Rules Q&A How hard is Hard (DC 20) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Yora

2019-02-03, 07:18 AM

I was just looking at the different DCs for ability checks and the list gives DC 10 for easy tasks, DC 15 for medium tasks, and DC 20 for hard tasks. I was wondering what that actually means in success chances and DC 10 seems far from easy, with DC 20 being really outstandingly hard.

If we take a character with a score of 10, a modifier of +0, and no proficency bonus, then the chance to succeed on a DC 10 Easy check is 55%.That's failure almost half the time, but how often will e PC make such a check?

More commonly, ability checks will be made by characters with say a score of 14, a modifier of +2, and proficency, which at lower levels is +2. This results in a chance for a DC 10 Easy check of 75%, a DC 15 Medium check of 50%, and a DC 20 hard check of 25%.
Turn it around, an a low level character with decent scores and proficency has a 25% chance to fail an easy check, a 50% chance to fail a medium check, and a 75% chance to fail a hard check.
This seems rather bad to me.

If I don't like it, the solution is pretty simple: What I consider to be "easy" gets a DC of 5, what I think is "medium" gets a DC of 10, and what I think of as hard gets a DC of 15.

But before I do that, I wanted to check, that I did have any important oversight here that I missed. Is it really the default assumption that "easy" still fails this often and "hard" is really that unlikely to pull off?

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 07:54 AM

I'll answer more later, but remember that checks are only for things in doubt. That is, a "normal" PC rolling even an easy check should still have a non trivial chance of failing. Otherwise, just let them pass no roll needed.

So "easy but in doubt" is fine at 25% failure. "Hard but not precluded" is fine at 75% failure.

And easy checks are common, because they still have a chance of failure until high levels.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 07:56 AM

But before I do that, I wanted to check, that I did have any important oversight here that I missed. Is it really the default assumption that "easy" still fails this often and "hard" is really that unlikely to pull off?

Basically, yes, but your assumptions are kinda faulty. DCs don't change depending on the level, so while at lvl 1 a character may have 75% chances of success for DC 10, the chances will increase quickly at the stats and proficiency bonus increase.

Also, just look at your example: a 14-to-the-stat PC with +2 proficiency will ALWAYS succeed ability checks with a DC of 5 (+4 of mod, minimum on the dice is 1), which makes it far beyond easy for people who are trained for the task at hand. Meanwhile they will succeed a DC 10 task most of the time (making it something they can succeed with ease).

The name they chosen for the DCs can sound like misnomers, but not by that much. Those DCs are for adventurers doing adventurer tasks, not for Commoners working on a farm, so logically what is "easy" in a dungeon where death follows you at each step isn't the same as in one's day-to-day mundane life.

Keep in mind that those DCs are for tasks that:

a) the PC can't just retry until they succeed

b) leads to interesting consequences if failed

Without that, the majority of tasks just auto-succeed.

Point is, it doesn't change anything if you call DC 5 Easy and DC 10 Hard, what matters is that the tasks an adventurer goes through are appropriately difficult.

some guy

2019-02-03, 07:58 AM

If I don't like it, the solution is pretty simple: What I consider to be "easy" gets a DC of 5, what I think is "medium" gets a DC of 10, and what I think of as hard gets a DC of 15.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I do, it's an easy fix. I don't think you've missed anything. I agree it's pretty strange for a trained and talented character to fail an easy task 25% of the time.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 08:03 AM

Yeah, this is pretty much what I do, it's an easy fix. I don't think you've missed anything. I agree it's pretty strange for a trained and talented character to fail an easy task 25% of the time.

You and OP just don't have the same definition of "easy" as the one used for the game. It doesn't really matter if what they call Easy difficulty you call Medium difficulty.

What is important is that you know the chances of success for something when assigning the DC, not what it's called by the book.

Chronos

2019-02-03, 08:06 AM

Basically, yes, but your assumptions are kinda faulty. DCs don't change depending on the level, so while at lvl 1 a character may have 75% chances of success for DC 10, the chances will increase quickly at the stats and proficiency bonus increase.
No, they'll increase slowly. It's that whole "bounded accuracy" thing, that says that even after 20 levels, nobody ever gets really good at anything.

Keravath

2019-02-03, 08:10 AM

Things to consider ..
1) as level increases so does proficiency.
2) Characters specialize so that as they level their stats usually also improve for the things they are good at.
3) there are some magic items that improve skill checks (stone of good luck comes to mind .. but since it requires attunement it probably isn’t a large consideration)

Anyway a DC 10 for a level one who has 16 stat (+5) becomes 5+ or 20% chance of failure. The same easy task for a level 10 with a 20 stat (+9) can’t be failed.

Now consider some of the more extreme cases .. a rogue with expertise in perception and a 16 wisdom will have a +15 to perception at level 17+ .. combined with reliable talent and they have a minimum perception roll of 25. If they have the observant feat then they will have a passive perception of 30. This rogue would regularly succeed at noticing impossible tasks while other typical party members might have +6 to +8 if proficient and not boosting wisdom.

This means that if you set a DC20 hard task for the rogue it will be trivial while most of the other party members just fail.

The final element is narrative. If there is a task that is relevant to the plot .. if you require a task be completed for success, what do you do as a DM if the party fails? I’ve seen several modules which appear to have been designed on the basis of the party passing a skill check with very little thought given to what if they don’t pass?

Anyway,yes a DC10 can have a significant chance of failure for a level 1 but that depends on the character, level, proficiency, and abilities like expertise. A level 1 rogue with 16 stat and expertise will have +7 leaving only a 10% chance of failing a DC10 task.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 08:28 AM

You and OP just don't have the same definition of "easy" as the one used for the game. It doesn't really matter if what they call Easy difficulty you call Medium difficulty.

What is important is that you know the chances of success for something when assigning the DC, not what it's called by the book.

True.

No, they'll increase slowly. It's that whole "bounded accuracy" thing, that says that even after 20 levels, nobody ever gets really good at anything.

This is a fundamental misperception of what an Ability Check means in 5e and what they're there for. If there's no meaningful chance of failure, you should not be rolling at all. And also, it's just false. "Normal" DCs are in the range [10, 20]. As a result, we have the following matrix of failure chances at level 1

DC
10
15
20

+0 mod (no skill, no practice)
45%
70%
95%

+2 mod (skill OR practice)
35%
60%
85%

+4 mod (skill AND practice or great skill)
25%
50%
75%

At level 13 (+5 proficiency), we have the following:

DC
10
15
20

+0 mod (no skill, no practice)
45%
70%
95%

+5 mod (skill OR practice)
20%
45%
70%

+10 mod (skill AND practice)
0%
20%
45%

Rogue (no expertise, +5 mod)
0%
0%
45%

Rogue (expertise OR capped skill + proficiency, +10 mod)
0%
0%
0%

A level 13 character in his primary attribute does not fail easy checks (DC 10), fails Medium checks like a proficient and skilled level 1 fails easy checks, and fails Hard checks like a proficient and skilled level 1 fails medium ones. And a rogue basically never fails at something he's proficient in, due to Expertise and/or Reliable Talent.

Basic design philosophy of 5e: the only way to move "off the d20" for normal adventuring tasks should be a class feature or other specific exception to the rules. Yes, this requires recalibrating what you mean by "Easy, Medium, and Hard."

Think of them as "Easy, but still has a meaningful chance of failure" (because if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth rolling or even setting a DC for), "More challenging that easy but still a toss-up for an apprentice with practice and talent/training" (level 1 characters are not experts--they're moderately-skilled apprentices), and "Hard enough that someone with no practice or talent should only be able to succeed on a stroke of luck and even a trained person should fail regularly."

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 08:38 AM

True.

This is a fundamental misperception of what an Ability Check means in 5e and what they're there for. If there's no meaningful chance of failure, you should not be rolling at all. And also, it's just false. "Normal" DCs are in the range [10, 20]. As a result, we have the following matrix of failure chances at level 1

DC
10
15
20

+0 mod (no skill, no practice)
45%
70%
95%

+2 mod (skill OR practice)
35%
60%
85%

+4 mod (skill AND practice or great skill)
25%
50%
75%

At level 13 (+5 proficiency), we have the following:

DC
10
15
20

+0 mod (no skill, no practice)
45%
70%
95%

+5 mod (skill OR practice)
20%
45%
70%

+10 mod (skill AND practice)
0%
20%
45%

Rogue (no expertise, +5 mod)
0%
0%
45%

Rogue (expertise OR capped skill + proficiency, +10 mod)
0%
0%
0%

A level 13 character in his primary attribute does not fail easy checks (DC 10), fails Medium checks like a proficient and skilled level 1 fails easy checks, and fails Hard checks like a proficient and skilled level 1 fails medium ones. And a rogue basically never fails at something he's proficient in, due to Expertise and/or Reliable Talent.

Basic design philosophy of 5e: the only way to move "off the d20" for normal adventuring tasks should be a class feature or other specific exception to the rules. Yes, this requires recalibrating what you mean by "Easy, Medium, and Hard."

Think of them as "Easy, but still has a meaningful chance of failure" (because if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth rolling or even setting a DC for), "More challenging that easy but still a toss-up for an apprentice with practice and talent/training" (level 1 characters are not experts--they're moderately-skilled apprentices), and "Hard enough that someone with no practice or talent should only be able to succeed on a stroke of luck and even a trained person should fail regularly."

Very well put.

Also, let's not forget all the readily available ways one can get an Advantage on the task, because it changes the chances quite a bit.

That "only roll for things with a meaningful chance of failure" way of doing things throw off a lot of people, I get the impression.

some guy

2019-02-03, 08:42 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 08:43 AM

Also, let's not forget all the readily available ways one can get an Advantage on the task, because it changes the chances quite a bit.

That "only roll for things with a meaningful chance of failure" way of doing things throw off a lot of people, I get the impression.

Right.

I think it comes from seeing things back to front. They're assigning a DC first as a world-simulation piece, instead of asking the threshold question:

Is it worth rolling for at all?
a) Is it possible? If not, auto-fail, no check needed.
b) If it's possible, does it have a meaningful chance of failure and are the consequences of failure interesting in a way that moves the narrative along and thus precludes trivial/cost-less rerolls? If not, auto-success, no check needed.

Those two questions clear away most check opportunities, leaving only the interesting adventuring tasks. And those are the only ones you're setting a DC for at all. There's a suggestion in the DMG that even DC 5 is usually not worth rolling, as the chances of failure even for +0 folks aren't high enough to be worth it.

Zaharra

2019-02-03, 08:55 AM

My charisma focused 13th level rogue can't get below a 25 on persuasion, deception, performance or intimidation. She automatically will pass any very hard or lower social challenge unless the DM introduces some kinda penalty other than disadvantage because reliable talent doesn't care about disadvantage. She has a 25% chance to make any "nearly impossible" check

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 08:59 AM

Right.

I think it comes from seeing things back to front. They're assigning a DC first as a world-simulation piece, instead of asking the threshold question:

Is it worth rolling for at all?
a) Is it possible? If not, auto-fail, no check needed.
b) If it's possible, does it have a meaningful chance of failure and are the consequences of failure interesting in a way that moves the narrative along and thus precludes trivial/cost-less rerolls? If not, auto-success, no check needed.

Those two questions clear away most check opportunities, leaving only the interesting adventuring tasks. And those are the only ones you're setting a DC for at all. There's a suggestion in the DMG that even DC 5 is usually not worth rolling, as the chances of failure even for +0 folks aren't high enough to be worth it.

Yeah, not to mention how some DMs insist that things the books suggest as being auto-success need a rolls.

I've seen a DM ask for an Athletic check for a Tabaxi Rogue to climb an house's outer wall.

some guy

2019-02-03, 08:59 AM

Those two questions clear away most check opportunities, leaving only the interesting adventuring tasks. And those are the only ones you're setting a DC for at all. There's a suggestion in the DMG that even DC 5 is usually not worth rolling, as the chances of failure even for +0 folks aren't high enough to be worth it.

