. As a player, I know those, and that means my character know those.

The DM knows (or should know) the DC of tasks in his world. In an ideal world, these things (the DC of tasks) would be self-evident to all (players and DMs) by virtue of perfect descriptions. Because of the medium we use, they often are not.

But in all cases, the point of wanting to know these 2 numbers in advance is not to assess your success rate. It is to assess your odds. You will still roll that d20, and so, you could still fail. If I have a +15 bonus, I will still fail DC 17 tasks 5 % of the time. Then it's up to me to decide if I want to gamble my life on climbing impossibly high cliffs with a 5 % chance of falling to my death, or if I'd rather not even risk it, or if I want to invest in a ring of feather falling for those few instances where I will fall.

In the end, as a player, I want to know the odds.

Han Solo had a major advantage over us players: the author had already decided he would not die for another 30 years and, before changing their minds, they had also decided he would get the girl in the end. He's a character in a story, my characters are characters in a game. And Harrison Ford would probably have accepted his contract even if the script said Han Solo was to die; I would not accept a game where I am certain to die because the rules of the world are not clearly conveyed to me or because a god-like DM just had a bad day (note: I accept the risk of dying, but who enjoys games of rock falls-you die?).

In regards to DM not wanting to have a list because they would not want to be troubled with needing to remove it, I do not think that is how things would turn out at most tables (especially at release for a new edition). People are usually happy with following rules. Most DM would just accept with the list, unless it absolutely made no sense at all. I do not see how it would be more work for a DM to reference a list with lots of usual situations, versus coming up with DCs all the time in advance (do DM prepare DCs in advance when planning their adventures? everyone refers to adjudicating on the fly, but as a DM, if I plan some feature that would most likely involve a skill check, I usually predefine my DC) or on the fly.

Maybe I am an anal-retentive rule lawyer down to my core and I'm just not aware of it. I have to say I have not been able to have many meaningful discussions with my latest DMs regarding their own preparation/thought mechanism on adjudication. The group I play with was found on the internet (but we play in person), and so they are not personal friends I've known for years; I'm up to maybe 20 sessions with them now. Coming into those first sessions was a difficult experience because I needed to learn on the spot what their framework for the game was. That is one thing I normally enjoy on these forums: hearing about how, and why, other people make the decision they make behind the screen (or in front). That is also one of the main reasons I enjoy watching other people play the game on streams, even if most of them shy away from any rules questions for the sake of providing a "better" show. So that could explain where I'm coming from.

A lot of it comes down to participant expectations around the table. My reasoning is that usually, the rulebooks serve as a standard baseline for everyone. And then the DM can modify those whatever way he wants, as long as he informs (and, ideally, discuss and asks for opinions; but he could be a tyrant and just decree) the players beforehand to prevent mixup, confusion, and frustration later on. It does not always happen this way, sadly. Hence, if there was more guidance that both players and DM could refer to, it could help assuage this problem.


Also, for the record: I really think the "go play 3e/4e" remarks are unnecessarily dismissive and insulting. I'm having this conversation out of my love for 5e, and your experiences and opinions are not more important or valid than mine.

Agreed. I enjoy the conversation, and am trying to understand the other side's perspective as well. PhoenixPhyre did bring up good "reasons" for his take on things, and even DivisibleByZero has a point (he doesn't want anyone to mess his game/his table), but there's no need to be rude. If not interested in the conversation, just don't post.

[DivisibleByZero]

If only there was some rule, written somewhere, that allows DMs to actually modify the rules...

Okay, snarky smart alec.
If only there were a rule somewhere explainign how to handle it.


For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs.

T y p i c a l D i f f ic u l t y C l a s s e s
Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

Feel free to follow your own advice and ignore those guidelines. No one's stopping you.


Don't make nasty assumptions about people you disagree with. You must realize we can turn that back on you just as easily, by assuming that you're a controlling DM who likes to micromanage his players.

You mean, like, maybe by calling us selfish?
Oh wait, that was you.

[strangebloke]

Ignoring published DCs is the same thing that making DCs up, just with more "but it's not RAW" arguments.

DM of four years here. Never had a player say 'But its not RAW' in session zero. Session zero is where you establish whether or not you're following RAW. Having more RAW enforces more clarity in session zero. This is sometimes helpful, and sometimes not. But we're not talking about adding a chart to the PHB that says 'You can always do x'. We're talking about example horses, cliffs, and thin ice for DM use only. A plalyer can look at it and assume that DM is, unless otherwise stated, going to do something similar, but that's a long ways from 3x's 'I can always make a 35 on this check so I can always squeeze into a cubic foot of space.

Two general points:
I agree with everyone saying that roll playing is not the goal of 5e. I really do. I know that you shouldn't have to roll for everything. But the issue is that there's a lot of disagreement about what should or shouldn't be rolled for. There's also a lot of disagreement about what things can be rolled for. I play with a few different DMs. With one, having expertise with handle animal is huge for mounted characters; having proficiency is neccesary, having expertise is a great boon. With another, handle animal is kind of useless for anyone, even a mounted character.

I also assent that in a lot of cases here, we're clearly dealing with bad DMs. But a big part of mitigating incompetence is having good defaults that are clearly laid-out.

question:
Why is it a serious problem if we want more examples of skill DCs, when there are already quite a few example skill DCs in the DMG and MM?

The DMG gives a suggested DC and consequences for avoiding shock when you fall into icy water. I think that's great! If a player gave me grief because he fell into Icy Water and my DC was higher, it would be trivial to say: 'That's a guideline, and not part of your ruleset.' or 'this is colder water than normal.' The fact that we have a possible DC does not limit the DM at all. Most of the example traps have example save DCs, example perception DCs to notice, and example DEX or thief's tools checks to disarm. I don't use traps much, but when I have, I've never had a player comment, 'The DC on that trap was too high! Spike traps are DC 13, not 15!' If the did, once again... it's trivial to say 'the guy who planted that trap was a bit sneakier.'

The 'DC:yup' that applies to most 'climb' checks is in fact, an example skill DC. Or rather, the PHB gives an example of what might merit a check, thereby establishing everything easier as DC 0.

Heck, every Passive Perception score in the MM is a skill DC! Once again, it's a guideline, and a player that complained about a guard having slightly higher PP would clearly be ridiculous.

[Easy_Lee]

Okay, snarky smart alec.
If only there were a rule somewhere explainign how to handle it.

"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class."

This is exactly the part I take issue with. DMs should not be coming up with fundamental physical rules as they play. DMs need guidance on the design assumptions, even if some DMs choose to ignore that guidance.

DMs will have to decide some Check DCs. DMs should not have to come up with all of them. Furthermore, a sample list helps gage relative difficulty, and makes it easier for DMs to assign check DCs.

And again, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

This is you saying you don't want the game to include something others would find helpful, because you yourself don't want to use it. That's like if I said the evocation school for wizards shouldn't exist because I don't use it.

[Pex]

You can decide your character's strengths and weaknesses. What you don't get to decide is the strengths and weaknesses of the world around you, including how difficult or mundane something is.

To quote something you might be familiar with: "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

The DM is the tree that's hard to climb. They're the bloodthirsty lord that doesn't listen to polite arguments. They're the door that can be broken with a STR check.

NONE of that affect who the PC is. Maybe a DM decides everything is hard to climb, but that doesn't change the fact how the PC who is good in STR(Athleticism) is *still* the one who's the best suited to climb relatively to everyone else.

You're missing that the problem is not about consistency within a game; it's the lack of consistency among different games. In one game I have a character with 10 strength and not proficient in Athletics. I don't need to roll to climb a tree. Great. I play in another game. That character also has 10 strength and not proficient in Athletics. I want to climb a tree. DM demands a DC 15 check. Now I cannot climb trees reliably. That's the problem for me. I should not have to ask the DM or any DM I play with how tree climbing works or lockpicking or whatever. The game rules change on me, and I won't know about it until it's too late. That doesn't happen for classes (with exceptions like smite/great weapon style), spells, Point Buy costs, or feats. As a player I always know what they do. If the DM has house rule modifications on those he tells me, and I create my character accordingly. With skills I have nothing.

"Every DM's game is different". They use the same rules for combat, class abilities, spells, feats. What's different is the story.



So, if a 3.5 DM had decided the DC was 20 because it's a very old, crumbling wall that was worth DC 15 + 5 for the rain, would the DM had been wrong?

Is the DM had decided people could climb trees without skill check, since 4 years old can do it, would they have been wrong?

If the wall was in that state of disrepair then it's no longer a brick wall. It's an uneven surface with hand/foot holds. That's DC 20, not accounting for rain. However, maybe the disrepair is enough the wall resembles a rough natural rock surface which is where the DC 15 comes in.

If the DM wants everyone 4 years of age and older to be able to climb trees automatically all he needs to do is say so as a house rule at Session 0.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Can my character consistently climb a rock wall? Can my character consistently pick a mithril lock? If I want to be able to do these things, the DC will tell me whether skill proficiency, expertise, or going all the way and rolling a Bard is necessary. In fact, if these numbers are high enough, I'll have to roll a Wizard if I want to be good at climbing and opening locks.


And you have that information. A +4 bonus gives you success on 75% of easy checks. What you don't and can't know in advance is that all checks will be easy, medium, or hard. That depends on too many things. How you approach them, how the exact circumstances are (is it raining? is windy? what exact wall is it?)--these things cannot be systematized meaningfully.



Do you see my point?

And I'm not slandering DMs. DMs make stuff up on the fly when they don't know the answer. Nobody has most of the answers with 5e. That's why the RAW thread is so long. That's why nobody agrees on how Invisibility works. That's why we keep having these Check threads.


Yes, you are by claiming that we put no effort (your words) into this. We don't make lists, because that doesn't work for this system. Too many variables (for one thing). We use heuristics and guidelines. Just like how people make the vast majority of all decisions. And have since the dawn of time.

Nobody agrees because this is the internet, where convincing people is really rare. There are honest disagreements about values here--those cannot be solved because there is no objective right answer. There is only taste.



I'm going to hazard a guess: not everyone in this thread knows how to DM. You're not supposed to play Super-God over the world. You're supposed to arbitrate the rules, describe settings, and control NPCs. That's all. If you use a campaign book, coming up with anything at all on the fly is totally optional, as long as the campaign book and game rules are clear.


I disagree. As soon as players depart from the rails you're going to have to start making things up or stop the session to plan. Or of course, force them back on the rails. No campaign book in existence controls everything (nor should it). If you want a pre-planned, sit-back-and-enjoy campaign, play a computer game. You're giving up everything wonderful about TTRPGs with that attitude, and getting a sub-par experience.

And what about those who run custom campaigns in custom worlds? By its very nature, being a DM involves great power. You are the interface between the players and the world. The only interface. Nothing happens in the world unless you make it happen. In that aspect, you have total control. Should you use it arbitrarily and unfairly? Absolutely not.

[DivisibleByZero]

DMs need guidance on the design assumptions, even if some DMs choose to ignore that guidance.

They gave you the guidance. It's right here:

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs.

T y p i c a l D i f f ic u l t y C l a s s e s
Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

[Finieous]

DMs make stuff up on the fly when they don't know the answer. Nobody has most of the answers with 5e. That's why the RAW thread is so long. That's why nobody agrees on how Invisibility works. That's why we keep having these Check threads.


Actually, in my games, we have all the "answers" we need, we don't argue about "RAW," we agree on how invisibility works, and we don't have any discussions about more codified rules for ability checks.

Actually, what all these threads have in common is that they make me more thankful for my group of players and DMs.

[Justin Sane]

Okay, snarky smart alec.
If only there were a rule somewhere explainign how to handle it.Yeah, that's a great rule. Consider, ceteris paribus:
What's easier to tame with Animal Handling? An owlbear, or a gryphon?
What's easier to identify with Arcana? A dead-magic zone, or a wild-magic zone?
What's easier to perform with Acrobatics? A front-flip, or a back-flip?
What's easier to recall with History? The name of the King's great-great-grandfather, or all the battles won by his general?
What's easier to treat with Medicine? A cut requiring stitches, or a broken bone?


Look, I'll freely concede that experienced DMs could play fast and loose with those guidelines - even ignoring them completely, as needed.
However, new DMs? They need all the help they can get.

[Finieous]

However, new DMs? They need all the help they can get.

It amazes me that some folks genuinely want new DMs flipping through books, looking up DCs in tables for what sorts of History checks are easier than others instead of just ruling "Easy/Medium/Hard" and getting on with the game, I mean, wow!

But again...so thankful. So blessed.

[DivisibleByZero]

Look, I'll freely concede that experienced DMs could play fast and loose with those guidelines - even ignoring them completely, as needed.
However, new DMs? They need all the help they can get.

No, they don't. Because doing so deprives them of the practice to make calls on the fly, which is the most important skill they need to develop. And when they never get to develop that skill we end up arguing in threads such as this.

When you hold someone's hand too much, they expect you to continue to hold their hand.
When you give them free reign to develop their skills in various areas, they won't need or even WANT you to hold their hand anymore.
This is essentially what this entire debate boils down to.
One side doesn't want or need hand holding, and the other side does.

[Justin Sane]

It amazes me that some folks genuinely want new DMs flipping through books, looking up DCs in tables for what sorts of History checks are easier than others instead of just ruling "Easy/Medium/Hard" and getting on with the game, I mean, wow!

But again...so thankful. So blessed.Are you just here to threadcrap, or do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

No, they don't. Because doing so deprives them of the practice to make calls on the fly, which is the most important skill they need to develop. And when they never get to develop that skill we end up arguing in threads such as this.

When you hold someone's hand too much, they expect you to continue to hold their hand.
When you give them free reign to develop their skills in various areas, they won't need or even WANT you to hold their hand anymore.[citation needed]

[Finieous]

No, they don't. Because doing so deprives them of the practice to make calls on the fly, which is the most important skill they need to develop. And when they never get to develop that skill we end up arguing in threads such as this.

When you hold someone's hand too much, they expect you to continue to hold their hand.
When you give them free reign to develop their skills in various areas, they won't need or even WANT you to hold their hand anymore.
This is essentially what this entire debate boils down to.
One side doesn't want or need hand holding, and the other side does.



[citation needed]

Hey, that's some next-level funny, right there. Nice one! :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

What's easier to tame with Animal Handling? An owlbear, or a gryphon?

A gryphon.


What's easier to identify with Arcana? A dead-magic zone, or a wild-magic zone?

A dead-magic zone.


What's easier to perform with Acrobatics? A front-flip, or a back-flip?

A front-flip.


What's easier to recall with History? The name of the King's great-great-grandfather, or all the battles won by his general?

The name of the King's great-great-grandfather.




What's easier to treat with Medicine? A cut requiring stitches, or a broken bone?

Depends what you mean by "treat". It's easier to make a splint and set the bone in the right position than to stitch a wound, but stitching a wound treat the problem while the bone needs time or magic to "be treated".

[Justin Sane]

A gryphon.



A dead-magic zone.



A front-flip.



The name of the King's great-great-grandfather.




Depends what you mean by "treat". It's easier to make a splint and set the bone in the right position than to stitch a wound, but stitching a wound treat the problem while the bone needs time or magic to "be treated".Okay - and how would you explain to a new DM how you came to those decisions?

[Easy_Lee]

They gave you the guidance. It's right here:

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs.

T y p i c a l D i f f ic u l t y C l a s s e s
Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

I know that you read my post, and I know that you know that I addressed this exact thing in my post. I therefore conclude you are deliberately ignoring me.


Actually, in my games, we have all the "answers" we need, we don't argue about "RAW," we agree on how invisibility works, and we don't have any discussions about more codified rules for ability checks.

Actually, what all these threads have in common is that they make me more thankful for my group of players and DMs.

Good for you. I've said it before, no one has problems when they have a good DM. I'm interested in the other possibility, because I see it often.

I have exposure to a lot of tables, and a lot of those tables are not so good. I complain more about DMs just because in this edition, as with all editions, DMs have more opportunity to screw up a game. It's because they have more power.

5e reduced PC power in every sense of the word. Frankly, players don't have the capability to mess up games in 5e. A lot of posters here want to keep things that way.

Little do they realize that if players don't have the power to do evil, they don't have the power to do good, either. 5e has far fewer cool stories than 3.5e did. I seldom see complex builds that actually work in a funny, unintended way (DBZ himself is there in most of those would-be funny build threads to tell the player that it doesn't work because of X).

The players are on rails. There's no opportunity to do anything unintended, because the DM is encouraged to just tell them it doesn't work by his interpretation.

5e traded the soul of the game for ease of DMing. That puts a lot of faith in, and pressure on, the DM to do a good job. And many just plain don't.

Encouraging DMs to decide things on the fly is not helping, either. Just the opposite.

[Sigreid]

I do not see how things would be worse if there was more guidance provided - and this goes beyond the skill checks; these issues come up in other areas as well, but this specific thread is about skill checks DC. Again, some claim that the guidance is all there, but I disagree on that.

Maybe focusing on examples is not the best approach. I respect a lot of the arguments that PhoenixPhyre brought forward, and it is possible that examples lists, without additional supporting explanation on the underlying principles and mechanics of the game, would create unexpected problems (or create situations that some people would find frustrating).



Characters do know their own skill to the percentage point. The player knows exactly what his modifier for a given ability is, and he knows if he's proficient or not. I would not play a game where the rules would force me to ignore those numbers consciously for the sake of "acting" in-character. As a player, I know those, and that means my character know those.

The DM knows (or should know) the DC of tasks in his world. In an ideal world, these things (the DC of tasks) would be self-evident to all (players and DMs) by virtue of perfect descriptions. Because of the medium we use, they often are not.

But in all cases, the point of wanting to know these 2 numbers in advance is not to assess your success rate. It is to assess your odds. You will still roll that d20, and so, you could still fail. If I have a +15 bonus, I will still fail DC 17 tasks 5 % of the time. Then it's up to me to decide if I want to gamble my life on climbing impossibly high cliffs with a 5 % chance of falling to my death, or if I'd rather not even risk it, or if I want to invest in a ring of feather falling for those few instances where I will fall.

In the end, as a player, I want to know the odds.

Han Solo had a major advantage over us players: the author had already decided he would not die for another 30 years and, before changing their minds, they had also decided he would get the girl in the end. He's a character in a story, my characters are characters in a game. And Harrison Ford would probably have accepted his contract even if the script said Han Solo was to die; I would not accept a game where I am certain to die because the rules of the world are not clearly conveyed to me or because a god-like DM just had a bad day (note: I accept the risk of dying, but who enjoys games of rock falls-you die?).

In regards to DM not wanting to have a list because they would not want to be troubled with needing to remove it, I do not think that is how things would turn out at most tables (especially at release for a new edition). People are usually happy with following rules. Most DM would just accept with the list, unless it absolutely made no sense at all. I do not see how it would be more work for a DM to reference a list with lots of usual situations, versus coming up with DCs all the time in advance (do DM prepare DCs in advance when planning their adventures? everyone refers to adjudicating on the fly, but as a DM, if I plan some feature that would most likely involve a skill check, I usually predefine my DC) or on the fly.

Maybe I am an anal-retentive rule lawyer down to my core and I'm just not aware of it. I have to say I have not been able to have many meaningful discussions with my latest DMs regarding their own preparation/thought mechanism on adjudication. The group I play with was found on the internet (but we play in person), and so they are not personal friends I've known for years; I'm up to maybe 20 sessions with them now. Coming into those first sessions was a difficult experience because I needed to learn on the spot what their framework for the game was. That is one thing I normally enjoy on these forums: hearing about how, and why, other people make the decision they make behind the screen (or in front). That is also one of the main reasons I enjoy watching other people play the game on streams, even if most of them shy away from any rules questions for the sake of providing a "better" show. So that could explain where I'm coming from.

A lot of it comes down to participant expectations around the table. My reasoning is that usually, the rulebooks serve as a standard baseline for everyone. And then the DM can modify those whatever way he wants, as long as he informs (and, ideally, discuss and asks for opinions; but he could be a tyrant and just decree) the players beforehand to prevent mixup, confusion, and frustration later on. It does not always happen this way, sadly. Hence, if there was more guidance that both players and DM could refer to, it could help assuage this problem.



Agreed. I enjoy the conversation, and am trying to understand the other side's perspective as well. PhoenixPhyre did bring up good "reasons" for his take on things, and even DivisibleByZero has a point (he doesn't want anyone to mess his game/his table), but there's no need to be rude. If not interested in the conversation, just don't post.

I don't think this really addresses the perspective difference on display here. The debate is about universal DCs and whether they are beneficial or not. Regardless of whether there is a universal table of DCs, when you are standing at the base of the cliff deciding to climb it or not I'm going to tell you how hard this cliff is. The difference is without universal DCs the next cliff may be easier or harder when you are looking up at it. The real difference in perspective is are all cliffs the same difficulty to climb?