Huh, yeah, the dmg says "Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual , let characters succeed at such a task without making a check." (pg. 238)

Meanwhile I would rule that, say, climbing up a 20 ft rope would be a DC 5 task, and while characters trained in athletics and 14 str would not have to roll, the wizard with 8 str should, as the consequence of it would be falling damage (which is a big hit at level 1). (climbing up a knotted rope or with help would not require a roll, but would probably also indicate that the pc's are not in combat and have enough time)

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 09:03 AM

Huh, yeah, the dmg says "Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual , let characters succeed at such a task without making a check." (pg. 238)

Meanwhile I would rule that, say, climbing up a 20 ft rope would be a DC 5 task, and while characters trained in athletics and 14 str would not have to roll, the wizard with 8 str should, as the consequence of it would be falling damage (which is a big hit at level 1). (climbing up a knotted rope or with help would not require a roll, but would probably also indicate that the pc's are not in combat and have enough time)

Climbing is a bad example. Climbing by default is no-check, just half speed. Only unusually slick or difficult surfaces need a check at all, let alone a hard one.

And taking falling damage is rarely a meaningful consequence. Getting caught by the guards who are chasing you is, but other than that...

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 09:03 AM

Huh, yeah, the dmg says "Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual , let characters succeed at such a task without making a check." (pg. 238)

Meanwhile I would rule that, say, climbing up a 20 ft rope would be a DC 5 task, and while characters trained in athletics and 14 str would not have to roll, the wizard with 8 str should, as the consequence of it would be falling damage (which is a big hit at level 1). (climbing up a knotted rope or with help would not require a roll, but would probably also indicate that the pc's are not in combat and have enough time)

Climbing up a rope is suggested as an auto-success by the PHB (unless they're being attacked at the same time or other hindrances).

All PCs are supposed to be competent adventurers, and climbing a rope isn't actually that difficult even if you are on the lower end of the average curve.

Climbing is a bad example. Climbing by default is no-check, just half speed. Only unusually slick or difficult surfaces need a check at all, let alone a hard one.

And by "unusually difficult", the game says that unless it's a sheer surface with not enough holds, you're fine.

some guy

2019-02-03, 09:20 AM

Climbing up a rope is suggested as an auto-success by the PHB (unless they're being attacked at the same time or other hindrances).

Climbing is a bad example. Climbing by default is no-check, just half speed. Only unusually slick or difficult surfaces need a check at all, let alone a hard one.
Yeah, I meant during climbing during combat., but I totally forgot that regular climbing is just half speed.

And taking falling damage is rarely a meaningful consequence. Getting caught by the guards who are chasing you is, but other than that...

I disagree with this, falling damage for a level 1 character during combat is meaningful. (for higher level ones it is indeed not meaningful, those revised pit traps in the 5e version of tomb of horrors are a joke)

Telok

2019-02-03, 12:24 PM

My experience has been that newer DMs are not forum hounds and mostly follow what's printed in the adventures. That's where most of the "dc 13 to climb a 6' high rock ledge" and "roll perception to hear a 30' high waterfall before going over it" sorts of things come from.

Inexperienced DMs follow printed adventures. If the printed adventures don't follow the rules or best practices then the DMs learn that. I think that's where the disconnect lies.

Tanarii

2019-02-03, 12:37 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 12:43 PM

It's about as hard as a PC should reasonably encounter.

The one piece of IMO bad advice the DMG gives is labeling DC 10 checks as "Easy", and outright suggesting you ignore DC 5 "Very Easy" checks.

DC 5-10 checks should be the go to for a DM. Without proficiency, a typical character has a 25-50% failure rate on those checks.

If ou want to use DC 15 "Medium" as your average, you have to start only calling for checks from the player with the highest modifier for the entire party, usually high ability + proficiency. And once you start doing that you're losing most of the benefit that the 5e resolution system gives.

Basically, a DM should subtract 5 from all DMG labels. Very Easy 0, Easy 5, Medium 10, Hard 15, Very Hard 15. Then if you determine its Very Easy check, don't bother rolling most of the time.

This only works if you deny proficiency. But the DMG suggests letting players suggest a proficiency to apply and accepting what they suggest if they can give any reasonable reason why it would help. Including proficiency or expertise makes your suggested numbers trivial.

And anyway, you're doing it back-to-front. You're letting the DC decide if you should bother rolling, when setting the DC only happens after you make that determination in the first place.

The key to avoiding "only the top person rolls" is for the DM to actually ask a specific person for a check and not allow substitution. That's their job, to determine who rolls what. Spread the rolls out and don't let "I try too!". Every check, successful or failed, should move the narrative so that further attempts with the same tactic are pointless. If you can't find a way to do that with a particular task, don't roll for it. Just let it succeed.

Shuruke

2019-02-03, 12:44 PM

Shuruke

2019-02-03, 12:50 PM

The key to avoiding "only the top person rolls" is for the DM to actually ask a specific person for a check and not allow substitution. That's their job, to determine who rolls what. Spread the rolls out and don't let "I try too!". Every check, successful or failed, should move the narrative so that further attempts with the same tactic are pointless. If you can't find a way to do that with a particular task, don't roll for it. Just let it succeed.

A good rule of thumb is
When asking for a check ask whoever has in this order

: background pertaining to skill in this context and expertise.
: background and proficiency in skill
: proficiency in skill or a class that makes sense for check to be attempted. Arcane casters can attempt arcana when not proficient, religion can be attempted by cleric and Paladin, nature by barbarian druid and ranger etc.

My players have slowly learned that only the person asked is doing the check because it has to do with background or etc.

Generally I also gice advantage if they have the background and skill both making sense for the check just because it makes the background options feel more interwoven into game

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 12:50 PM

I am not sure if I am an outlier but I don't use dc charts XD I saw the way spells saves get mad 8+prof+mod and figured basing dcs off of an equation like that make more sense.

Lets say I have level 5 characters and I know the thing being attempted they all have only at most +3 in.
So for dc I go with 8+3+3 for 14 and from their if I want it easier or harder I lower or increase the base number of 8.

If its something that the rogue has expertise in and tI want hem to be the one to have to do check I do 8+(prof×2)+mod or in example above 17

Its sounds a bit clunky but once you know what your players have as stats and have it written down you can just make a small dc table till next ASI generally I change dcs when prof go up so classes with multiple asi between 5 and 9 feel good about what they put stat into of its something pertaining to a skill. And I usually time the level of prof going up to an increase of danger to what they are doing, bbg taking notice of them etc

Generally for skills I try using same rule used for monster a.c.
Success sits between 50%-65%
If they have +70% to succeed I give it to them and just narrate them succeeding and continue with what's going on.

Anything less than 50% and it either needs to allow a few attempts or it'll be based off luck and generally when that happens and everyone's rolling to get it the person who put training into it etc might have a higher chance but when Joe the int dump stat palladin succeeds its bit disheartening

That's the 4e approach, and I don't like it. I don't want the difficulty of a static task to scale with the person attempting it. I want to have progress. I want the DC to represent the task itself and for things that were previously inaccessible (or only doable with great luck) to be more accessible as I level up.

My default DC is 10. 15 for things that "normal" people shouldn't be doing frequently. 20 for things that require a stroke of luck for a "normal" person. Yes, that means that the bard with expertise in persuasion and maxed charisma is going to do really well talking ot people. That's fine. He spent his class resources on it, he deserves success. Doesn't mean he'll be able to magically mind-control people--that's DC NO.

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 01:00 PM

What is important is that you know the chances of success for something when assigning the DC, not what it's called by the book.

This raises a fascinating question of DM philosophy. The game assigns descriptive terminology to specific DCs. Do DMs decide how difficult a task should be in those descriptive terms, and then set the corresponding DC (and thus the chances of success)? Or do DMs decide how difficult a task should be based on the chances of success, and then translate that DC into the book's descriptive terms?

Based on your post, it sounds like you are definitely in the latter camp, but I can see a decent argument that the designers intended the former, and I wouldn't be surprised if most DMs use that approach.

(At my table I just ignore the assigned descriptive terms all together, because ambiguities like this one (not to mention wildly different ideas (e.g.) of how hard "hard" should be) make the assigned terms problematic for communication.)

Right.

I think it comes from seeing things back to front. They're assigning a DC first as a world-simulation piece, instead of asking the threshold question:

Is it worth rolling for at all?
a) Is it possible? If not, auto-fail, no check needed.
b) If it's possible, does it have a meaningful chance of failure and are the consequences of failure interesting in a way that moves the narrative along and thus precludes trivial/cost-less rerolls? If not, auto-success, no check needed.

In regards to (b), I have seen disagreement in the past over whether "meaningful chance of failure" is intended to be based on the DM's assesment of chance of failure in the real world, or whether it is intended to be based on chance of failure in the game world. For those DMs who go with the latter interpretation, when a task is possible and there are meaningful consequences of failure they have to set a DC prior to determining if there is a meaningful chance of failure.

(Personally, I'm heavily biased towards determining difficulty in the real world, but I know I have a heavier simulationist bent than many DMs.)

EggKookoo

2019-02-03, 01:08 PM

Shuruke

2019-02-03, 01:15 PM

That's the 4e approach, and I don't like it. I don't want the difficulty of a static task to scale with the person attempting it. I want to have progress. I want the DC to represent the task itself and for things that were previously inaccessible (or only doable with great luck) to be more accessible as I level up.

My default DC is 10. 15 for things that "normal" people shouldn't be doing frequently. 20 for things that require a stroke of luck for a "normal" person. Yes, that means that the bard with expertise in persuasion and maxed charisma is going to do really well talking ot people. That's fine. He spent his class resources on it, he deserves success. Doesn't mean he'll be able to magically mind-control people--that's DC NO.

Oh no I'm not sure if I was making it seem like all task dcs go up just that the situations call for harder tasks as they get stronger as characters. Occasionally I throw in scenarios that they struggled with 5 levels ago only to realize its much easier now and it often leads to reflective RP about how them trying to thwart this x thing has slowly been getting them to learn etc over past few months.

And I completely agree with you if someone spends resources to do something they should feel good at it ^.^

I just kinda like the trope of the bbg constanly throwing things at players that he believes will be strong enough to kill them ez pz but through some luck and a strategy they get out of it with inch of their lives and the bbg turns it into a game of throwing things at them just to watch with scrying or etc

"Last time guarding the fort I had a electrified mote and a few flesh golems. I wonder what can I throw at them to watch them struggle like that again. Oh! OH! I know I can turn this spare room to be a pit with spikes at bottom and they gotta cross a bridge with swinging axe traps while fighting something incoporeal hmm. Well I have a few guards that have been disobeying lets make some ghosts."

All the while the bbg has a plan he is doing on the side involving taking over neighboring area and sure if he really wanted to he could just outright kill players if he later them a visit. But their his comedy central after long day of work

*note those were actual examples player had lots of fun with. And once they got to bbg it turned out to be a Batman v joker relationship and they constantly have to put him away followed by him eventually getting out because they refuse to kill him.*

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 01:21 PM

My experience has been that newer DMs are not forum hounds and mostly follow what's printed in the adventures. That's where most of the "dc 13 to climb a 6' high rock ledge" and "roll perception to hear a 30' high waterfall before going over it" sorts of things come from.

The 5e adventures I've read don't have that kind of "roll for the obvious/inconsequential", as far as I can recall. Then again it is only what I've read.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 01:25 PM

The 5e adventures I've read don't have that kind of "roll for the obvious/inconsequential", as far as I can recall. Then again it is only what I've read.

I've seen it a couple small times in PotA, but those were trivial and inconsequential things. I've seen it much more from new DMs who have the (false) notion that everything is governed by the dice and so you should roll for everything. It's a natural impulse, just a very bad one for game-play. I've also seen it from experienced 3e/PF DMs, for whom their system really does call for that bad practice.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 01:28 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 01:51 PM

I'll describe my personal, non-canon system for setting DCs (after answering the threshold questions). This has two variants--pre-consideration and ad hoc method. The ad hoc method is a super streamlined version of the formal method.

Definition: Average Joe (AJ) has a +0 total modifier in any task. Skilled amateur = +4 modifier (from any combination of ability score and proficiency). Peak Raw ability = +5 (no proficiency, straight ability check). Professional = +7 modifier from proficiency and ability scores. Expert = 11+ (usually requiring expertise).