[Pex]

There is guidance. There is good guidance. It's just in the DMG, which obviously people haven't read. That flowchart I made? That's straight from the DMG. You want something the system is designed not to do. That's a you problem.




Then ask your DM at the start of the campaign, in session zero, if you need that kind of control. You want a list? Ask him for one.
Problem solved.
That's the only way to do it, because every table is going to be slightly different.

As for less concrete rules, I don't need to read any threads anywhere about it.
The answer is Yes, I do prefer it with fewer concrete rules. So does everyone at my table.

Just because you're unhappy with certain things doesn't mean that everyone is and that it should be changed. I don't want to turn this into an edition war, but the fact is that people who need that kind of tedious structure should probably be playing 3e/4e, or better yet a different game entirely.

In other words, "The game is not for you."

I'm not criticizing your message. We disagree about the topic, but I take no offense from this. I'm making special note of it because I said the same thing in the general forum thread about "win buttons". People got offended and figuratively yelled at me about it. Those people are not in this thread. I find it happening here funny.

As I've admitted in past threads I do prefer Pathfinder over 5E, so you're not entirely wrong about this with respect to me but you're not entirely correct either. This is a gripe for me, but it's not serious enough to hate the game. I do enjoy and am playing the game despite it all. For a game that is truly "not for me" I will not play it no matter how many people like it, that's 4E. However, I don't have the need to go into the 4E forum and continuously gripe about all the things I hate about it that some people who hate 3E do.

[qube]

There is guidance. There is good guidance. It's just in the DMG, which obviously people haven't read. That flowchart I made? That's straight from the DMG. You want something the system is designed not to do. That's a you problem.nice deflection, bro, but I'm an experienced player & DM - *I* don't need those tables. But considering there are newbie DMs that have problems with it - that is a problem.

Yes, it's a them problem - but since the job of the books it to explain things, that means the books fail - which stops making it a them problem - and makes it an actual problem.

You defeats your own argument:


There is guidance. There is good guidance. It's just in the DMG, which obviously people haven't read. That flowchart I made? That's straight from the DMG.

When a tree falls in the woods, and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a noise? Or, how lethal is a gun that nobody fires?

You can't claim something isn't a problem, because there's a solution nobody knows.


(5) How? They only provide out-of-context information. "We think that all apple trees are DC 0." Ok, that tells nothing about the napple treeplease don't make stupid arguments.

You know as well as I do that it's not because this table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length)) doesn't specifically give you the distance between New York and Paris, that it says nothing able that distance. - as though it can't be used to make an informed estimate.


All that matters is low or high.Agreed. So, would you not agree that it seems DOUBLE important that people are able to make an informed estimate - opposite to a DM miss-guaging a commoner has a decent chance to fall from a tree, so pitting a DC 15 to climb it ?

[Pex]

No, the TL;DR of this thread is: "Not everyone needs or even wants it, so it shouldn't become RAW and potentially mess up some peoples' games."
If you want that kind of structure, the structure your game that way. But don't make it hard and fast and then say "Oh, well DMs can just ignore it or change it as they feel the need" because DMS can do that already. Only in reverse. We're saying that you can set it how you want. You're saying that it SHOULD be set to a certain level and then we can change it how we want.
It's the exact same problem, but in reverse. You think there's a problem, so you want to solve the problem by handing that problem off to other people.

You want a list, make a list. You want examples, make yourself some examples and share them with your players. But don't force feed structure into a game that was designed to be less structured. Go play 3e/4e instead if that's your bag.

As a player I don't get to make a list of defined DCs to make the DM use to be informed of knowing what my character can and cannot do.

[strangebloke]

To reiterate:



question:
Why is it a serious problem if we want more examples of skill DCs, when there are already quite a few example skill DCs in the DMG and MM?


We have DCs for stealth, Sleight of hand, thieves tools, avoiding shock in cold water, climbing, jumping, investigating illusions... But not for survival or or handle animal. Why is it bad if we have a few more? Why is it bad to want a few more? Leave it in the DMG, and explicitly state that its a guideline.

[BurgerBeast]

You're misinterpreting the problem. The odds of making a particular DC check with a given modifier to the roll doesn't change by math. That's not the problem. The problem is determining the DC in the first place. The variance is in different DMs assigning different DCs for the same task because of their own opinions on the difficulty rating of the task. What is easy for one DM is hard for another, and there is debate as whether a roll should even be done at all. The DC for climbing a tree is our go to example and yet people who are fine with 5E skills as is disagree on whether there should even be a roll.

Oh, yeah... whoops. Sorry all.

[Unoriginal]

Okay - and how would you explain to a new DM how you came to those decisions?

Owlbears are ultra-aggressive and bloodthirsty to the extreme, gryphons are known to be capable of getting domesticated to serve as mounts.

A dead-magic zone just requires you to try using a cantrip in and then realize what is blocking its execution, a wild-magic zone is by definition wild and unpredictable: magic might work correctly as it might not.

A front-flip involves seeing where you're flipping, a back-flip involves jumping, turning on yourself, and then landing on your feet without seeing your destination.

The name of the King's great-great-grandfather is only one short information that you can recall from a genealogical tree or the like, while a list of battle of a particular general means you have to recall who the general is, what were the wars they were involved in, and what battles in said wars they participated in, including lesser known incidents and the early parts of their career.


Setting a bone right and putting a splint on a broken bone is far easier than stitching an open wound due to the fact you're just putting a bone in a certain direction and then maintaining it that way, you are not piercing someone's flesh in an effort to make them feel better by pulling traumatized skin and muscles close together.

[SiCK_Boy]

I don't think this really addresses the perspective difference on display here. The debate is about universal DCs and whether they are beneficial or not. Regardless of whether there is a universal table of DCs, when you are standing at the base of the cliff deciding to climb it or not I'm going to tell you how hard this cliff is. The difference is without universal DCs the next cliff may be easier or harder when you are looking up at it. The real difference in perspective is are all cliffs the same difficulty to climb?

I was answering directly PhoenixPhyre's earlier post, which did not focus (as far as I could tell) on universal DC either.

The issue of universal DC creates issues at character's creation (or at certain level up points). I already explained my views on that in an earlier post.

Not all cliffs should be the same difficulty to climb. But if a DM decides that no cliff will be lower than a DC 25, then I know as a Lvl 1 player I'd better not even waste time on cliff-climbing skills (because I won't be able to anyway until much later in my adventuring career). Even more so, if I know I will play in a world full of cliffs under these assumptions, I'd better focus on getting flying gear or levitation early, otherwise I won't be able to travel and explore much.

And going back to the main point, if there was sufficient guidance (or more guidance) in the rules, there would be less instances or situations where a DM makes those kind of decisions without presenting them to the players in advance. If there was some guidance stating in most game worlds, cliffs should be considered easy or medium to climb, with a few high peaks being difficult and only one or two mountains reaching very difficult or near impossible DC, then that would create a baseline for people to refer to. Any given DM could still decide that the cliffs in his world are different, but then he would be more likely to mention it.

Note: I'm using this cliff example here because that's what we are discussing. I do not think it perfectly illustrates my point, but hopefully it still makes a modicum of sense. There is plenty of guidance on world building (how many villages per X miles areas, how many cities, how many metropolises), but very few regarding environment-building (and thinking about how, mechanically, players will interact with those). That leads to variability in setting DC, and creates the issue some of us complain about.


Owlbears are ultra-aggressive and bloodthirsty to the extreme, gryphons are known to be capable of getting domesticated to serve as mounts.

A dead-magic zone just requires you to try using a cantrip in and then realize what is blocking its execution, a wild-magic zone is by definition wild and unpredictable: magic might work correctly as it might not.

A front-flip involves seeing where you're flipping, a back-flip involves jumping, turning on yourself, and then landing on your feet without seeing your destination.

The name of the King's great-great-grandfather is only one short information that you can recall from a genealogical tree or the like, while a list of battle of a particular general means you have to recall who the general is, what were the wars they were involved in, and what battles in said wars they participated in, including lesser known incidents and the early parts of their career.


Setting a bone right and putting a splint on a broken bone is far easier than stitching an open wound due to the fact you're just putting a bone in a certain direction and then maintaining it that way, you are not piercing someone's flesh in an effort to make them feel better by pulling traumatized skin and muscles close together.

That is the kind of guidance we need more of in the rules. I don't know if I agree with all your calls (I think I do), but the fact that you are able to provide some explanation and rationalization/justification for why you made them is the key point: I've had DMs who were not able to. Or even worse, who would decide that the first time, a front flip was easier, but then change things to the back flip become easier later on. This is the kind of DM-behavior that could/would be curbed by having more guidance.

And again, this is stuff I would enjoy having as a DM as well.

[Sigreid]

Actually, in my games, we have all the "answers" we need, we don't argue about "RAW," we agree on how invisibility works, and we don't have any discussions about more codified rules for ability checks.

Actually, what all these threads have in common is that they make me more thankful for my group of players and DMs.

Me as well.

[Justin Sane]

Owlbears are ultra-aggressive and bloodthirsty to the extreme, gryphons are known to be capable of getting domesticated to serve as mounts.

A dead-magic zone just requires you to try using a cantrip in and then realize what is blocking its execution, a wild-magic zone is by definition wild and unpredictable: magic might work correctly as it might not.

A front-flip involves seeing where you're flipping, a back-flip involves jumping, turning on yourself, and then landing on your feet without seeing your destination.

The name of the King's great-great-grandfather is only one short information that you can recall from a genealogical tree or the like, while a list of battle of a particular general means you have to recall who the general is, what were the wars they were involved in, and what battles in said wars they participated in, including lesser known incidents and the early parts of their career.


Setting a bone right and putting a splint on a broken bone is far easier than stitching an open wound due to the fact you're just putting a bone in a certain direction and then maintaining it that way, you are not piercing someone's flesh in an effort to make them feel better by pulling traumatized skin and muscles close together.

Nitpicking: About the magic zones, I said using Arcana, not spells/cantrips :)

But thanks for taking the time to engage with the conversation and writing that down - I appreciate it. My answers - and justification for them - would be different, but that's just the nature of RPGs :)

The next step, then, would be the hardest one: which DC would you set for those tasks?

[Unoriginal]

That is the kind of guidance we need more of in the rules. I don't know if I agree with all your calls (I think I do), but the fact that you are able to provide some explanation and rationalization/justification for why you made them is the key point: I've had DMs who were not able to. Or even worse, who would decide that the first time, a front flip was easier, but then change things to the back flip become easier later on. This is the kind of DM-behavior that could/would be curbed by having more guidance.

And again, this is stuff I would enjoy having as a DM as well.

Why is me showing more guidance is not needed an evidence that more guidance is needed?

[DivisibleByZero]

Actually, in my games, we have all the "answers" we need, we don't argue about "RAW," we agree on how invisibility works, and we don't have any discussions about more codified rules for ability checks.

Actually, what all these threads have in common is that they make me more thankful for my group of players and DMs.

Me as well.

That's because these arguments only ever happen on forums.
At a table, during play, there aren't any arguments from most people,. because most people understand that the DM has final say. If they start an argument about it at an actual table, they're just channeling their inner Rules Lawyer about something that doesn't even have codified rules.

Make the roll no matter the DC, see the result, continue on with the game.
Anyone that stops a game to have this argument is just a jerk. No one is there to argue about rules that don't even exist. They're there to play a game, have things happen to them in the world, and react to those things. You know.... tell a story.
So these arguments happening at an actual table? I'd tell that player not to come back, because he's ruining the fun for everyone about a rule that doesn't even exist in 5e.

[Sigreid]

I was answering directly PhoenixPhyre's earlier post, which did not focus (as far as I could tell) on universal DC either.

The issue of universal DC creates issues at character's creation (or at certain level up points). I already explained my views on that in an earlier post.

Not all cliffs should be the same difficulty to climb. But if a DM decides that no cliff will be lower than a DC 25, then I know as a Lvl 1 player I'd better not even waste time on cliff-climbing skills (because I won't be able to anyway until much later in my adventuring career). Even more so, if I know I will play in a world full of cliffs under these assumptions, I'd better focus on getting flying gear or levitation early, otherwise I won't be able to travel and explore much.

And going back to the main point, if there was sufficient guidance (or more guidance) in the rules, there would be less instances or situations where a DM makes those kind of decisions without presenting them to the players in advance. If there was some guidance stating in most game worlds, cliffs should be considered easy or medium to climb, with a few high peaks being difficult and only one or two mountains reaching very difficult or near impossible DC, then that would create a baseline for people to refer to. Any given DM could still decide that the cliffs in his world are different, but then he would be more likely to mention it.

Note: I'm using this cliff example here because that's what we are discussing. I do not think it perfectly illustrates my point, but hopefully it still makes a modicum of sense. There is plenty of guidance on world building (how many villages per X miles areas, how many cities, how many metropolises), but very few regarding environment-building (and thinking about how, mechanically, players will interact with those). That leads to variability in setting DC, and creates the issue some of us complain about.



That is the kind of guidance we need more of in the rules. I don't know if I agree with all your calls (I think I do), but the fact that you are able to provide some explanation and rationalization/justification for why you made them is the key point: I've had DMs who were not able to. Or even worse, who would decide that the first time, a front flip was easier, but then change things to the back flip become easier later on. This is the kind of DM-behavior that could/would be curbed by having more guidance.

And again, this is stuff I would enjoy having as a DM as well.

Yeah, we are coming from such different perspectives that were talking past each other. It happens.

[Justin Sane]

Why is me showing more guidance is not needed an evidence that more guidance is needed?We're not saying you need guidance. We're saying there are people out there who do.

Consider this: some guy, new to RPGs, just heard about DnD and wants to give it a go. He picks up the books, finds a few friends willing to try it out. Game time comes along, one of the players asks "how hard is it to navigate this jungle, anyway?" and then he replies "... huh, not sure, let me try to find something about that in the book." Finding nothing other than "just wing it", what do you think he's going to feel about the game?

Or, putting it another way, back to my boardgame example: revolutionary new game, everyone talks about how amazing it is, the box contains nothing but 7 differently colored dice and a note saying "the owner of this game makes up all the rules for it". Would you buy that boardgame?

[PhoenixPhyre]

We're not saying you need guidance. We're saying there are people out there who do.

Consider this: some guy, new to RPGs, just heard about DnD and wants to give it a go. He picks up the books, finds a few friends willing to try it out. Game time comes along, one of the players asks "how hard is it to navigate this jungle, anyway?" and then he replies "... huh, not sure, let me try to find something about that in the book." Finding nothing other than "just wing it", what do you think he's going to feel about the game?

Or, putting it another way, back to my boardgame example: revolutionary new game, everyone talks about how amazing it is, the box contains nothing but 7 differently colored dice and a note saying "the owner of this game makes up all the rules for it". Would you buy that boardgame?

But that game is a very different thing than what we really have--enough so that it's a difference of kind, not degree.

There is a lot of good guidance in the DMG and PHB. That you (generic, not specific you) don't like that guidance or that you think it insufficient is completely separate from its presence or absence. Vague things with lots of innate variability need very different guidance than things that are more set in stone and constant. I contend that skills are more like the former than the latter. Others may disagree with that statement (either that it's more like the latter, or that all things can use the same guidance). That's a fundamental difference of worldview and values, not something with a concrete right or wrong.

That's why there's really no point in continuing this discussion (for me at least). Everything that can be said has been said. Multiple times. In all sorts of ways and on all sides of the issue. If anyone wants a new version of my flowchart (or wants to pretty it up), let me know--I'll monitor the thread but not participate any more.

[DivisibleByZero]

Or, putting it another way, back to my boardgame example: revolutionary new game, everyone talks about how amazing it is, the box contains nothing but 7 differently colored dice and a note saying "the owner of this game makes up all the rules for it". Would you buy that boardgame?

I ignored this last time because it's ridiculously non-applicable. There's no correlation here.
DnD 5e has rules for many things. It has guidelines for other things.
It's not a piece of paper and a d20 and go to town.

This happens to be one of the areas where it has guidelines. It's not "Make up your own rules" at all. It's Here are the guidelines, now use these as you see fit to make judgement calls on the fly: Rulings, Not Rules.

[DanyBallon]

We're not saying you need guidance. We're saying there are people out there who do.

Consider this: some guy, new to RPGs, just heard about DnD and wants to give it a go. He picks up the books, finds a few friends willing to try it out. Game time comes along, one of the players asks "how hard is it to navigate this jungle, anyway?" and then he replies "... huh, not sure, let me try to find something about that in the book." Finding nothing other than "just wing it", what do you think he's going to feel about the game?

It's quite simple, the rules tell him he should choose what seems appropriate for him. What if in his mind he was considering that navigating through the jungle was an easy task, because you can always see the volcano on the north side, and instead in the PHB navigating a jungle is set to moderate, he then will feel obligated to use DC15, because if the rules say so, then they should be right, when in fact it should have been DC10 in this scenario. A new DM might not know what the DC for navigating a jungle is, but he can easily guesstimate that it's an easy/moderate/hard task based on how he wants the jungle be a challenge. That's the versatility that 5e allow, especially for new DM.

[strangebloke]

That's because these arguments only ever happen on forums.
At a table, during play, there aren't any arguments from most people,. because most people understand that the DM has final say. If they start an argument about it at an actual table, they're just channeling their inner Rules Lawyer about something that doesn't even have codified rules.

Make the roll no matter the DC, see the result, continue on with the game.
Anyone that stops a game to have this argument is just a jerk. No one is there to argue about rules that don't even exist. They're there to play a game, have things happen to them in the world, and react to those things. You know.... tell a story.
So these arguments happening at an actual table? I'd tell that player not to come back, because he's ruining the fun for everyone about a rule that doesn't even exist in 5e.

I haven't stopped the game over this. I haven't had a player stop the game over this. You're right to say that this isn't a discussion people have during a game.

Because the middle of a game is not the time to question the DM's methodology.

Nonetheless, my players have, outside of game time, remarked often that a set of sample DC's would be nice to get a grasp of what's possible. I agreed with them, but since assembling such a table is a huge amount of effort, I did not do it myself. Thinking about it further, I recognized a few really frustrating situations I went through where a table of sample DCs would have really helped me as a DM, and would have helped other DMs that ran my games.

Tables of examples make up like 90% of the DMG. We have example prices for magic items, example DCs for perceiving traps, example DCs for saving against traps, example DCs for saving against environmental conditions, example villages that you might run into, guidelines for procedurely generating terrain and weather...

But no, if we introduce a large list of example DCs for various skill checks and tool usages that's just way too constraining.

Look, the DMG and MM are essentially huge books of suggestions. Few would say: 'Robe of scintillating colors has DC 13, not 12! This item you gave me doesn't follow RAW!"

Obviously I can come up with reasonable DCs. It would be nice to have a default, to act as a sanity check for me if nothing else. It would also be nice in general to have more ideas for things that it would be possible to do with skills. Like, for instance, taming a wild horse, but that's separate problem.

Right now, if I want to make a cavalier-type, I have no way of knowing whether handle animal is useless or if its essential. My DM probably won't know until it comes up, and I'll be at the mercy of his whim. Obviously I can anticipate this problem and ask at session 0.... but that's just deploying the 'Rule 0 fallacy.' Just because you can fix a problem at your own table doesn't mean that it is't a problem.

[SiCK_Boy]

It's quite simple, the rules tell him he should choose what seems appropriate for him. What if in his mind he was considering that navigating through the jungle was an easy task, because you can always see the volcano on the north side, and instead in the PHB navigating a jungle is set to moderate, he then will feel obligated to use DC15, because if the rules say so, then they should be right, when in fact it should have been DC10 in this scenario. A new DM might not know what the DC for navigating a jungle is, but he can easily guesstimate that it's an easy/moderate/hard task based on how he wants the jungle be a challenge. That's the versatility that 5e allow, especially for new DM.

(Emphasis mine)

I have to disagree with that part. Maybe it goes beyond the scope of this thread (although the initial conversation seemed over at this point), but the DM should not set the DC based on whether he wants the jungle to be a challenge or not. The jungle should be what it is, period. Then the DC should be inferred from the conditions. (Maybe this is just semantic or a language issue with your post - or my understanding of it - sorry if that's the case)

You had a good example with the presence of a point-of-reference (the volcano) making things easier, thus justifying a lower DC. This kind of stuff is what the rulebook should try to explain and teach: yeah there is a general rule, but "these type of circumstances could change things". The game does it, up to a point (mostly by focusing on advantage or disadvantage, which could be another way of ruling here - navigating a jungle is DC 15, but because of the volcano, players get advantage on survival checks to navigate).

But the last thing I want is for the DM to tailor the world to his whims, or to adapt challenges to the players, or to decide that all jungles will become harder to navigate just to overcompensate for players maximizing that skill, or any such thing. I strongly believe in the neutral arbiter part of the DM's role, especially as far as adjudicating actions (including setting DC for tasks) goes.