I start by considering the task presented and how it fits the fiction.
1. Is this a task that the fictional setting demands should be routinely done by an average person (AJ)? If so, no check needed for anyone. Even a 5% chance of failure is too much, and heroes should be heroic.
2. If it's not routine, is it a task that AJ would struggle at and fail as much as succeed? Such a task should be Easy (but still have a chance of failure) for a skilled amateur or someone at peak ability. DC 10.
3. If a skilled amateur should, in fiction, struggle with this task, it should be easy (but still have a chance of failure) for a professional. DC 15.
4. If a professional should struggle at it (again, 50-50 shot), then it should be easy (but still have a chance of failure) for an expert. DC 20.
5. If an expert should have a crap-shoot and AJ should never be able to do it (even with super-good luck), it's a Very Hard task. DC 25.
6. If an expert should only be able to do it very rarely and a professional should never be able to do it (even with super-good luck), it's an Almost Impossible task. DC 30.

I then run a check based on the game level--since I'm running with mostly new players/teenagers and I want them to feel like they can try crazy things and have a chance of succeeding, I'll usually cut the difficulty down one tier. But that's purely meta-game.

The ad hoc version only considers DCs 10-20, and if I can't come up with an answer real darn fast, I'll default to either DC 10 (for more normal things) or DC 15 (for more out-of-the-box thinking).

KorvinStarmast

2019-02-03, 01:59 PM

That "only roll for things with a meaningful chance of failure" way of doing things throw off a lot of people, I get the impression. Yes, among those who bark and whinge about the skill check/ability check methodology in this edition.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 02:01 PM

This raises a fascinating question of DM philosophy. The game assigns descriptive terminology to specific DCs. Do DMs decide how difficult a task should be in those descriptive terms, and then set the corresponding DC (and thus the chances of success)? Or do DMs decide how difficult a task should be based on the chances of success, and then translate that DC into the book's descriptive terms?

Based on your post, it sounds like you are definitely in the latter camp, but I can see a decent argument that the designers intended the former, and I wouldn't be surprised if most DMs use that approach.

Well most of the time I go "how hard his this task? I'd say even trained professionals would struggle with it but not enough for it to have a majority of failure, so let's say DC 15".

(At my table I just ignore the assigned descriptive terms all together, because ambiguities like this one (not to mention wildly different ideas (e.g.) of how hard "hard" should be) make the assigned terms problematic for communication.)

More than fair.

In regards to (b), I have seen disagreement in the past over whether "meaningful chance of failure" is intended to be based on the DM's assesment of chance of failure in the real world, or whether it is intended to be based on chance of failure in the game world. For those DMs who go with the latter interpretation, when a task is possible and there are meaningful consequences of failure they have to set a DC prior to determining if there is a meaningful chance of failure.

(Personally, I'm heavily biased towards determining difficulty in the real world, but I know I have a heavier simulationist bent than many DMs.)

The real world doesn't really matter for assessment of chances of failure, only the in-context situation.

For example:

In one of their fortresses, orcs have a prison cell with a big steel door where they threw a captured Minotaur in, and then forced the PCs into it so the minotaur would kill them.

The DC for breaking the door off its hinges doesn't depend on the fact it's steel. But it stand to reason, since minotaurs are strong, that it's hard to break this door but it's also reasonable the orcs did a poor job crafting it given their typical metalworking skills. If the PCs try to break down the door while under attack from the minotaur, it may be DC 25.

On the other hand, if the PCs killed all the orcs in the fortresses and tried to open the door with all the time in the world, then they'd probably auto-succeed, because there is nothing to interrupt them and failing at doing it isn't interesting. Yet the door is still steel and the hinges still made to resist a minotaur's assaults.

Why the difference? Because in one case, failure has meaningful consequences, and in the other, the PCs just lose time when there is nothing threatening them.

A DM could also decide that the door is DC 30 to break down while during the minotaur's fight, or just impossible.

Meanwhile, if the PCs are held in a cage, but left without anyone to guard them, and want to get out, the DM could say that there is no meaningful chances of failure when doing so, and give them auto-success. Or decide it's a DC 10 and if they fail they'd waste enough time the guards would come back. It's still the same cage, though.

EggKookoo

2019-02-03, 02:37 PM

The ad hoc version only considers DCs 10-20, and if I can't come up with an answer real darn fast, I'll default to either DC 10 (for more normal things) or DC 15 (for more out-of-the-box thinking).

I do something similar. Basically I have hard, very hard, and nearly impossible. These are just flavor terms and not meant to convey probability. The DCs are 10, 15, and 20. I might bend these a bit, and use 12 or 17, but not normally, and there are circumstances where I just come up with an ad hoc DC essentially outside this categorization, especially for things past 20, but once it gets too high I tend to see it as something the PCs simply can't do. Likewise, if I feel like a task is easy enough to have the DC much below 10, I just let them do it, even right in the middle of combat. Basically if the task feels not too much more difficult than the examples given for Use an Object in the PHB, I assume the PC can do it without a check using their action.

It's easy to overthink DCs.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-03, 03:01 PM

The issue I always see is that dms usually adjust the dc of a skill to be hard depending on who is trying it.

Ex.

Trying to pick a lock on a door.

If a dex of 10 cleric who just happens to be proficient with thieves tools tries it it may be dc 15.

Same door same lock but a dex 18 rogue who has expertise in thieves tools tries it first, it is now dc 20.

Because, “it is supposed to be hard.”

Most dms I have ever seen makes sure it is always about a 30% chance to succeed no matter who is trying. So being trained or great at a skill is pretty pointless.

Tanarii

2019-02-03, 03:05 PM

This only works if you deny proficiency. But the DMG suggests letting players suggest a proficiency to apply and accepting what they suggest if they can give any reasonable reason why it would help. Including proficiency or expertise makes your suggested numbers trivial.The entire point of the 5e ability check system is checks shouldn't assume proficiency. If you do get proficiency, then you are better, and that's great. Working as intended.

And anyway, you're doing it back-to-front. You're letting the DC decide if you should bother rolling, when setting the DC only happens after you make that determination in the first place.No I'm not. The DMG says specifically that in the case of DC 5 Very Easy checks, usually you should skip the roll.

(Edit: I agree that you should decide success, failure, or roll first. But you've missed the point I was making apparently. DMG says if you decide it is DC 5 Very Easy, go backwards and just make it automatic. Which is silly. DC 5 is a 25% chance of failure baseline.)

The key to avoiding "only the top person rolls" is for the DM to actually ask a specific person for a check and not allow substitution. That's their job, to determine who rolls what. Spread the rolls out and don't let "I try too!". Every check, successful or failed, should move the narrative so that further attempts with the same tactic are pointless. If you can't find a way to do that with a particular task, don't roll for it. Just let it succeed.Of course the best method is to have the person doing the thing roll. That's my point.

But DMs are infamous of one-check-to-rule-them all rolls, especially for Intelligence and Charisma checks.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 03:07 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 03:19 PM

No I'm not. The DMG says specifically that in the case of DC 5 Very Easy checks, usually you should skip the roll.

(Edit: I agree that you should decide success, failure, or roll first. But you've missed the point I was making apparently. DMG says if you decide it is DC 5 Very Easy, go backwards and just make it automatic. Which is silly. DC 5 is a 25% chance of failure baseline.)

But it also says before it talks about setting DCs at all to decide if the check is worth doing. That is, the threshold questions must be answered before you call for a check in the first place (and thus are setting a DC). The part about DC 5 is that if you're tempted to say DC 5, you probably messed up the threshold question about having a meaningful chance of failure and should go back and revisit it.

Re: Proficiency--I'm AFB right now, but there's a part where it specifically instructs DMs to allow alternate proficiencies. So yes, you are free to say "no proficiency applies" if the task can not benefit from practice or training. But for the majority of cases, some proficiency might be appropriate and you should be generous in accepting different suggestions.

The next part is general, because I know you, Tanarii, understand it. It's for the other DMs who might not.

Re: One check to rule them all--that's a DM problem, not a system problem. It stems from players trying to call checks in a mechanics-first mindset rather than a proper flow of asking one person "what do you do" and then resolving (or postponing resolution) of their action. The character does not "make a STR check", the character "tries to break the bars". The character does not "make a Charisma (Persuasion) check" at a guard, the character talks to the guard with reason and tact, trying to get them to do something. The character does not "make an Intelligence (History) check", the character racks his brain to remember where they've seen that banner before. Etc.

Don't let other players jump in--the DM is in control of the game flow. And the "state the action/resolve the action" chunk of the basic flow is a conversation--nothing happens until you narrate the next part. You can defer resolution or ask specific people for checks based on their characters actions (or the actions of others) or based on their backgrounds, personalities, etc.

If more than one person wants to try something, I'll either go with a check at advantage (Help action, although I have both players roll but only add the modifier of the person actually doing the task), or I'll ask each character for a different, related check (most common for Intelligence ones, where History, Arcana, Nature, and Religion all may give a different piece of information about the topic at hand), or I'll do a group check (50% must pass). The last is most common for social scenarios, where multiple people talking can screw things up for everyone.

Tanarii

2019-02-03, 03:23 PM

The answer to the question of how hard is Hard DC 20:

- its something anyone can do given ten times as long, provide it's possible to do.

- it's something that a level 1 with no natural talent/training (ability score) nor focus (proficiency) can only pull off as a Hail Mary under pressure: 5% success

- It's something that a level 1 with strong talent/training and focus (+4) will fail often: 25% success

- it's something a level 5 with strong talent/training and focus (+6) will still fail often, a crap shoot: 35% success

- it's something that a level 5 Expert with a Bard AND Cleric cheerleaders (+11 to +21, avg +16) can pull off pretty reliably: 60-100% success, avg 85%

Zaharra

2019-02-03, 03:27 PM

A good rule of thumb is
When asking for a check ask whoever has in this order

: background pertaining to skill in this context and expertise.
: background and proficiency in skill
: proficiency in skill or a class that makes sense for check to be attempted. Arcane casters can attempt arcana when not proficient, religion can be attempted by cleric and Paladin, nature by barbarian druid and ranger etc.

My players have slowly learned that only the person asked is doing the check because it has to do with background or etc.

Generally I also gice advantage if they have the background and skill both making sense for the check just because it makes the background options feel more interwoven into game

One of my DMs does this, sometimes even if we're proficient, if it doesn't fit with the narrative and background for the character we just can't succeed. As long as it works out fairly in the end I don't have any issues with this approach, but the DM needs to watch out for favoritism

Tanarii

2019-02-03, 03:34 PM

But it also says before it talks about setting DCs at all to decide if the check is worth doing. That is, the threshold questions must be answered before you call for a check in the first place (and thus are setting a DC). The part about DC 5 is that if you're tempted to say DC 5, you probably messed up the threshold question about having a meaningful chance of failure and should go back and revisit it.

Re: Proficiency--I'm AFB right now, but there's a part where it specifically instructs DMs to allow alternate proficiencies. So yes, you are free to say "no proficiency applies" if the task can not benefit from practice or training. But for the majority of cases, some proficiency might be appropriate and you should be generous in accepting different suggestions.despite what I said about proficiencies, I double baseline when I set DCs. Basically when I have to ad-hoc a DC for something that would be a challenge, I think "is this something a untrained person can only do 50% of the time, or a skilled level 1?". That's DC 10 or DC 15.

But I also like to throw in a fair number of other more minor checks to make other ability scores relevant. Not falling off a chair checks, but something between "challenge" and "auto success", and also with lesser consequences for failure. Those I make DC 5, because they often hit -1 to +2 stats, with no proficiency.

So my feeling on the matter is because I like to use checks a lot and spread them around. If you're like me and going to call for checks under pressure often and they will have some consequences, I can't over do it with the DCs.

In short: I apologizing for getting a little holier than thou because of the specifics of my DMing style. :smallyuk:

The next part is general, because I know you, Tanarii, understand it. It's for the other DMs who might not.Even understanding it, it's hard to avoid, especially if you're like me and you had slowly slid into that approach with earlier editions. :smallamused:

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 03:37 PM

despite what I said about proficiencies, I double baseline when I set DCs. Basically when I have to ad-hoc a DC for something that would be a challenge, I think "is this something a untrained person can only do 50% of the time, or a skilled level 1?". That's DC 10 or DC 15.

But I also like to throw in a fair number of other more minor checks to make other ability scores relevant. Not falling off a chair checks, but something between "challenge" and "auto success", and also with lesser consequences for failure. Those I make DC 5, because they often hit -1 to +2 stats, with no proficiency.

So my feeling on the matter is because I like to use checks a lot and spread them around. If you're like me and going to call for checks under pressure often and they will have some consequences, I can't over do it with the DCs.

In short: I apologizing for getting a little holier than thou because of the specifics of my DMing style. :smallyuk:

Even understanding it, it's hard to avoid, especially if you're like me and you had slowly slid into that approach with earlier editions. :smallamused:

That's fair. My personal style is to slim things down where possible--I prefer to let the fiction control 90% of the time. That means I don't call for many checks at all. I do vary them quite a lot--I call for lots of Intelligence checks on the fly, for example. Most of those are degrees-of-success, however, because I like giving information and watching what they do with it.

Telok

2019-02-03, 05:29 PM

The 5e adventures I've read don't have that kind of "roll for the obvious/inconsequential", as far as I can recall. Then again it is only what I've read.

Out of the Abyss and both Hoard of the Dragon Queen books. One of them has a check to succeed at walking up a 25 degree gravel slope. Another has a check to climb the exterior wall of a wooden hunting lodge to reach a 2nd floor window out of combat. If I recall correctly there's also a check to open an unlocked barn door, again not involving combat.

Theodoric

2019-02-03, 05:40 PM

Out of the Abyss and both Hoard of the Dragon Queen books.
Those are very early books, especially the two Tyranny of Dragons ones, which were written by a non-WOTC study based on non-final rules.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 05:42 PM

Those are very early books, especially the two Tyranny of Dragons ones, which were written by a non-WOTC study based on non-final rules.

I was going to say just this. Early adventures often screw up. Tyranny of Dragons is especially known for it. Which is one reason it's one of the less-well-regarded adventures.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 07:03 PM

Nevertheless, we should acknowledge it is a screwup of a 5e adventure and that it may give DMs incorrect assumptions on how the game work. Especially if it's their first module.

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 10:47 PM

Out of the Abyss and both Hoard of the Dragon Queen books. One of them has a check to succeed at walking up a 25 degree gravel slope. Another has a check to climb the exterior wall of a wooden hunting lodge to reach a 2nd floor window out of combat. If I recall correctly there's also a check to open an unlocked barn door, again not involving combat.

To be fair, the angle of repose of coarse, medium gravel is only 25-30 degrees. So at 25 degrees it's a barely-stable surface. Trying to walk up such a slope is likely to be nearly impossible because the gravel will immediately start sliding the moment you put your weight on it.

ad_hoc

2019-02-03, 10:57 PM

Checks are only called for when:

1. The outcome is in doubt
2. There is a consequence for failure
3. It is interesting (this applies to everything in the game...)

The vast majority of tasks a PC may go about doing will just succeed.

Out of the Abyss and both Hoard of the Dragon Queen books. One of them has a check to succeed at walking up a 25 degree gravel slope. Another has a check to climb the exterior wall of a wooden hunting lodge to reach a 2nd floor window out of combat. If I recall correctly there's also a check to open an unlocked barn door, again not involving combat.

How do you know it doesn't involve combat?

Malifice

2019-02-03, 11:28 PM

Telok

2019-02-03, 11:52 PM

To be fair, the angle of repose of coarse, medium gravel is only 25-30 degrees. So at 25 degrees it's a barely-stable surface. Trying to walk up such a slope is likely to be nearly impossible because the gravel will immediately start sliding the moment you put your weight on it.

To be fair I live in an area with active gravel pits. Everyone I've talked to who has actually been in a gravel pit has called BS when that check was pointed out to them. Normal people are slowed by walking up gravel slopes of that incline, they don't slide to the bottom more than half the time.

No. I'll accept that the first year or two of adventures were badly written by people who didn't bother to read any version of the DMG. I don't accept that heroic adventurers are supposed to regularly fail tasks that normal people do every day.

Malifice

2019-02-04, 12:02 AM

Depends on the gravel.

Here in WA Australia all our tracks are covered in washouts and pea gravel. That stuff is basically millions of tiny red ball bearings made of stone.

Dirt bike riding on it's a nightmare.

Its not a question of 'if' you come off your bike, it's a question of 'when.'

Pex

2019-02-04, 12:06 AM

I've seen it a couple small times in PotA, but those were trivial and inconsequential things. I've seen it much more from new DMs who have the (false) notion that everything is governed by the dice and so you should roll for everything. It's a natural impulse, just a very bad one for game-play. I've also seen it from experienced 3e/PF DMs, for whom their system really does call for that bad practice.

3E/Pathfinder specifically allows the player to choose to Take 10/20 allowing for autosuccess, alleviating the need for the DM to decide whether or not something needs a roll. The default at its base is everything is rolled, but Take 10/20 is in place of the roll. 5E has the DM decide everything with different DMs deciding differently so what doesn't need a roll for one DM needs a roll but is easy for another DM and needs a roll but is hard for a third DM and so on. I call that bad practice.

Xetheral

2019-02-04, 12:08 AM

To be fair I live in an area with active gravel pits. Everyone I've talked to who has actually been in a gravel pit has called BS when that check was pointed out to them. Normal people are slowed by walking up gravel slopes of that incline, they don't slide to the bottom more than half the time.

No. I'll accept that the first year or two of adventures were badly written by people who didn't bother to read any version of the DMG. I don't accept that heroic adventurers are supposed to regularly fail tasks that normal people do every day.

It's possible that the gravel in your area has a steeper angle of repose (compacted, moist sandy gravel can be up to 45 degrees) or that the pits near you have a shallower slope. To my understanding (which could be flawed) it is physically impossible to walk up a slope of loose material that is at its angle of repose.

ad_hoc

2019-02-04, 12:09 AM

No. I'll accept that the first year or two of adventures were badly written by people who didn't bother to read any version of the DMG. I don't accept that heroic adventurers are supposed to regularly fail tasks that normal people do every day.

HotDQ was written before the DMG.

It was released with the PHB and MM so it would have been written while that was still being finalized as well.

And yes, you're right. The vast majority of tasks are just completed successfully unless the pressure is on and there is an exciting consequence for failure.

BreaktheStatue

2019-02-04, 12:11 AM

Pex

2019-02-04, 12:13 AM

Task DCs are set around the guidelines of 'is there a consequence for failure, and is this task something that a hero could reasonably fail.'

Climbing a rope or a tree might have a consequence for failure, but there is no reasonable prospect of failure. There is no DC for this task; it just happens.

An 'Easy' task is one that your average Adult human, in reasonable physical and mental shape, fails 50 percent of the time.

Your general task DC is 5E (or for when you're stumped) seems to hover around the DC 15 mark.

Until another DM disagrees with you such that there is a reasonable prospect of failure, so it doesn't just happen and he sets a DC for the task. What that DC is will differ among the DMs. Some people think this is a wonderful thing. I do not.

Malifice

2019-02-04, 12:38 AM

Until another DM disagrees with you such that there is a reasonable prospect of failure, so it doesn't just happen and he sets a DC for the task. What that DC is will differ among the DMs. Some people think this is a wonderful thing. I do not.

Thats exactly the same as in every other system.

Some DMs will call a task Hard, and others Medium. It's always down to a subjective DMs call. You need faith in your DM to get it right, and most of the time we do (we are human and can and do make mistakes though).

The DM is in the best position to make the call on DCs for tasks.

The only other way to do it would be to list literally every single DC for every convievable task for every skill in the game. Not even Crunch heavy games like Rolemaster or 3.P did that. They'd give you a small list for each skill with rough DCs, and even then all this did was necessitate constant book referral. The DM still had to make frequent calls on setting DCs.

Yes, even in 3.5.

Having a single list of (easy to remember) set of DCs and a basic guideline for the DM to follow is infinitely better.

What is with your hostility towards DMs mate? I hope you're not like that at the table.

ad_hoc

2019-02-04, 01:59 AM

"Over-rolling," or calling for too many unnecessary rolls is partially a DM issue, but I think a large part of the problem is player-driven.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you've built a skill monkey (or a PC who is REALLY good at one thing), it's tempting not to ask for more rolls than necessary.

That's why it is important to make it clear to a player that they don't ask to make ability checks and they don't 'use skills'. They just say what their character is doing.

In my experience 3e players have a very difficult time internalizing this while I have found new players pick up on it straight away.

Malifice

2019-02-04, 02:27 AM

BurgerBeast

2019-02-04, 03:46 AM

It seems to me that people really are not giving significant weight to the “only roll if...” set of conditions.

Even hard tasks should always succeed when attempted by an average Joe (+0) because he’ll just keep trying until he rolls a twenty.

The point is that every time the DM calls for a roll, it’s freaking clutch. Think of a horror movie where the protagonist runs to the car to get away, and then fumbles to find the keys, to select the correct key, and then put the key in the ignition.

What is going on here? Well, the character is attempting a trivially easy task under extremely stressful conditions. This is an auto-success in everyday life that never fails over thousands of attempts.

But what about right now, when the monster is about to eat you and your child? Make a roll. DC 5. You have a (80-100%) chance of success. But even a 5% chance of watching a T-Rex get one attack against your 8-year old child can be nerve-wracking. (Racking?)

- - -

The only other thing I noticed is the comment about a failed climb check having the consequence of damage from the fall. This one (in one form or another) always gets me because I think of all the times I misapplied thief skills back in the 2e days and I feel embarrassed. Failing to climb a 60 ft wall does not suggest a 60 ft fall, or any fall, for that matter. Failing to climb a wall means you never made it to the top. There is no need to invent an additional negative consequence. Not being at the top (and being unable to get there) is the negative consequence of failure.

Pelle

2019-02-04, 05:29 AM

That's why it is important to make it clear to a player that they don't ask to make ability checks and they don't 'use skills'. They just say what their character is doing.

In my experience 3e players have a very difficult time internalizing this while I have found new players pick up on it straight away.

Agreed, but I do have some sympathy for it. Often when players do that, it's a short hand. When they want to roll perception, everyone understands they are looking around for stuff, the intent and approach is relatively clear from the context. Abbreviating here doesn't cause problems, everyone has more or less the same mental image. This habit becomes really annoying when it's not so clear, though, or when people can interpret the action differently.

Unoriginal

2019-02-04, 05:48 AM

Agreed, but I do have some sympathy for it. Often when players do that, it's a short hand. When they want to roll perception, everyone understands they are looking around for stuff, the intent and approach is relatively clear from the context. Abbreviating here doesn't cause problems, everyone has more or less the same mental image. This habit becomes really annoying when it's not so clear, though, or when people can interpret the action differently.

Reminds me how the Rogue's player in my group was surprised I called for an INT (Investigation) check when they asked to search the rooms of a building for secret passages.

Chronos

2019-02-04, 09:37 AM

Quoth PhoenixPhyre:

This is a fundamental misperception of what an Ability Check means in 5e and what they're there for. If there's no meaningful chance of failure, you should not be rolling at all.
But how do you determine if there's "no meaningful chance for failure", given characters with different skill levels? In the real world, there are tasks that are so easy for some people that there's no meaningful chance for failure, but other people have no meaningful chance of success. But given the small range of variability in 5e skills, there is no DC that makes that happen. If you want some feat of legerdemain, say, to be trivially easy for the level 10 rogue (+5 dex, proficiency and expertise in Sleight of Hand, total +13) but nigh-impossible for the cleric (-1 dex, no proficiency), the only way to do it is to say by fiat that it's not worth rolling for the rogue but impossible for the cleric. But those aren't the only two in the party: What if the rest of the party has scores of +9, +6, and +2? Is it trivial or impossible for them? Or do they get to roll the dice and take their chances? At what level of skill do you transition from "you can't, don't bother trying" to "you have a chance, roll the dice", and at what level of skill do you transition from "roll the dice" to "don't bother, you've got this"? Whatever that amount of skill bonus is, it makes a huge difference to the game, and something that important really ought to be in the rules.