The problem is that often, by the time it creates a problem at the table (and I'm not saying it's happening all the time, but it does happen; and even if it's not raised by the players during gameplay, it can lead some - I'm an example of that - with a bad taste in their mouth afterward), it is usually too late to correct. What if the DM did not properly describe the jungle density (and it does impact the DC)? What if the DM forgot to mention that the volcano would make things easier and players make bad decisions (wasting resources hiring a guide when they would have been fine without one, for example) because of that.

This all goes back to my basic premise. The more of these things that are known or presented in the rules, which can serve as common ground reference, the less likely these issues are to arise at the table.

[DivisibleByZero]

Right now, if I want to make a cavalier-type, I have no way of knowing whether handle animal is useless or if its essential. My DM probably won't know until it comes up, and I'll be at the mercy of his whim. Obviously I can anticipate this problem and ask at session 0.... but that's just deploying the 'Rule 0 fallacy.' Just because you can fix a problem at your own table doesn't mean that it is't a problem.

Your Cavalier example fails, because that's going to be DM dependent whether there was a table or not. Some DMs might make you use the skill all the time, other practically never. A table isn't going to change that.

[Easy_Lee]

Your Cavalier example fails, because that's going to be DM dependent whether there was a table or not. Some DMs might make you use the skill all the time, other practically never. A table isn't going to change that.

Whether you like the example or not, I'm pretty sure that you see his point. Let's not deliberately miss the forest for the trees.

[DivisibleByZero]

Whether you like the example or not, I'm pretty sure that you see his point. Let's not deliberately miss the forest for the trees.

I do see his point.
His point was that he wants to make a cavalier type character, and wants to know if handle animals is an appropriate skill to take.
News flash. It is. If your character concept revolves around handling animals, you should take handle animals proficiency.
No table or examples needed to make that decision.
So that's just another reason that his cavalier example fails.

[DanyBallon]

I haven't stopped the game over this. I haven't had a player stop the game over this. You're right to say that this isn't a discussion people have during a game.

Because the middle of a game is not the time to question the DM's methodology.

Nonetheless, my players have, outside of game time, remarked often that a set of sample DC's would be nice to get a grasp of what's possible. I agreed with them, but since assembling such a table is a huge amount of effort, I did not do it myself. Thinking about it further, I recognized a few really frustrating situations I went through where a table of sample DCs would have really helped me as a DM, and would have helped other DMs that ran my games.

Tables of examples make up like 90% of the DMG. We have example prices for magic items, example DCs for perceiving traps, example DCs for saving against traps, example DCs for saving against environmental conditions, example villages that you might run into, guidelines for procedurely generating terrain and weather...

But no, if we introduce a large list of example DCs for various skill checks and tool usages that's just way too constraining.

Look, the DMG and MM are essentially huge books of suggestions. Few would say: 'Robe of scintillating colors has DC 13, not 12! This item you gave me doesn't follow RAW!"

Obviously I can come up with reasonable DCs. It would be nice to have a default, to act as a sanity check for me if nothing else. It would also be nice in general to have more ideas for things that it would be possible to do with skills. Like, for instance, taming a wild horse, but that's separate problem.

Right now, if I want to make a cavalier-type, I have no way of knowing whether handle animal is useless or if its essential. My DM probably won't know until it comes up, and I'll be at the mercy of his whim. Obviously I can anticipate this problem and ask at session 0.... but that's just deploying the 'Rule 0 fallacy.' Just because you can fix a problem at your own table doesn't mean that it is't a problem.

But the PHB is already providing a guideline to be used. It's up to the DM to decide if taming a wild horse is an easy/moderate/hard task, you don't need specifics tables to do that. And as a player, if you truly want your character to succeed in taming wild animals, then you make sure to make him proficient in animal handling. That's all you have to do.

Also on a side topic, playing TTRPG is not like playing a CRPG where the rules are set in stone and won't change unless a patch is issued. If you built your character to be a master tamer and realize that the DM DCs for taming animals are too high, you can just sit and talk with him about that matter and ask that he reconsider his DCs, or let you change your proficiency if he don't want to change them.

[Theodoxus]

If that's your stance, then why have game rules at all? Checks are the one type of D20 roll with this variability. Perhaps you'd prefer for attacks and saving throws to be equally DM-dependent?

My issue here is that the further we follow this line of reasoning, the less of a game we're left with.

I stopped here in the thread - so if this was addressed, I apologize - but I gotta know, you don't have your NPCs attacks, saves, AC, HPs etc be DM dependent? Every orc your players encounter has exactly the same gear and abilities? They all do exactly 7 points of damage, have 11 HPs, have standard saves?

How can you possibly call that fun - as a DM, or a player? As a DM, I love the look on new players when one orc goes down in one hit, but the next lasts for 4 or 5. Where one ogre is easy to hit but is a bag of HP and the other is nearly impossible to hit, but once the players either get lucky or suss out his defense and work around, kill it in a few hits...

As a player, I hate when after a round or two going around the table we've figured out the AC of all the opponents, can roll the die and without asking, just say "nope, I missed. I rolled a 14." Why should everything be clones? What is the point? If that's the idea, just play Diablo 3 and be a murder hobo...

[Finieous]

Whether you like the example or not, I'm pretty sure that you see his point. Let's not deliberately miss the forest for the trees.

You're the one missing the forest for the DCs trees. Whether any particular riding check is DC 10 or 15, or whether it adheres to a codified table of DCs or not, is much less impactful than:

* The DM only asks for a riding check when you attempt some unusual or tricky maneuver
* The DM always asks for a riding check every combat round
* The DM always asks for a riding check every time you attack from the saddle, and ever time you or you're mount is attacked/hit
* The DM is really into simulating mounted combat, and uses bonuses, penalties, advantage and disadvantage, opposed checks, morale, etc., regularly to account for things like footing, battlefield conditions/visibility, natural hazards, fog of war, distracting or frightening stimuli (e.g. fireballs exploding in front of your palomino), and on and on and on.

All of that and more will have a much bigger impact on what your cavalier can do than the issue of whether the DC for jumping a wide trench in stride is 10 or 15.

[DanyBallon]

(Emphasis mine)

I have to disagree with that part. Maybe it goes beyond the scope of this thread (although the initial conversation seemed over at this point), but the DM should not set the DC based on whether he wants the jungle to be a challenge or not. The jungle should be what it is, period. Then the DC should be inferred from the conditions. (Maybe this is just semantic or a language issue with your post - or my understanding of it - sorry if that's the case)

You had a good example with the presence of a point-of-reference (the volcano) making things easier, thus justifying a lower DC. This kind of stuff is what the rulebook should try to explain and teach: yeah there is a general rule, but "these type of circumstances could change things". The game does it, up to a point (mostly by focusing on advantage or disadvantage, which could be another way of ruling here - navigating a jungle is DC 15, but because of the volcano, players get advantage on survival checks to navigate).

But the last thing I want is for the DM to tailor the world to his whims, or to adapt challenges to the players, or to decide that all jungles will become harder to navigate just to overcompensate for players maximizing that skill, or any such thing. I strongly believe in the neutral arbiter part of the DM's role, especially as far as adjudicating actions (including setting DC for tasks) goes.

The problem is that often, by the time it creates a problem at the table (and I'm not saying it's happening all the time, but it does happen; and even if it's not raised by the players during gameplay, it can lead some - I'm an example of that - with a bad taste in their mouth afterward), it is usually too late to correct. What if the DM did not properly describe the jungle density (and it does impact the DC)? What if the DM forgot to mention that the volcano would make things easier and players make bad decisions (wasting resources hiring a guide when they would have been fine without one, for example) because of that.

This all goes back to my basic premise. The more of these things that are known or presented in the rules, which can serve as common ground reference, the less likely these issues are to arise at the table.

Unfortunately, when playing a RPG, either in a published adventure or a custom homebrew, the world his tailored to the DM's whims. It's the DM, or author, that decide that jungle A is easier to navigate than jungle B for x reason.
What I meant by challenge, is not that the DM adapt the jungle to the player, but instead the DM that decide that navigating this jungle is easy, or hard. Both are challenge, but they affect the characters differently as one is easier to overcome than the other.

Lastly, how could the character tell that they wasted resources by hiring guides? They don't know that they breezed through the jungle because of the volcano is visible from anywhere, they believe it's their guide that helped them be as effective as they were. Now, if they ever go back to the same jungle and realize that the volcano is a good landmark, they may feel dumb for last time and now they know better, but they couldn't have known beforehand.

[strangebloke]

You're the one missing the forest for the DCs trees. Whether any particular riding check is DC 10 or 15, or whether it adheres to a codified table of DCs or not, is much less impactful than:

* The DM only asks for a riding check when you attempt some unusual or tricky maneuver
* The DM always asks for a riding check every combat round
* The DM always asks for a riding check every time you attack from the saddle, and ever time you or you're mount is attacked/hit
* The DM is really into simulating mounted combat, and uses bonuses, penalties, advantage and disadvantage, opposed checks, morale, etc., regularly to account for things like footing, battlefield conditions/visibility, natural hazards, fog of war, distracting or frightening stimuli (e.g. fireballs exploding in front of your palomino), and on and on and on.

All of that and more will have a much bigger impact on what your cavalier can do than the issue of whether the DC for jumping a wide trench in stride is 10 or 15.

Right! Exactly!

And those are exactly the kinds of situations that guidance would help with! The PHB says that handle animal can be used to calm an animal, but we have no idea what sort of circumstance would make a mount need to be calmed, what factors increase the difficultly of calming the mount, or what might be a reasonable difficulty to begin with.

A simple line like:
Example sources of being frightened: 'lightning. DC 5' 'fireball: DC 10' 'spell fear effect: save DC + 5'

Would be really fun. The dmg already has lots of stuff like this.

And yeah, I'm taking handle animal regardless of DM. But there is a DM I've played with where multiclassing into rogue for expertise would have been worthwhile, and he was following RAW.

He could have used some guidance, imo.

[DivisibleByZero]

Right! Exactly!

And those are exactly the kinds of situations that guidance would help with! The PHB says that handle animal can be used to calm an animal, but we have no idea what sort of circumstance would make a mount need to be calmed, what factors increase the difficultly of calming the mount, or what might be a reasonable difficulty to begin with.

A simple line like:
Example sources of being frightened: 'lightning. DC 5' 'fireball: DC 10' 'spell fear effect: save DC + 5'

Would be really fun. The dmg already has lots of stuff like this.