And that's just scratching the surface. 10 (which I used for my example) is pretty high level: Is it possible to have a task like this at level 5, or at level 1? Plus, in the real world, not only are there tasks that vary from guaranteed to impossible depending on skill level, but there are multiple layers of such tasks: It's possible for B to be able to do some task trivially that A can't even attempt, but then there's another task in the same field that's essentially impossible for B, but trivial for C.

Unoriginal

2019-02-04, 09:56 AM

But how do you determine if there's "no meaningful chance for failure", given characters with different skill levels?

The "no meaningful chance of failure" is "no meaningful chance of failure FOR ANYONE".

A STR 8 wizard might have more troubles at climbing a rope than a STR 24 Barbarian, but the neither the chances of failure nor the failure itself are meaningful, outside of a stressful situation like having to escape a wave of lava.

5e PCs are adventurers, they know adventuring.

EggKookoo

2019-02-04, 10:15 AM

The "no meaningful chance of failure" is "no meaningful chance of failure FOR ANYONE".

A STR 8 wizard might have more troubles at climbing a rope than a STR 24 Barbarian, but the neither the chances of failure nor the failure itself are meaningful, outside of a stressful situation like having to escape a wave of lava.

5e PCs are adventurers, they know adventuring.

I think the concept is more a meaningful consequence of failure rather than a meaningful chance of failure. And this consequence is typically temporal -- it has to manifest almost immediately upon failure. The example of a rogue taking an hour to pick a lock that's just sitting there implies the rogue may "try and fail" a number of times before finally getting it. Each fail has no interesting consequence, so the rogue just keeps going, and unless it's some Legendary Nigh-Unpickable Lock, he's eventually going to do it. So the DM just says the rogue opens the lock without making the player make a bunch of pointless rolls, and at most informs the players of how long it took (you could maybe have the rogue roll to determine that, if it mattered).

Compared to the rogue who has to pick the lock before the room fills up with water in three rounds. In that case the rogue has to roll with each attempt, once per round. What changed isn't that the lock is suddenly harder to pick. It's that we need to know that the rogue can pick it within those three rounds. The chances of him picking the lock don't change -- the consequence of each failure is now meaningful.

Unoriginal

2019-02-04, 10:24 AM

Both meaningful chances of failure and meaningful consequences for failure are taken into account, yes.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 10:54 AM

But how do you determine if there's "no meaningful chance for failure", given characters with different skill levels? In the real world, there are tasks that are so easy for some people that there's no meaningful chance for failure, but other people have no meaningful chance of success. But given the small range of variability in 5e skills, there is no DC that makes that happen. If you want some feat of legerdemain, say, to be trivially easy for the level 10 rogue (+5 dex, proficiency and expertise in Sleight of Hand, total +13) but nigh-impossible for the cleric (-1 dex, no proficiency), the only way to do it is to say by fiat that it's not worth rolling for the rogue but impossible for the cleric. But those aren't the only two in the party: What if the rest of the party has scores of +9, +6, and +2? Is it trivial or impossible for them? Or do they get to roll the dice and take their chances? At what level of skill do you transition from "you can't, don't bother trying" to "you have a chance, roll the dice", and at what level of skill do you transition from "roll the dice" to "don't bother, you've got this"? Whatever that amount of skill bonus is, it makes a huge difference to the game, and something that important really ought to be in the rules.

And that's just scratching the surface. 10 (which I used for my example) is pretty high level: Is it possible to have a task like this at level 5, or at level 1? Plus, in the real world, not only are there tasks that vary from guaranteed to impossible depending on skill level, but there are multiple layers of such tasks: It's possible for B to be able to do some task trivially that A can't even attempt, but then there's another task in the same field that's essentially impossible for B, but trivial for C.

Don't think about the numbers at this stage. The numbers don't exist yet. Think about the fiction. If, in context of the characters and their environment, the action either should not fail for the person doing the check* often enough to worry about (fluke failures) or would only have boring consequences for failure, don't roll a check. Or if it's an essential-to-the-adventure task, just let it succeed.

Yes, that's loose. Because it depends on the world, the task, the situation, and the characters. That's your job, to make the hard calls. The payoff is that you avoid absurd cases and exploits. I don't want a cumbersome process of trying to "calculate" the right DC and use numerical thresholds because that way leads to homogenization and corner cases. I trust DMs to do the right thing, and want my players to trust me to do the right thing. What is right will depend on the situation, so hard and fast rules are just not a possibility (for me).

* You're generally asking one player to make a single check (even if you then ask a different player to make a check for the same situation). For ease of play, I ask everyone to make the check if anyone could reasonably fail it and it has interesting consequences. But that's not a rule issue, that's just streamlining.

Pex

2019-02-04, 01:02 PM

Thats exactly the same as in every other system.

Some DMs will call a task Hard, and others Medium. It's always down to a subjective DMs call. You need faith in your DM to get it right, and most of the time we do (we are human and can and do make mistakes though).

The DM is in the best position to make the call on DCs for tasks.

The only other way to do it would be to list literally every single DC for every convievable task for every skill in the game. Not even Crunch heavy games like Rolemaster or 3.P did that. They'd give you a small list for each skill with rough DCs, and even then all this did was necessitate constant book referral. The DM still had to make frequent calls on setting DCs.

Yes, even in 3.5.

Having a single list of (easy to remember) set of DCs and a basic guideline for the DM to follow is infinitely better.

What is with your hostility towards DMs mate? I hope you're not like that at the table.

The DCs are set in 3E by the skill tables. Where it can vary is done by formulas or specific modifiers for conditions. What the DM decides is to place a Thing or some other Thing. The character's ability to succeed in the task is based on the player's choices in allocation of skill points. Take 10/Take 20 sets the autosuccess meter for when a character is just that good.

ad_hoc

2019-02-04, 01:20 PM

This might be a helpful way of looking at it:

Ask yourself, "would it be exciting for the outcome to be in doubt if a hero in an action movie attempted to do this."

If the answer to that question is no then the character automatically succeeds (unless there is no chance for success and then there is no roll either).

If it isn't dramatic and fun in an action movie, it isn't at the table either.

Move on.

Tanarii

2019-02-04, 02:58 PM

The DCs are set in 3E by the skill tables.
Last time I brought this up, someone argued they were merely extended examples, and like 5e, the 3e DMG made it clear the DM chooses the DC, and is not actually beholden to the tables in any way.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 03:28 PM

Last time I brought this up, someone argued they were merely extended examples, and like 5e, the 3e DMG made it clear the DM chooses the DC, and is not actually beholden to the tables in any way.

Which is trivially true, since no printed rule set can bind actual people unless they choose to be bound :smalltongue:

EggKookoo

2019-02-04, 03:32 PM

Which is trivially true, since no printed rule set can bind actual people unless they choose to be bound :smalltongue:

What's the DC for a beaver to chew through an axe handle in two rounds? If the rules don't list one, what do you do?

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 03:44 PM

What's the DC for a beaver to chew through an axe handle in two rounds? If the rules don't list one, what do you do?

Beavers are NPCs. Thus they chew at the speed of the plot. Done.

Astofel

2019-02-04, 04:03 PM

Yeah I never understood "but the 3.5 skill tables!" argument about why 5e's skill system sucks. The skill tables are just a middleman. For example:
-A 5e DM puts a door in his dungeon. He wants it to be hard to break down, so he decides it takes a DC 20 Strength check to break down. He then decides that the door is made of solid iron/magically reinforced/anything really, it doesn't actually matter.
-A 3.5e DM puts a door in his dungeon. He wants it to be hard to break down, so he looks through the tables to find a type of door that has a high DC to break down. He finds that a solid iron door is DC 20 so he uses that. Or he finds that a wooden door that is magic also has DC 20 so he uses that. Or he finds that an adamantium door that has been somehow corroded is DC 20 so he uses that. It doesn't actually matter what the type of door he uses is.

The point is that when a DM is deciding what kind of challenge they want in their game, they decide how difficult they want it to be independently of what form the challenge takes. In both examples, the door is DC 20 because that is how hard the DM wanted it to be, not because of any property of the door, or any table in the game. That gets decided afterwards, often because players like demanding justification for how hard things are, especially in 3.5.

To me, the main benefit of skill tables is showing what a 'Hard Task' might actually look like, instead of describing it in terms of 'a character with a proficiency mod of x and an ability score of y has a Z% chance of succeeding.' If the 5e DMG said something like 'an example of a Hard Strength check is breaking down a door of solid iron' I suspect that would absolve the 5e skill 'issue' somewhat, as DMs could now look at a task and deduce whether it should be easier or harder than breaking an iron door and set DCs accordingly.

Unoriginal

2019-02-04, 04:07 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 04:19 PM

But 5e doesn't have a "breaking a door of solid iron is DC 20" mindset.

Some solid iron doors will be DC 15. Others will be 20. Others still will be 25, or 17.

It's not "this door is made of solid iron, it must be of DC 20". It's "I need a door that's hard to break, let's say DC 20. And I'll say it's made of solid iron, or maybe reinforced oak wood... nah, the iron fits better."

Or "this culture tends to use a solid iron door. They're got good craftsmanship and this one's been kept up well, so breaking it down will be Hard (DC 20)." Another solid iron door might be from a poor craftsmanship area or have internal weaknesses (not visible to the PCs at all), so DC 15. Or 10, if the hinges are poor or the latch sucks.

Not all iron doors are the same. And the table-first approach mandates that there exists some platonic ideal of an iron door (to which we apply modifiers). And that's just not true.

EggKookoo

2019-02-04, 04:24 PM

Beavers are NPCs. Thus they chew at the speed of the plot. Done.

There's a druid over there raising his hand (paw?).

GlenSmash!

2019-02-04, 04:28 PM

What's the DC for a beaver to chew through an axe handle in two rounds? If the rules don't list one, what do you do?

Beavers are NPCs. Thus they chew at the speed of the plot. Done.

Now if it's a druid in beaver form. That's a different story.

Still I wouldn't set a DC until I had described the scenario to the player and heard their approach.

Astofel

2019-02-04, 04:30 PM

But 5e doesn't have a "breaking a door of solid iron is DC 20" mindset.

Some solid iron doors will be DC 15. Others will be 20. Others still will be 25, or 17.

It's not "this door is made of solid iron, it must be of DC 20". It's "I need a door that's hard to break, let's say DC 20. And I'll say it's made of solid iron, or maybe reinforced oak wood... nah, the iron fits better."

For what it's worth, I agree with you. As my post said, the decision on the difficulty of the challenge usually comes before the decision on what the challenge is. The difference between 5e and 3.5e is that in 5e the DM gets to decide what the challenge looks like, while in 3.5e the DM has to match their DC to an entry on a table. They can't just decide or their players will lynch them. (What do you mean a 20 doesn't break down this iron door? Sourcebook X clearly says that iron doors are DC 20 to break down! etc.)

But I do think that some description of what a Hard check might look like beyond the statistical would be helpful to a lot of people. Percentages are harder to visualise than concrete descriptions.

EggKookoo

2019-02-04, 04:57 PM

Now if it's a druid in beaver form. That's a different story.

Still I wouldn't set a DC until I had described the scenario to the player and heard their approach.

A player of mine, who DMs his own game, had that actually happen. I don't recall all the details but one party member was grappling with an NPC, and the druid took the opportunity to chew through the NPC's wooden axe handle. The DM more or less just let him do it, but I brought it up as an example of how you can't possibly have a set DC for everything. Basically, reinforcing Tanarii's (I think unintended) support for the notion that 3e's DC charts were just extended examples.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 05:07 PM

What's the DC for a beaver to chew through an axe handle in two rounds? If the rules don't list one, what do you do?

A player of mine, who DMs his own game, had that actually happen. I don't recall all the details but one party member was grappling with an NPC, and the druid took the opportunity to chew through the NPC's wooden axe handle. The DM more or less just let him do it, but I brought it up as an example of how you can't possibly have a set DC for everything. Basically, reinforcing Tanarii's (I think unintended) support for the notion that 3e's DC charts were just extended examples.

The more I think about this, the more I think my first (flippant) response is right for both PCs and NPCs. No roll, either success or failure based on circumstances. To expand, let's consider the properties of the problem:

* It's a continuous, incremental process that happens at a constant rate.
* There is very little room for random effects--either the beaver can do it or it can't.
* It depends on the details (what is the axe handle made of? What's the thickness? What are the consequences of failing?

I'd say it just happens, with possibly a degrees-of-success CON or STR check to determine how much of a margin you have. If it's made of something like ironwood, then it just doesn't happen, no matter how long (in reasonable increments anyway) they spend.

But I do think that some description of what a Hard check might look like beyond the statistical would be helpful to a lot of people. Percentages are harder to visualise than concrete descriptions.

As we see from the 3e tables, the descriptive becomes normative quite quickly. People read "For example, breaking down an iron door is usually hard" as "breaking iron door = Hard, always". I teach students--this is a huge issue. They take examples as definitive and exclusive. And what's Hard in your world might be Moderate (or Impossible!) in mine. This is especially true once we move away from simple physical checks that have analogs in the real world. How hard is it to know about a kobold? In the FR, not very (as they're pretty common). In my setting? Basically impossible unless you've met one, since they're hidden in one small village in the backwoods of one small nation and have never existed up to about 2 years ago.

EggKookoo

2019-02-04, 05:50 PM

The more I think about this, the more I think my first (flippant) response is right for both PCs and NPCs. No roll, either success or failure based on circumstances. To expand, let's consider the properties of the problem:

* It's a continuous, incremental process that happens at a constant rate.
* There is very little room for random effects--either the beaver can do it or it can't.
* It depends on the details (what is the axe handle made of? What's the thickness? What are the consequences of failing?

I'd say it just happens, with possibly a degrees-of-success CON or STR check to determine how much of a margin you have. If it's made of something like ironwood, then it just doesn't happen, no matter how long (in reasonable increments anyway) they spend.

I would almost certainly do the same. My question about the DC was facetious. At most I might declare that the druid can't do it in one round but could opt to weaken the axe in that time so the next time the NPC used it, it broke. If the druid was willing to sacrifice a second round chewing, they'd get through the handle, or near enough that it effectively ruined the weapon.

I'd probably also award inspiration for it, but only the first time. If the druid kept trying it they'd find axe handles sheathed in metal. I mean, word gets around, right?

GlenSmash!

2019-02-04, 06:16 PM

A player of mine, who DMs his own game, had that actually happen. I don't recall all the details but one party member was grappling with an NPC, and the druid took the opportunity to chew through the NPC's wooden axe handle. The DM more or less just let him do it, but I brought it up as an example of how you can't possibly have a set DC for everything. Basically, reinforcing Tanarii's (I think unintended) support for the notion that 3e's DC charts were just extended examples.

That all checks out for me.

If I were DMing, since a fighting axe has a thinner handle than a woodcutting axe I would set lower DC. I'd also give situational advantage for being a Beaver. Out of combat no check is necessary.

On success the axe handle brakes, on a fail it takes bite damage.

And I'd love it if my players tried doing something this simple yet creative.

Pex

2019-02-04, 07:55 PM

5E does have rules for a wooden axe handle, though admittedly they are hard to fine. The AC to hit it is 15 and it has 10 hit points taken from average of 3d6, maybe 5 hit points taken from average 2d4 depending on the size of the handle. The beaver or druid in beaver form thus makes an attack roll against the AC and deals bite damage against the hit points.

DMG pages 246 and 247, tables given for listed AC and hit points of objects. The concept of having defined example benchmarks is not a foreign nor verboten concept of 5E rules. I just prefer they extended it to skills.

Chronos

2019-02-04, 08:13 PM

Quoth unoriginal:

The "no meaningful chance of failure" is "no meaningful chance of failure FOR ANYONE".
So how do you create a task that's easy for one character but hard for another?

As for the beaver example, surely that'd be attacks against the axe, and it'd take as many rounds as it takes bite damage rolls to add up to the axe's HP. Maybe give the beaver some sort of bonus, for beavers being especially good at attacking wood.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 08:28 PM

So how do you create a task that's easy for one character but hard for another?

As for the beaver example, surely that'd be attacks against the axe, and it'd take as many rounds as it takes bite damage rolls to add up to the axe's HP. Maybe give the beaver some sort of bonus, for beavers being especially good at attacking wood.

Why would you? Make tasks that fit the world/situation, let the players worry about who does it. But if you must...choose something that the first player is good at and the second isn't?

And why would you run something like that as a series of attack rolls and damage rolls when it doesn't really matter? Remember, he had 2 minutes to bite through the thing. That's an eternity for attack rolls. Just narrate it already. No sense wasting everyone's time. He's already spent the resource to go wildshape, so what's the point of wasting more time? Oops, misread that. So yes, if you're already in combat order, attack rolls seem fitting. But a beaver's bite (do beavers have stat blocks?) should do much more damage against a wood handle than just 1d6 (or whatever). That's kinda their specialty. I'd say it's a fait accompli, especially since he spent the resource. If he tried to break it with a weapon, sure. Do attack and damage rolls.

EggKookoo

2019-02-04, 08:42 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 08:45 PM

Just for clarity, the "2 rounds" thing was me, not what happened in the game. I think the DM just declared it done. The NPC was busy grappling the druid's buddy, so the axe was effectively unattended (at least in the DM's opinion). I wasn't there, so there could have been more context for it, but that was the gist of it.

And that sounds right. You have
* a specialized form that spends a scarce resource (wildshape uses for a totally weak form)
* An unattended object that's not special
* No direct opposition (you're not trying to bite it while it's in someone's hands.

I'd call that a total waste of my time if the DM made me roll for it, especially if I missed. It's a beaver, biting through things that big is what they do. It's like making the baker roll for kneading the dough. No reasonable chance of failure, so auto-success.

patchyman

2019-02-04, 09:55 PM

So how do you create a task that's easy for one character but hard for another?

For some rolls, a character can only attempt a check if they have proficiency (or if their background suggests they could do it even if they didn't have proficiency). I don't care how dextrous your character is, he is just not going to successfully perform surgery without having the Medecine skill.

Unoriginal

2019-02-04, 09:56 PM

So how do you create a task that's easy for one character but hard for another?

DCs are not character dependent. If a task is done effortlessly by one and can hardly be done by another, it depends on their ability mods and their proficiencies.

If A is wiser than B, they're likely to be better at Wisdom checks than B. Doesn't mean B won't ever have a better WIS check, just that its not likely.

Otherwise, yes, like you sai, you could rules out things like "anyone with proficiency in Religion knows that".

Or you can give Advantage to one and Disadvantage to the other.

Xetheral

2019-02-04, 11:04 PM

Yeah I never understood "but the 3.5 skill tables!" argument about why 5e's skill system sucks. The skill tables are just a middleman. For example:
-A 5e DM puts a door in his dungeon. He wants it to be hard to break down, so he decides it takes a DC 20 Strength check to break down. He then decides that the door is made of solid iron/magically reinforced/anything really, it doesn't actually matter.
-A 3.5e DM puts a door in his dungeon. He wants it to be hard to break down, so he looks through the tables to find a type of door that has a high DC to break down. He finds that a solid iron door is DC 20 so he uses that. Or he finds that a wooden door that is magic also has DC 20 so he uses that. Or he finds that an adamantium door that has been somehow corroded is DC 20 so he uses that. It doesn't actually matter what the type of door he uses is.

The point is that when a DM is deciding what kind of challenge they want in their game, they decide how difficult they want it to be independently of what form the challenge takes.

This isn't true for every DM. I usually don't care how difficult a particular check is. I care only that the mechanical difficulty of the check corresponds to the players' expectations for how difficult the check would be (unless there is a reason for the check to be more or less difficult than it appears). It's easier to pick a DC that matches the players' expectations when both DM and players are working from a common set of examples. In this way, example DCs are a useful communication took.

Sigreid

2019-02-04, 11:10 PM

The DCs are set in 3E by the skill tables. Where it can vary is done by formulas or specific modifiers for conditions. What the DM decides is to place a Thing or some other Thing. The character's ability to succeed in the task is based on the player's choices in allocation of skill points. Take 10/Take 20 sets the autosuccess meter for when a character is just that good.

My experience with 3.x was that skill check DCs went up at the same rate I could get my skills up because DMs always want it to be a "challenge". Which is contrary to why I had a rouge invest very heavily in a few skills.

Pex

2019-02-05, 09:14 AM

My experience with 3.x was that skill check DCs went up at the same rate I could get my skills up because DMs always want it to be a "challenge". Which is contrary to why I had a rouge invest very heavily in a few skills.

A common problem in any edition and built in on purpose in 4E. I do give credit to 5E that the rules tell the DM it's ok for PCs to be able to do things just because they want to, but some DMs won't do it. They can't get past the concept that not everything needs a chance of failure. For my regular readers I'm not talking about "tyrannical DMs". It's general thinking that fun equals overcoming challenges. What they miss is that overcoming the challenge is the adventure arc, not every specific thing a player wants to do.

I think a future hypothetical DMG needs to be more explicit in its wording about this.

EggKookoo

2019-02-05, 09:23 AM

A common problem in any edition and built in on purpose in 4E. I do give credit to 5E that the rules tell the DM it's ok for PCs to be able to do things just because they want to, but some DMs won't do it. They can't get past the concept that not everything needs a chance of failure. For my regular readers I'm not talking about "tyrannical DMs". It's general thinking that fun equals overcoming challenges. What they miss is that overcoming the challenge is the adventure arc, not every specific thing a player wants to do.

I think a future hypothetical DMG needs to be more explicit in its wording about this.

I don't disagree here, but my criticism is aimed more at how this is presented in the manuals (per your last line there) rather than the general concept of not always requiring a roll. I totally get that players sometimes don't want the DM to say "eh, you just do it." I'm still learning this with my players. Sometimes a player wants to do something potentially difficult and is half-reaching for his dice, and I say "oh, yeah, you can just do that" and there's a subtle sense of disappointment. That's on me to learn that sometimes it's good to call for a roll even when there's really no need. The player likes to feel like he succeeded at something that could have failed.

So there's a gray area in the middle of the "to roll or not to roll" question, no doubt about it. But by its essential nature that's going to vary by table.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-05, 09:41 AM

So there's a gray area in the middle of the "to roll or not to roll" question, no doubt about it. But by its essential nature that's going to vary by table.

And person to person within the table.

Some people are oriented more toward the game aspect--the rolling the dice, the mechanical bits. Others more toward the fiction, being that character they're playing. Yet others toward the social aspects--spending time among friends. Yet others to the thrill of power--of doing heroic deeds (even vicariously).

None of these are wrong ways to play or to get enjoyment, but they all require different handling. A system that mandates certain stylistic things (whether it's PbtA's "the GM does not roll dice" thing or 3e's "Everything is a skill check (even if you can obviate some with take 10/20)" or many other such systems) imposes constraints on the players as well. The players must adapt to the system. While some of this is inevitable, a more flexible system can serve a broad swath of players quite well.

That's one thing I love about 5e (especially by comparison to 4e which was my other major experience). I can seamlessly adapt my style to each different group (and I've had a lot of them) without having to buck the system or massively overhaul things to do so. The "silly" group can have a more free-flowing, "rule of cool" experience, while the more "high narrative" group can tell stories; all of these without disturbing the crunch-heavy group's need to roll the dice. Heck, I can even handle multiple styles at the same table.

Pelle

2019-02-05, 10:15 AM

I totally get that players sometimes don't want the DM to say "eh, you just do it." I'm still learning this with my players. Sometimes a player wants to do something potentially difficult and is half-reaching for his dice, and I say "oh, yeah, you can just do that" and there's a subtle sense of disappointment. That's on me to learn that sometimes it's good to call for a roll even when there's really no need. The player likes to feel like he succeeded at something that could have failed.

I had something similar happening when I played 3.5. One character had +20-30 in Hide, and was sad that I just handwaved his stealthing, even though he had no/slim chance of failure. It was about getting percieved payout for his investment, succeeding by his own merits, rather than just be gifted it.