And yeah, I'm taking handle animal regardless of DM. But there is a DM I've played with where multiclassing into rogue for expertise would have been worthwhile, and he was following RAW.

He could have used some guidance, imo.

In order to cover all of those things, for EVERY possible type of check that you might be required to at some point make, for EVERY ability and proficiency, the Ability Check section of the PHB would need to be 300 pages, and the price of the book would double, and literally an handful of people would appreciate it.
No thank you.

Very Easy : 5
Easy: 10
Moderate: 15
Hard: 20
Very Hard: 25
Nearly Impossible: 30

I think that's far better than twice the book, twice the pages, twice the headache, twice the price, and absolutely no value worth mentioning for the majority of the player base.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are you seriously claiming new DMs don't need training wheels? Yep. I am. That's my experience. You learn by doing, start small and grow your campaign. That's what we all did back in the beginning. The current DMG is an order of magnitude or two better than what I had to work with when I began.
We worked without a net, for years, and it went well.
We all expected that every table would be a little bit different, and each one was. That was good, not bad. (And everyone had a bit of homebrew...one guy ported in a bit of gamma world ...) Do it. Don't make yourself a victim to paralysis by analysis.
@Pex.

You're missing that the problem is not about consistency within a game; it's the lack of consistency among different games. As I noted above, that was by original design but I'll toss you a bone here. AD&D 1e tried to add to standardization / tournament / con play (competitive play, eh?) in a lot of what it did, as did modules, and quite frankly that aspect of D&D of any sort is only part of the game. The game of D&D is a lot like golf. There's a famous saying by Bobby Jones, one of the greatest golfers ever.
"There is the game of golf, and then there is tournament golf. Two very different games." (I spent a few years addicted to golf, and competitive golf.)

Aside: it is my opinion that the BX and BECMI project was to protect the original game, in spirit, and that the AD&D 1e and 2e was to help pursue that other thing (because it was a business, among other things) and there are articles galore that argue about that, but it sure seems that way to me.

By harping on that point, you are bringing the Gygaxian-corporateTSR-side sensibility to the discusion. As people who have played AL report to me, AL games aren't quite like regular games.

What you are asking for isn't the game's design intent. It appears to be an objective of AL.

You're missing that the problem is not about consistency within a game table; it's the lack of consistency among different games tables.

The DMG is pretty clear about design intent. Each campaign/table will be different. The PHB is less explicit on that score, but there are loads of references to 'the DM will X....' which ought to be a clue.

Table Attunement!

You have to attune to the table to get the most out of the play at that table.

(Table being the term I'll use for a game run by a given DM ...)

[Easy_Lee]

In order to cover all of those things, for EVERY possible type of check that you might be required to at some point make, for EVERY ability and proficiency, the Ability Check section of the PHB would need to be 300 pages, and the price of the book would double, and literally an handful of people would appreciate it.
No thank you.

Very Easy : 5
Easy: 10
Moderate: 15
Hard: 20
Very Hard: 25
Nearly Impossible: 30

I think that's far better than twice the book, twice the pages, twice the headache, twice the price, and absolutely no value worth mentioning for the majority of the player base.

Nobody is asking for every check. We're asking for a few sample checks for each skill. It would take up all of one page. And you know this.

[DivisibleByZero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jenWdylTtzs

[strangebloke]

In order to cover all of those things, for EVERY possible type of check that you might be required to at some point make, for EVERY ability and proficiency, the Ability Check section of the PHB would need to be 300 pages, and the price of the book would double, and literally an handful of people would appreciate it.
No thank you.

Very Easy : 5
Easy: 10
Moderate: 15
Hard: 20
Very Hard: 25
Nearly Impossible: 30

I think that's far better than twice the book, twice the pages, twice the headache, twice the price, and absolutely no value worth mentioning for the majority of the player base.

Come on. You're not even arguing.

300 pages? What kind of strawman are you talking to here? You think I want 3x's "Grappling hook +2, wall to brace against +5, nightime -5, Moonlight +2" nonsense? I'd be more than happy with one page for some of the unloved skills, like survival, acrobatics, and animal handling. There are already dozens of sample skill DCs for random things... they're just scattered throughout the MM, PHB, and DMG.

Reposting the existing system is not an argument for why its good...

'absolutely no value worth mentioning for the majority of the player base' is an baseless assertion. Skills are literally the most complained-about thing in 5e.

[DivisibleByZero]

'absolutely no value worth mentioning for the majority of the player base' is an baseless assertion. Skills are literally the most complained-about thing in 5e.

... which is hilarious because the complaints themselves are baseless.
People complain about skills because they want examples instead of guidelines, as if guidelines weren't good enough. They are. People complain because they want validation, and metagaming. Your own Cavalier query is just an example. Of Course you want animal handling on a Cavalier if you can get it! You don't need a table of sample DCs to tell you that! People complain because they want agency in a portion of the game that was specifically designed for the DM to have agency. Those complaints are all baseless.

[strangebloke]

A side note:

I think all the DMs in this thread are full of bull.

Literally everyone so far is saying 'this is for other DMs. The children know not how to make proper DCs. I, of course, do.' or 'even the children do not need this. This is trivial.'


Me, I'm not so confident. I've DMed for four years, and I am a lot better than when I started, but coming up with reasonable, interesting challenges is something I find to still be very hard. I want this guideline for my benefit. In my limited experience, DND sessions are long, stressful, and require a lot of thinking on the fly. The key is to, A: get good at thinking on the fly, and B: prep things in such a way that you minimize the amount of thinking on the fly that you have to do.

Phoenix Pyre's flowchart is sufficient for a DM who has good judgement and can take his time thinking about a check for a few seconds. For me, I have a table that is very creative and is always trying to do unexpected things, so I don't have much time to mull over it.

Like, approximately how hard is it to tame an owlbear? In one sense, it doesn't matter. Owlbears are made-up creatures and therefore whatever I decide is right. But if, a month later, I get asked again. 'How hard is it to tame an owlbear?' Am I going to remember that its somewhere around DC 20? Or am I going to downgrade it to 10? Being consistent is hard without copious notes and lots of guidelines.

I'm not saying that we should have a DC for every possible skill usage. I'm just saying that a few more benchmarks than we already have would be great.

[Finieous]

Me, I'm not so confident. I've DMed for four years, and I am a lot better than when I started, but coming up with reasonable, interesting challenges is something I find to still be very hard. I want this guideline for my benefit. In my limited experience, DND sessions are long, stressful, and require a lot of thinking on the fly. The key is to, A: get good at thinking on the fly, and B: prep things in such a way that you minimize the amount of thinking on the fly that you have to do.

Phoenix Pyre's flowchart is sufficient for a DM who has good judgement and can take his time thinking about a check for a few seconds. For me, I have a table that is very creative and is always trying to do unexpected things, so I don't have much time to mull over it.

Like, approximately how hard is it to tame an owlbear? In one sense, it doesn't matter. Owlbears are made-up creatures and therefore whatever I decide is right. But if, a month later, I get asked again. 'How hard is it to tame an owlbear?' Am I going to remember that its somewhere around DC 20? Or am I going to downgrade it to 10? Being consistent is hard without copious notes and lots of guidelines.


Keeping in mind that B/X didn't even have a skill system or universal task resolution mechanic at all (and that was fine), let Tom Moldvay help you out. From "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art" at the end of Basic (B60):



"That's not in the rules!" The players will often surprise the DM
by doing the unexpected. Don't panic. When this happens, the DM
should just make sure that everything is done in the order given by
the outline or sequence of events being used. Minor details may be
made up as needed to keep the game moving. All DMs learn how
to handle both new ideas and unusual actions quickly and with
imagination.

Quite often a DM can decide on a solution to a player's actions not
covered by these rules. Other times, a problem may have no
simple solution. One quick way for a DM to decide whether a
solution will work is by imagining the situation, and then choosing
percentage chances for different possibilities.


Don't panic. Use your imagination and judgment. When in doubt, make up some odds and roll some dice. Keep playing and have fun.

This is, by far, the easiest way for new DMs to learn how to run a fun game. It's not complicated and shouldn't be stressful.

[strangebloke]

... which is hilarious because the complaints themselves are baseless.
People complain about skills because they want examples instead of guidelines, as if guidelines weren't good enough. They are. People complain because they want validation, and metagaming. Your own Cavalier query is just an example. Of Course you want animal handling on a Cavalier if you can get it! You don't need a table of sample DCs to tell you that! People complain because they want agency in a portion of the game that was specifically designed for the DM to have agency. Those complaints are all baseless.

Bro, if I want a dang table, a book that has a dang table has value to me. Period.

If others say they want a fricking table, a fricking table has value to them. Period.

You can say that it wouldn't solve any problem and snipe at specific examples all day, but here's the thing: People are not wrong about what is valuable to them. Well. They know better than anyone else, anyway.

Question: Do you ever look at the MM to determine what the passive perception on a homebrewed monster might be?

Sure, I'll take animal handling on a Cavalier. But is it important enough that I want to multiclass into rogue for expertise? Is it important enough that getting it on my paladin who might sometimes ride a steed is worth doing?

[Unoriginal]

Like, approximately how hard is it to tame an owlbear?

DC 30 if you want to do it quickly.


The owlbear's reputation for ferocity, aggression, stubbornness and sheer ill temper makes it one of the most feared predators of the wild. There is little, if anything, that a hungry owlbear fears. Even monsters that outmatch an owlbear in size and strength avoid tangling with it, for this creature cares nothing about a foe's superior strength as it attacks without provocation.

[...]

Although they are more intelligent than most animals, owlbears are difficult to tame. However, with enough time, food, and luck, an intelligent creature can train an owlbear to recognize it as a master, making it an unflinching guard or a fast and hardy mount.

MM p.249

[DivisibleByZero]

Sure, I'll take animal handling on a Cavalier. But is it important enough that I want to multiclass into rogue for expertise? Is it important enough that getting it on my paladin who might sometimes ride a steed is worth doing?

I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring me when I say that every DM is going to be different. What one DM makes you roll for might be completely different than what another DM makes you roll for.
A TABLE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT!
And as such, no matter whether there were a table or not, it will STILL be DM dependent.

[strangebloke]

Don't panic. Use your imagination and judgment. When in doubt, make up some odds and roll some dice. Keep playing and have fun.

This is, by far, the easiest way for new DMs to learn how to run a fun game. It's not complicated and shouldn't be stressful.

Obviously I just do whatever. I'm the DM, and whatever I can come up with is fine. Even if I'm inconsistent sometimes it isn't a big deal. When I said stressful, I only meant that constantly making decisions is stressful.