For your case, I think it's a good idea to roll when the consequence of failure is big, even though the chance of failing is low. And tell him the potential consequence of failure before rolling, then I think he will not be so eager to continue rolling. The problem is often when there are very little consequences of failing. If you let players roll for unnecessary things, if they fail you just end up where the roll didn't mean anything and that sucks. So in these situations as well, if the player is disappointed, just say outright that nothing is going to happen if he fails, so that's why you don't roll. I think that makes it more acceptable, it doesn't feel like you are letting him succeed without effort.

Sigreid

2019-02-05, 10:23 AM

I had something similar happening when I played 3.5. One character had +20-30 in Hide, and was sad that I just handwaved his stealthing, even though he had no/slim chance of failure. It was about getting percieved payout for his investment, succeeding by his own merits, rather than just be gifted it.

For your case, I think it's a good idea to roll when the consequence of failure is big, even though the chance of failing is low. And tell him the potential consequence of failure before rolling, then I think he will not be so eager to continue rolling. The problem is often when there are very little consequences of failing. If you let players roll for unnecessary things, if they fail you just end up where the roll didn't mean anything and that sucks. So in these situations as well, if the player is disappointed, just say outright that nothing is going to happen if he fails, so that's why you don't roll. I think that makes it more acceptable, it doesn't feel like you are letting him succeed without effort.

Interesting. When my rogue with a 30+ modifier in 3.x had to roll for stealth, unless the one I was sneaking up on was just as special, I got annoyed. I should have been able to sneak up on my own shadow.

Malifice

2019-02-05, 11:56 AM

The DCs are set in 3E by the skill tables. Where it can vary is done by formulas or specific modifiers for conditions.

That both dont cover all possible applications of the skill in question, and require looking up each chart for each skill (or a damn good memory) every time a skill check is called for by the DM.

Why do I want to sit there and do maths and crunch formulas every time I call for a skill check?

You (the player) tell me what you want to do. I (the DM) assign an ability score, and relevant proficiency and then assign a difficulty from [auto succeed] > [DC 1-NI] > [Auto fail] and you then roll a D20 and add your bonus.

Walking a Tightrope? A DC 15 [Dex] Acrobatics check. If you're smart enough to tell me you're using a long pole of some sort to stabilize yourself, I'll even grant advantage.

It's not hard. Just trust your DM.

EggKookoo

2019-02-05, 12:20 PM

For your case, I think it's a good idea to roll when the consequence of failure is big, even though the chance of failing is low. And tell him the potential consequence of failure before rolling, then I think he will not be so eager to continue rolling. The problem is often when there are very little consequences of failing. If you let players roll for unnecessary things, if they fail you just end up where the roll didn't mean anything and that sucks. So in these situations as well, if the player is disappointed, just say outright that nothing is going to happen if he fails, so that's why you don't roll. I think that makes it more acceptable, it doesn't feel like you are letting him succeed without effort.

All in all it's less of a problem and more of an adjustment. I play with some real old schoolers who are used to killer DMs and rolling to tie shoelaces. I think they're getting used to the idea that dice should be reserved for the really important things, but we're all still just feeling out where that should be. I'm getting better. At first I was too generous and let a lot of non-combat things just happen, and I think too much of that undermines the tension. I'm a little stricter now.

Pelle

2019-02-05, 12:26 PM

All in all it's less of a problem and more of an adjustment. I play with some real old schoolers who are used to killer DMs and rolling to tie shoelaces. I think they're getting used to the idea that dice should be reserved for the really important things, but we're all still just feeling out where that should be. I'm getting better. At first I was too generous and let a lot of non-combat things just happen, and I think too much of that undermines the tension. I'm a little stricter now.

If you find yourself with a player having failed a roll, and you don't know what consequence to apply, that's at least a sign you are rolling too often. If you know what the bad outcome will be before the roll, and you are fine with that happening, rolling is ok. It's when the players fail I realize it was stupid of me to ask for/allow rolling.

Malifice

2019-02-05, 12:29 PM

All in all it's less of a problem and more of an adjustment. I play with some real old schoolers who are used to killer DMs and rolling to tie shoelaces. I think they're getting used to the idea that dice should be reserved for the really important things, but we're all still just feeling out where that should be. I'm getting better. At first I was too generous and let a lot of non-combat things just happen, and I think too much of that undermines the tension. I'm a little stricter now.

I recall in the early days of this forum we had a thread on 'DC to climb a rope'.

Some DMs on here were making it a compound skill check (roll per X feet), that (mathematically) meant your average Joe would fall from a 30' rope 95 percent of the time.

Climbing a rope is (dont roll, you do it). Most of us are better now I reckon.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-05, 12:38 PM

If you find yourself with a player having failed a roll, and you don't know what consequence to apply, that's at least a sign you are rolling too often. If you know what the bad outcome will be before the roll, and you are fine with that happening, rolling is ok. It's when the players fail I realize it was stupid of me to ask for/allow rolling.

I totally agree with this. That's the whole point of the threshold questions--to figure out what the consequence is. And I find that if the DM communicates this[1] when setting the check it works even better.

[1] example:

Player: I want to parkour off that wall and duck around the corner.
DM: OK, that will require a <difficulty> Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If you fail, the consequence will be that you'll fall and not be able to get away from the guards that are chasing you. Is that what you do?
Player: Yes <rolls> or No <describes something else instead>.

Pex

2019-02-05, 01:11 PM

That both dont cover all possible applications of the skill in question, and require looking up each chart for each skill (or a damn good memory) every time a skill check is called for by the DM.

Why do I want to sit there and do maths and crunch formulas every time I call for a skill check?

You (the player) tell me what you want to do. I (the DM) assign an ability score, and relevant proficiency and then assign a difficulty from [auto succeed] > [DC 1-NI] > [Auto fail] and you then roll a D20 and add your bonus.

Walking a Tightrope? A DC 15 [Dex] Acrobatics check. If you're smart enough to tell me you're using a long pole of some sort to stabilize yourself, I'll even grant advantage.

It's not hard. Just trust your DM.

And then I play with a different DM and the DC is 10. A third DM has it at 20. A fourth DM has it at Disadvantage unless I said I was using a long pole to balance, etc.

In 3E the balance is set based on the width not who is DM that day. For a tightrope that's DC 20 for less than 2 inches wide, so you're being more generous. However, if it's not in combat I can Take 10 and autosucceed if I have a +10 modifier.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-05, 01:24 PM

And then I play with a different DM and the DC is 10. A third DM has it at 20. A fourth DM has it at Disadvantage unless I said I was using a long pole to balance, etc.

And they're all right. Different universes, different characters, different situations, different ropes. Different DCs.

In 3E the balance is set based on the width not who is DM that day. For a tightrope that's DC 20 for less than 2 inches wide, so you're being more generous. However, if it's not in combat I can Take 10 and autosucceed if I have a +10 modifier.

All 3e ropes are the same, and there's only one universe and one situation. I see....

Pex

2019-02-05, 03:09 PM

And they're all right. Different universes, different characters, different situations, different ropes. Different DCs.

All 3e ropes are the same, and there's only one universe and one situation. I see....

All non-magical platemail everywhere provide AC 18. Every non-magical longsword deals 1d8 damage.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-05, 03:17 PM

All non-magical platemail everywhere provide AC 18. Every non-magical longsword deals 1d8 damage.

And different things need different abstractions.

I personally would be fine with a DM saying "ok, you can't get any good swords here--all you've got are crappy pot-metal swords. They only deal 1d6 (or 1d8 - X) damage on a hit."

That's the difference--it's forced consistency I'm not fond of.

I can tie the same tightrope in a dozen different ways/heights/bottom surfaces, and the wind can be different, the stability of the poles, etc. such that traversing it varies wildly in difficulty. And since each tightrope is only ever traversed once on average, consistency is irrelevant to me.

On the other hand, attack rolls against armor are constant. So having a more consistent thing is good because they come up so often and can be reduced to a small set of binary things. Either you have plate on or you don't. Is it unrealistic? Sure. But not nearly so as saying that all tightropes (or all walls, or all persuasion attempts) are the same difficulty (+- 10%). At least not for me.

But this is well-trodden ground--I'm not going to go further here. Suffice it to say that we strongly disagree on this topic and always will.

EggKookoo

2019-02-05, 03:53 PM

And different things need different abstractions.

I think this might be a fruitless path for this particular argument. It's pretty clear to me that there are at least two major mindsets involved with RPGs and mechanics/rulesets. Some view the rules as a kind of underlying set of physical laws that dictate what's happening in the fiction. In this view, the mechanics drive the action and the players visualize the results. As a consequence, nothing can happen in the fiction outside the bounds of the mechanics. Taken to an absurd extreme, it means the likelihood of you ever hitting with your sword actually quantizes to 5%. In a more moderate interpretation, it perceives ambiguity as a flaw to be "patched."

Others view the rules as a tool that provides players access to what's happening in the fiction, but not actually driving or dictating what's happening. In that view, things are happening in the fiction for reasons that don't relate to the mechanics. You don't miss with your sword because of some 1-in-20 law of probability but because of a host of chaotic and mostly deterministic processes that are hidden from the player. These processes resolve to 5% steps but only at the player level. The absurd extreme of this view is that "the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter." A more moderate interpretation is that DCs aren't carved in stone and can fluctuate based on characteristics too fine for the mechanics to model, and those fluctuations may be subservient to smooth gameplay.

Neither of these views is wrong. But they are very hard to reconcile.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-05, 04:01 PM

I think this might be a fruitless path for this particular argument. It's pretty clear to me that there are at least two major mindsets involved with RPGs and mechanics/rulesets. Some view the rules as a kind of underlying set of physical laws that dictate what's happening in the fiction. In this view, the mechanics drive the action and the players visualize the results. As a consequence, nothing can happen in the fiction outside the bounds of the mechanics. Taken to an absurd extreme, it means the likelihood of you ever hitting with your sword actually quantizes to 5%. In a more moderate interpretation, it perceives ambiguity as a flaw to be "patched."

Others view the rules as a tool that provides players access to what's happening in the fiction, but not actually driving or dictating what's happening. In that view, things are happening in the fiction for reasons that don't relate to the mechanics. You don't miss with your sword because of some 1-in-20 law of probability but because of a host of chaotic and mostly deterministic processes that are hidden from the player. These processes resolve to 5% steps but only at the player level. The absurd extreme of this view is that "the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter." A more moderate interpretation is that DCs aren't carved in stone and can fluctuate based on characteristics too fine for the mechanics to model, and those fluctuations may be subservient to smooth gameplay.

Neither of these views is wrong. But they are very hard to reconcile.

This is a good way of looking at it. And I'm very firmly in camp 2. The mechanics are only our poor-resolution "window" into the game world, which works according to its own rules that really have very little to do with the mechanics. And the mechanics only matter as a set of convenient tools to play the game. They're the UI, not the actual fiction.

Chronos

2019-02-05, 04:14 PM

Quoth Unoriginal:

DCs are not character dependent. If a task is done effortlessly by one and can hardly be done by another, it depends on their ability mods and their proficiencies.
Yes, that's the way it should be. Which is what makes it so annoying that it's not possible to work it that way in 5e. You literally cannot have a roll that one players succeeds on 95% of the time and that another fails on 95% of the time, unless one character is literally the best it's possible to be, and the other is literally the worst it's possible to be.

EggKookoo

2019-02-05, 04:15 PM

The mechanics are only our poor-resolution "window" into the game world, which works according to its own rules that really have very little to do with the mechanics.

It's like reverse quantum mechanics. The underlying substrate is conventional and largely deterministic and essentially Newtonian. But it bubbles up to a probability-based layer, which is what we interact with.

Astofel

2019-02-05, 04:23 PM

And then I play with a different DM and the DC is 10. A third DM has it at 20. A fourth DM has it at Disadvantage unless I said I was using a long pole to balance, etc.

In 3E the balance is set based on the width not who is DM that day. For a tightrope that's DC 20 for less than 2 inches wide, so you're being more generous. However, if it's not in combat I can Take 10 and autosucceed if I have a +10 modifier.