I don't want to be just ok. I want to be a good DM, and that means work. I read the threads about how to creatively use the MM because I want to come up with fun encounters. I spend hours drafting up lore because I want the world to feel put-together. I read articles every fricking day about how to come up with good adventures.

And I am telling you, not asking, that a example skill check DC table would be kinda nice as a way to conserve my DMing energy.

Honestly, in my two years of 3x I never had an issue with a player over a skill check. TWF rules, effect resolution order, AC, hit dice, LA... argued all of those, yeah, but never skills. They were hella straightforward.

In 5e, that's like 80% of all of my uncertain rulings.

[Unoriginal]

In 5e, that's like 80% of all of my uncertain rulings.

How many time did your players have issues with your rulings?

[strangebloke]

I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring me when I say that every DM is going to be different. What one DM makes you roll for might be completely different than what another DM makes you roll for.
A TABLE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT!
And as such, no matter whether there were a table or not, it will STILL be DM dependent.

WRT me as a player: Of course every DM is going to be different, but the existence of a guideline makes it easier to tell what a DM's attitudes are about different skills. It would be a benchmark; an easy and important question to ask at session 0, amongst many others. 'How do you feel about that chart in the DMG? Do you think the rules they have for handle animal are reasonable?'

I freely acknowledge that did such a chart exist, as a DM I would reply with things like: 'No, the breath-holding DCs are way too low. The thief's tools DCs are way too high...'

But more to the point:

DBZ.

I'm a DM

I want this. I would find this guideline to be useful.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm a DM
[/B]
I want this. I would find this guideline to be useful.

So make one. In the time you've spent arguing about the fact that there isn't one, you could have made twelve different ones for different occasions.

[strangebloke]

How many time did your players have issues with your rulings?

When I say, 'uncertain,' what I mean is not that my players had issue with it, although that did happen sometimes. (usually they'd bring it up after the session.)

When I say, 'uncertain,' what I mean is that I question my own reasoning. How does my desire to see the player succeed at this thing influence my ruling? How does my knowledge of the PC's character influence what I set as the check? Did I have any actual rational for setting that DC? The answers to those questions are often uncomfortable for me. There have been more than a couple scenarios where I was completely inconsistent, and the players noticed. (even if they didn't put up a stink.)

That's bad. The Dm's job is to maintain verisimitude and consistency. Flubbing the rules or failing to be consistent is sort of ok if the players don't notice. If they do notice, you screwed up.

I try to minimize that.

[strangebloke]

So make one. In the time you've spent arguing about the fact that there isn't one, you could have made twelve different ones for different occasions.

I have. After a bunch of trial and error I decided that was the best thing to do. It took a couple days.

Don't rule zero fallacy me. If its something that many DMs want (and they clearly do) it should be an included option. Plus, as a player I would like a reference point to talk about skill DCs to my DM with.

I love how you pick your fights. You attack me on one front, I answer that and label a different concern. You answer the second concern, but not the rebuttal. Very efficient.

[Breashios]

Nobody is asking for every check. We're asking for a few sample checks for each skill. It would take up all of one page. And you know this.

Easy solution then. Agree to and make up a one page list of examples for your table and use that as the guideline for (if there are any) the different DMs to reference and everyone's expectations at that table will be directed thereby. It will never be perfect because - human, but you're definitely smart enough to figure out what will work for the people you play with.

I of course will probably play by a different list than you, because our game will be shooting for a different level of realism or heroic daring do depending on what our campaign is intended to be that time, what the characters bring, etc. We will absolutely aim to remain consistent within a campaign!

Just have fun.

Edit: Oh, I see someone said this already. Maybe just not as nicely as I did. Cheers.

[strangebloke]

Easy solution then. Agree to and make up a one page list of examples for your table and use that as the guideline for (if there are any) the different DMs to reference and everyone's expectations at that table will be directed thereby. It will never be perfect because - human, but you're definitely smart enough to figure out what will work for the people you play with.

I of course will probably play by a different list than you, because our game will be shooting for a different level of realism or heroic daring do depending on what our campaign is intended to be that time, what the characters bring, etc. We will absolutely aim to remain consistent within a campaign!

Just have fun.

Rule zero fallacy.

'just because the DM can fix it doesn't mean it ain't broke.'

DMG should have given a table, with ideas about how to adapt it for heroic or gritty settings.

[Unoriginal]

It's not a Rule 0 fallacy because people bringing that up don't think it is broken.


Also I don't see where this idea that adjusting DCs is to adapt gritty or heroic settings come from.

[Breashios]

Simply put, I don't need further reference material in the rulebooks to assist me in this matter. There is enough information and I do take notes to keep things consistent within a campaign when I make a ruling that might be uncertain or need to be remembered at a later time. It is pretty easy actually.

In one campaign I might want griffons trained after a minimum of 3 months on a DC 25 if you did not raise them from a hatchling. Why? Because I don't want flying mounts to be common in that world.

In another campaign I might make it two weeks and a DC 15. Why? I might have an adventure I want to run that is all about heroes on their flying mounts.

Please don't demand official guidelines that may confuse new players that come to my table. Then I will be accused of house-ruling, Uhg.

[Breashios]

And yes, it is not a Rule 0 Fallacy. I am not saying something broken about the rules can be fixed by the DM. I am saying you want to add a rule, for clarity, which will break the game from my perspective. There is nothing broken as the rules about this matter currently stand.

You may consider this opinion. But maybe that is why we are in this forum. I am trying to convince you and others to accept my perspective. You may eventually choose to agree with me or we may respectfully disagree, but hopefully we will both learn something useful.

[Sigreid]

Using any of the x fallacy arguments is lame anyway. It's really just another way of trying to tell people they are wrong and to shut the hell up.

[Unoriginal]

Well, if someone is using a logical fallacy, it's important to point it out. 'Cause fallacies are logical errors by definition.

[Sigreid]

Well, if someone is using a logical fallacy, it's important to point it out. 'Cause fallacies are logical errors by definition.

No, it's really not beneficial to say something is x fallacy. It really doesn't do any good because the target clearly doesn't agree that the item in question fits under that fallacy and so it mostly serves to piss people off by attempting to dismiss them. Now, actually showing the flaws in their logic can be beneficial. But not just saying "that's x fallacy".

And on this particular topic we are discussing what is purely a matter of opinion as to what would have been the better way for WoTC to write their rules. There is no absolute truth here, only individual truth.

[DivisibleByZero]

"It is not broken and therefore doesn't need fixing" is completely different from "it is not broken because the DM can fix it."
We are claiming the former, not the latter.

[Pex]

That's because these arguments only ever happen on forums.
At a table, during play, there aren't any arguments from most people,. because most people understand that the DM has final say. If they start an argument about it at an actual table, they're just channeling their inner Rules Lawyer about something that doesn't even have codified rules.

Make the roll no matter the DC, see the result, continue on with the game.
Anyone that stops a game to have this argument is just a jerk. No one is there to argue about rules that don't even exist. They're there to play a game, have things happen to them in the world, and react to those things. You know.... tell a story.
So these arguments happening at an actual table? I'd tell that player not to come back, because he's ruining the fun for everyone about a rule that doesn't even exist in 5e.

Not arguing about it at the game table doesn't make the problem go away nor prove it doesn't exist.


It's quite simple, the rules tell him he should choose what seems appropriate for him. What if in his mind he was considering that navigating through the jungle was an easy task, because you can always see the volcano on the north side, and instead in the PHB navigating a jungle is set to moderate, he then will feel obligated to use DC15, because if the rules say so, then they should be right, when in fact it should have been DC10 in this scenario. A new DM might not know what the DC for navigating a jungle is, but he can easily guesstimate that it's an easy/moderate/hard task based on how he wants the jungle be a challenge. That's the versatility that 5e allow, especially for new DM.

Then a player of this game joins another game, but that DM decides navigating a jungle is DC 20 and the player will be what the heck?

[Unoriginal]

Why would a player be what the heck ?

[DanyBallon]

@strangebloke:

You ask for a guideline to be used as a benchmark, but there is already one in the PHB describing the DCs for easy/moderate/hard task. What you want is more example of play. There are benefits to be more specifics and have examples to show to your players, hence why we suggest creating tables of your own. As for having them printed in the core rulebooks, we explained to you and the others in favor, that they will have only limited benefits to the most common issues like disparities between DMs, or new DM won't know what to do without a series of skill examples. DM disparities will always be a thing, enforcing examples for skill DC will require them to brand their changes as houserules and they'll need to explain every single changes, while the rules as written let them be more flexible and still playing by RAW (most people don't care, but there are some gaming group that won't accept anything outside of RaW)
As for new DM, it's true that tables can be useful, but it can also be an hindrance, as instead of ruling on the fly, they'll spend time looking into the book relying more and more on it, until the day, the answer won't be in the book, and they won't be prepared to face this kind of situation, where as the actual rules let them experiment early with decision making.

We also provide you with the risk of too much codified rules, can bring forth rule lawyers (both DM and players alike) that can't just stand anything not written in the rule books, and usually stall games over needless arguement. Thankfully, most gaming group don't have to deal with these guys.


You say that many DMs wants it, but where are you getting your numbers? This kind of arguement is pointless because there are no hard numbers on the matter. And in their absence, it's often a matter of perception. I for one would say that this thread shows that they are more people against having skill DC tables in the core rule books, and you could say the contrary, and we both may be right to pretend so, because there are strong arguments for both sides that stand out, and it easy to dismiss those against our view.

Lastly, you say that "a DM's job is to maintain verisimitude and consistency", to that I'll say that the DM's job is to make sure that everyone have fun. If in order to do so, you need to fudge a dice, or change a skill DC on the fly, then so be it.

[Pex]

Why would a player be what the heck ?

Because the rules changed on him. A relatively easy task became hard. It could have influenced his character creation choices. Expecting a relatively easy DC he needn't emphasize the skill. When the higher DC hits him, his experiences go out the window. For all the talk of how a table will mean a rules lawyer will argue with the DM, having a jungle be harder to navigate by DM whim could have this player argue with the DM that it's not supposed to be so hard because that's the way it's always been his experience.

[DanyBallon]

Then a player of this game joins another game, but that DM decides navigating a jungle is DC 20 and the player will be what the heck?

Why would he think so? Why would two jungles in two different game world have the exact same DC, they are not the same jungle after all!

Would you say that climbing to the top of Mount Washington and to the top Everest, should be the same difficulty level? If I use your reasonning, they should because they are both mountains...

Now, if you are talking about a player going through the same scenario with the exact same jungle, having two different DC, that's quite different, but that's a corner case.

[Unoriginal]

Because the rules changed on him. A relatively easy task became hard. It could have influenced his character creation choices. Expecting a relatively easy DC he needn't emphasize the skill. When the higher DC hits him, his experiences go out the window. For all the talk of how a table will mean a rules lawyer will argue with the DM, having a jungle be harder to navigate by DM whim could have this player argue with the DM that it's not supposed to be so hard because that's the way it's always been his experience.

Player:"How come I can't navigate in this jungle? I rolled a 10"

DM: "Well, it's not enough."

Player: "But it's not what I'm used to."

DM: "Sorry, but that's what I decided for this check based on the jungle and the destination you wanted to reach."

And soon after, the game continued.

[strangebloke]

Sorry, wrong to cry fallacy.


Long post, so I'll try to cover everything.


DM disparities will always be a thing, enforcing examples for skill DC will require them to brand their changes as houserules and they'll need to explain every single changes, while the rules as written let them be more flexible and still playing by RAW (most people don't care, but there are some gaming group that won't accept anything outside of RaW)
We also provide you with the risk of too much codified rules, can bring forth rule lawyers (both DM and players alike) that can't just stand anything not written in the rule books, and usually stall games over needless arguement. Thankfully, most gaming group don't have to deal with these guys.

This is simply not true. Printing an official list of example skill DCs that a DM could set wouldn't be that bad.

As I've said many times in this thread, there are lots of sample DCs. Tons of them, actually, but they're all in different parts of the books, and they are very narrowly focused. Lots of sample passive perception DCs, Stealth DCs, thief's tools DCs, and Investigation DCs. Additionally:

DMG 245 has charisma check DCs
DMG 244 has tracking DCs
DMG 111 has foraging DCs
DMG 110 has a DC for walking on ice
DMG 61 has DCs for creating things with your mind in limbo

And more to the point, there are tons of optional examples in the DMG. There are 100 pages of optional magic items! 2 pages of example traps! 1 page of example siege equipment! 2 pages of example diseases and poison!

Why can't I get a few pages, or even just one page of optional sample skill check DCs? They could even have a blurb about, '+5 to all DCs for gritty fantasy!'

Nothing in the DMG is written as mandatory. NOTHING.


You say that many DMs wants it, but where are you getting your numbers? This kind of arguement is pointless because there are no hard numbers on the matter. And in their absence, it's often a matter of perception. I for one would say that this thread shows that they are more people against having skill DC tables in the core rule books, and you could say the contrary, and we both may be right to pretend so, because there are strong arguments for both sides that stand out, and it easy to dismiss those against our view.

I think its inarguable that lots of people want example skill check DCs, purely by how often it comes up, both online and in my own group. Are we outnumbered? Maybe. More likely, the vast majority of players would use it if it was there, but don't miss it as is. This is all based purely on my personal experience. But I was replying to DBZ who was saying that a skill table would 'take up 300 pages' and offer 'nothing of value to the majority of players.' So he was making the same sort of claim.


Lastly, you say that "a DM's job is to maintain verisimitude and consistency", to that I'll say that the DM's job is to make sure that everyone have fun. If in order to do so, you need to fudge a dice, or change a skill DC on the fly, then so be it.

Well, yes.

But 'having fun' isn't just on the DM. That's everybody's responsibility. The DM's specific role is to play the world. If he maintains verisimilitude and consistency, that helps with fun.

[strangebloke]

Player:"How come I can't navigate in this jungle? I rolled a 10"

DM: "Well, it's not enough."

Player: "But it's not what I'm used to."

DM: "Sorry, but that's what I decided for this check based on the jungle and the destination you wanted to reach."

And soon after, the game continued.

And my wood-elf fighter who has low WIS but has spent her whole life in the jungle and has proficiency in Survival suddenly can't find her way through a jungle not so different from where she grew up.

Yes, the game goes on, but the player is probably going to feel pretty frustrated, and their character is going to make a lot less sense.

[DanyBallon]

And my wood-elf fighter who has low WIS but has spent her whole life in the jungle and has proficiency in Survival suddenly can't find her way through a jungle not so different from where she grew up.

Yes, the game goes on, but the player is probably going to feel pretty frustrated, and their character is going to make a lot less sense.

Your example stand true if you are expecting that the DC for navigating a jungle is low, what if it was printed as DC20 in the rulebook? The player would still be frustrated because his character that grew up in a jungle can't find his way on a roll of 10, or the feeling will magically disapear because it's written in a book?

[Sigreid]

Because the rules changed on him. A relatively easy task became hard. It could have influenced his character creation choices. Expecting a relatively easy DC he needn't emphasize the skill. When the higher DC hits him, his experiences go out the window. For all the talk of how a table will mean a rules lawyer will argue with the DM, having a jungle be harder to navigate by DM whim could have this player argue with the DM that it's not supposed to be so hard because that's the way it's always been his experience.

I don't see why anyone would assume that even two different jungles in the same campaign world, with the same DM would necessarily have the same difficulty to navigate. For that matter, perhaps due to terrain and vegetation there is a difference between two parts of the same jungle. This applies to nearly everything.

"DM, how hard would it be to climb the cliff of this canyon?"

"It would be pretty difficult with even your prodigious skill. You doubt most people could even make it high enough up to hurt themselves when they fall."

"Ok, as we continue through the canyon I keep my eyes peeled for a place where I think I can reasonably safely climb the wall."

"After about a half hour you come to an area where you are sure it would still be difficult and dangerous for most people (a moderate check), but are pretty confident you can scale it without any real difficulty."

"OK, I get my climbing gear out and climb the wall."

"Great, since you can take your time you can make it up in about a hour and a half of climbing."

"Can I cut that time down if I hurry?"

"Yes, you can make it in about 40 minutes if you push yourself and are a bit les cautious. That'll be a DC 15, with advantage for the climbing gear."

"Cool, easy peasy."

[strangebloke]

Your example stand true if you are expecting that the DC for navigating a jungle is low, what if it was printed as DC20 in the rulebook? The player would still be frustrated because his character that grew up in a jungle can't find his way on a roll of 10, or the feeling will magically disapear because it's written in a book?

Let's say that the example DC is 20.

The player could just ask, "Do you use approximately something similar to the DCs in the DMG, or something else?" To which the DM can reply "More or less. Climbing is going to be harder though. "

The player then knows that her jungle elf needs to be able to make a DC 20 if she actually is someone who travels the forest alone a lot. Alternately, she knows that whenever she goes to the jungle, she'll need a local guide.

DCs represent information that PCs should have some approximation of in-character. A player should know whether getting a guide for an area is a good idea. If my guy has proficiency in survival, presumably he got that through experience. That experience should forewarn him before he attempts to do something.

[DanyBallon]

And more to the point, there are tons of optional examples in the DMG. There are 100 pages of optional magic items! 2 pages of example traps! 1 page of example siege equipment! 2 pages of example diseases and poison!

Why can't I get a few pages, or even just one page of optional sample skill check DCs? They could even have a blurb about, '+5 to all DCs for gritty fantasy!'

Nothing in the DMG is written as mandatory. NOTHING.


I agree with you they're ton's and tons of tables in the DMG and a few more wouldn't have been that hard to insert. But I have issues with the bolded part...

Have you ever tried to give a magical wand that don't recharge or use a pit trap that deals more damage than the example prodvide? Even if the rules provided in the DMG are guideline and are optionnals, people expect you to use them as is, and it would be also true if you provide specific example for skill DCs. Look at all the discussion in the 3.P era as whether you could do something that wasn't specifically described in the core rules. Most of the arguments was against because there was no rules for it... I think 5e is doing better with the current system

[Alerad]

We are playing different games and that's ok. As long as you are fair to your players and don't modify the DC just because they invested so much in a skill, it's up to you as a DM to set the bar. Here are some examples from the books:

Easy 10
Moderate 15
Hard 20

As long as you make it clear to the players that the difficulty is high, or low or whatever it is, they should be fine. Hell, just tell them the DC. A competent adventurer should be able to judge his or her chances against some tasks.

My rule of the thumb is, you can move an immovable rod with a DC 30 Strength check. So make sure players who get past that mark perform extraordinary feats. Push a force wall. Jump through invisible blades of spinning death. Get up with 5 levels of exhaustion and go get help. Guess the weak point of a homebrew monster that you've never Sen before. Spot an invisible writing. Convince a fallen angel to seek redemption.

[Unoriginal]

And my wood-elf fighter who has low WIS but has spent her whole life in the jungle and has proficiency in Survival suddenly can't find her way through a jungle not so different from where she grew up.

Yes, the game goes on, but the player is probably going to feel pretty frustrated, and their character is going to make a lot less sense.

And a a DM it is my job to determine the difficulty of going to X place in Y jungle, and your PC, despite having grown up in Z jungle and having training in Survival, failed at the task due to its difficulty and your low roll. Perhaps their low WIS meant they couldn't re-apply their training to a new situation as much as they could, maybe a surprise rain threw them off track, maybe they had to cross a river and didn't manage to find the path afterward, or a hundred other things that could explain that.

At this point you're not complaining about the DM deciding a DC, you're complaining about a player failing a roll.



Convince a fallen angel to seek redemption.

This might not be that hard, though. Several fallen angels do seek redemption, provided they don't go to hell ASAP to get the perks.

[DanyBallon]

Let's say that the example DC is 20.

The player could just ask, "Do you use approximately something similar to the DCs in the DMG, or something else?" To which the DM can reply "More or less. Climbing is going to be harder though. "

The player then knows that her jungle elf needs to be able to make a DC 20 if she actually is someone who travels the forest alone a lot. Alternately, she knows that whenever she goes to the jungle, she'll need a local guide.

DCs represent information that PCs should have some approximation of in-character. A player should know whether getting a guide for an area is a good idea. If my guy has proficiency in survival, presumably he got that through experience. That experience should forewarn him before he attempts to do something.

Or you could only ask the DM how hard would it be navigating the jungle, and for a DC 20, it would have told you that navigating this jungle is not an easy task, but since you are used to travel alone in such environment, you shouldn't have much problem. Or in the case of the low Wis elf, it's not an easy task, and you've heard many stories of light headed people wandering in alone and never coming back.

In both case, the "not an easy task" can refer to hard (or the DM could have plainly said it's a hard task, but I think it's boring this way...) and in the first case, the DM also add that since the character is proficient and experienced, the probabilities are high that he succeed, while in the other case, traveling alone might not be in its interest if he don't want to get lost.