Yes, but the person who is DM that day also decides what the tightrope's width is, don't they? This is what I don't understand about the 5e vs 3e skill argument. Ultimately how difficult anything is comes down to who is DM that day. Two 3e DMs could have two tightropes of different widths and therefore different DCs. All the skill tables do for most DMs is give you a physical description for the DC you already decided on.

EggKookoo

2019-02-05, 04:26 PM

Two 3e DMs could have two tightropes of different widths and therefore different DCs.

With the further implication that 5e DM#1 setting the DC to 12 and 5e DM#2 setting the DC to 15 are really just indicating that the ropes have two different widths (or other properties that would affect the difficulty). The DC is telling you something.

Tanarii

2019-02-05, 04:28 PM

GlenSmash!

2019-02-05, 04:35 PM

I've found players are far happier since I started calling for more rolls at lower DCs with less important consequences.

Far from rolling too often, the bigger problem seems to be DMs not calling for rolls often enough ... and only for high DC rolls with serious consequences.

This results in players only wanting to risk rolling for their best value rolls, or hoping the DM wont call on them for rolls at all. An arms race mentality where a higher value doesn't feel like a benefit, but a necessity.

That makes sense to me. I've found that players like to roll dice.

I've also found if I can lay out the stakes for a success and failure before the roll the player gets a lot more enjoyment out of making the roll.

Pelle

2019-02-05, 06:00 PM

I've also found if I can lay out the stakes for a success and failure before the roll the player gets a lot more enjoyment out of making the roll.

I think that's key. That ingrains that you are rolling because there's a consequence for failing, not because you need to make a roll to do things (like in previous editions).

GlenSmash!

2019-02-05, 06:04 PM

I think that's key. That ingrains that you are rolling because there's a consequence for failing, not because you need to make a roll to do things (like in previous editions).

I also like that as soon as they see the number the table can rejoice or mourn together. I prefer it to rolling the dice then looking at me to see what happens.

Xetheral

2019-02-05, 06:04 PM

Yes, but the person who is DM that day also decides what the tightrope's width is, don't they? This is what I don't understand about the 5e vs 3e skill argument. Ultimately how difficult anything is comes down to who is DM that day. Two 3e DMs could have two tightropes of different widths and therefore different DCs. All the skill tables do for most DMs is give you a physical description for the DC you already decided on.

If the players are the ones stringing the tightrope, then (unless their options for rope are limited) the width of the tightrope is up to them.

I think that some of the disagreement over skill DCs comes from how player-driven a particular game is. If most rolls result from an obstacle the DM chose to put in play, then it doesn't really matter if the DC describes the obstacle to fit a chosen DC, or if the DC is determined by the description of the obstacle. Consistency from one check to the next isn't particularly important because the players have no choice but to confront the obstacles.

In a game where the DM sets the obstacles, but the players choose which ones to confront, the players likely pick the one they gauge they have the greatest chance to overcome. Here, it's important that the players are able to accurately gauge the relative difficulties of the obstacles based on their in-game descriptions (unless there is information unknown to the players). It doesn't really matter if the DM picked the DC or the description first, but the importance of consistency is much higher than when the PCs don't choose which obstacles to face.

At a table where most rolls are the result of the players' plans, they have more control over the difficulty via the approach they take and the tools they use. In such a game, the players are probably choosing their strategy based on trying to maximize their chances of success. Choosing between such plans requires the players to have a sense for the DCs the DM will pick for hypothetical courses of action. This requires either a great deal of experience with a particular DM, or else some common metric for estimating DCs. A table of examples provides such a common metric.

Edit: to clarify, in the latter two cases I'm not saying the players need to be able to determine the exact DCs. What they need to be able to gauge is the relative difficulty of the options before them. Those options are set by the DM in the middle case, and completely up to the players in the last case.

Pex

2019-02-05, 07:36 PM

Astofel

2019-02-05, 09:43 PM

If it's wide enough it's no longer a tightrope, and in any case a wider length gives a different DC as per the table as it's supposed. The point is if I want to walk a Something of a specific width I always know what I have to do in creating my character to do so, in 3E. In 5E I don't. Proficient in Acrobatics or not. High DX or not. The DC changes based on who is DM that day and it becomes Mother May I. If the DM has to make everything up why have rules at all?

'I want to be able to walk a narrow tightrope with a minimum roll of X on the d20' seems like an oddly specific character creation goal. 5e expects players to think more in terms of 'I want my character to be agile and nimble' and then lets them do that by allowing them to get high Dex and take proficiency in Acrobatics.

Ultimately, even if you do have the ability to always walk a Something of a specific width the DM is under no obligation to put that Something in their game. Your ability to perform and do your cool stuff in any given game will always depend on whatever challenges the DM puts in your way. If a DM does not want you to do your cool stuff then you won't be able to do your cool stuff, no matter what system is being used.

3e made the mistake of assuming universal DCs. Per the earlier example, a 2-inch wide tightrope is DC 20 to walk across. But that fails to take into account the material of the rope, how it was woven, how long it is, the condition it's in, the weather conditions surrounding it, how high above the ground it's suspended, how heavy the character crossing it is, and the distribution of the gear that character is carrying. All that from the top of my head. It's simply impossible to account for all the variables that could be in play. Sure, the book could say 'crossing a 2-inch wide silk tightrope 20 feet long and 10 feet above the ground woven by a skilled ropemaker and kept in excellent condition in completely still air is a DC 20 check for a character weighing 100 pounds and carrying no gear other than basic clothes but such a situation is never going to appear in actual play.

Tanarii

2019-02-05, 09:52 PM

The point is if I want to walk a Something of a specific width I always know what I have to do in creating my character to do so, in 3E.
Indeed.

The 5e system makes far more sense from a DM perspective. It enhances world building and it makes running a game way the heck easier.

From perspective of a player, oneof two things are required:
- Extensive tables of examples that are generally assumed to provide a baseline, that the player can study before the game to get a solid idea of how hard checks will be.
- a range of TNs provided, and a discussion with the GM as to how difficult they tend to make things as a general rule and how often they call for checks and if they will communicate either DCs or general difficulty before you finish declaring an action.

5e does provide a range of TNs in the PHB, on page 171. But they're from 5 to 30. It's only in the DMG the DM is recommended to use a range of 10-20. And if you get a DM that uses a even spread across that recommended range, you better try to avoid making checks unless you have a high ability score and proficiency.

I'm a fan of 5e's system, but I'm a DM, and I have my own quirks with it to make it "work" for me.

Xetheral

2019-02-05, 11:11 PM

Astofel

2019-02-05, 11:14 PM

Consider the example where someone wants to play a thief-acrobat. That's a pretty standard archetype. They put their highest score in Dex, take expertise in Acrobatics, and take the Thief subclass. So far so good. But if the DM sets the acrobatics DCs unexpectedly high, the player isn't really playing a thief-acrobat at all... instead they're playing a character who falls a lot. At such a table, the player can't play a thief-acrobat until the character is high enough level to get abilities like Reliable Talent that can obviate ability checks.

If that's the case then the DM is clearly not following the guidelines in the DMG and probably has it out for the rogue's player or just high-dex characters in general for whatever reason. A DM who always sets DCs so high that characters can never accomplish anything is always a bad DM, and the system cannot be blamed for bad DMs.

Sigreid

2019-02-05, 11:34 PM

Pex

2019-02-05, 11:35 PM

'I want to be able to walk a narrow tightrope with a minimum roll of X on the d20' seems like an oddly specific character creation goal. 5e expects players to think more in terms of 'I want my character to be agile and nimble' and then lets them do that by allowing them to get high Dex and take proficiency in Acrobatics.

Ultimately, even if you do have the ability to always walk a Something of a specific width the DM is under no obligation to put that Something in their game. Your ability to perform and do your cool stuff in any given game will always depend on whatever challenges the DM puts in your way. If a DM does not want you to do your cool stuff then you won't be able to do your cool stuff, no matter what system is being used.

3e made the mistake of assuming universal DCs. Per the earlier example, a 2-inch wide tightrope is DC 20 to walk across. But that fails to take into account the material of the rope, how it was woven, how long it is, the condition it's in, the weather conditions surrounding it, how high above the ground it's suspended, how heavy the character crossing it is, and the distribution of the gear that character is carrying. All that from the top of my head. It's simply impossible to account for all the variables that could be in play. Sure, the book could say 'crossing a 2-inch wide silk tightrope 20 feet long and 10 feet above the ground woven by a skilled ropemaker and kept in excellent condition in completely still air is a DC 20 check for a character weighing 100 pounds and carrying no gear other than basic clothes but such a situation is never going to appear in actual play.

The game doesn't need to be that anal of details regardless of edition. In 3E if it's combat you can't Take 10 unless you're a high level rogue who chose Balance to do so. If there's an extenuating circumstance like weather that's where "The DM's best friend" comes in and you add +2 to the DC. Armor check penalty applies to your roll as well as encumbrance even if not in armor. If unsure about encumbrance use DM's best friend again for -2 to the roll.

Universal DC is not a mistake. It defines the number so the DM doesn't have to think about it. The DM places the Thing and lets the rules determine the Target Number. The character's ability to succeed is based on the player's build choices plus a die roll. Take 10 simplifies the die roll to indicate the character is just that good he autosucceeds. Take 20 simplifies the character can just do it because there's no consequence of failure when rolling a 1 wouldn't affect anything but it takes awhile, usually 2 minutes. Eventually a character can become that good he succeeds even if he rolls a 1 on some skill, and high level rogues gain the ability to Take 10 on some skills even when you normally can't because of stressful situations like combat. 5E rogues have a similar ability, but it doesn't guarantee success.

The game rules decide the how*. The DM decides the why. The Player decides the try.

*Of course the DM can change the how via House Rules, but that's besides the point. If the DM and players didn't like all the how in general they wouldn't be playing the game.

Xetheral

2019-02-05, 11:52 PM

If that's the case then the DM is clearly not following the guidelines in the DMG and probably has it out for the rogue's player or just high-dex characters in general for whatever reason. A DM who always sets DCs so high that characters can never accomplish anything is always a bad DM, and the system cannot be blamed for bad DMs.

Let's take a specific example: pole-vaulting. Under the 5e rules, a DM wouldn't be at all out of line to decide that pole-vaulting, a task involving complicated full-body coordination, is "hard", and usually setting a DC of 20. Maybe sometimes more if the particular vault being attempted is unusually hard or less if the particular vault is unusually easy. That's legitimate, right?

Except at 4th level, the thief-acrobat described above has less than a 50% chance of successfully pole-vaulting. Is a thief-acrobat who fails more than half the time they try to pole-vault really a thief-acrobat? At 8th level, with max Dex, they have no more than a 60% chance to succeed. Still not very reliable. It's not until 11th level and Reliable Talent that the thief-acrobat can reliably pole-vault at that table, and that's with DCs set within the recommended 10-20 range. It's not a "bad DM", it's just one who (rightly or wrongly) thinks pole-vaulting is hard.

The system tells the DM to evaluate the difficulty of the task and set a DC, usually between 10 and 20. If you're going to say that a DM who follows those guidelines can nevertheless be a "bad DM", then I would suggest that the system can indeed be blamed for the inadequacy of those guidelines.

(For context, I'm assuming that the consequences of failing to pole-vault are always considered "interesting" (i.e. SPLAT!), and that a DM who thinks pole-vaulting is hard is always going to rule that there is a chance of failure.)

Astofel

2019-02-05, 11:56 PM

The DM places the Thing and lets the rules determine the Target Number.

I think this one sentence is where our philosophies differ. I'm much more likely to decide a Target Number first, before I decide the specifics of the Thing. I almost never decide on a DC during session prep, either. I usually just put details in the environment, like a rickety bridge or a large boulder or a chandelier. I have no expectations as to what the PCs will do with these objects. When they interact with them, that's when I decide what the appropriate type of check is and give the DC a rough estimate. Often I decide whether they succeeded or failed based on their reaction to their own roll. If they want details about the object I'll decide it on the fly.

As an example, a while ago I had a session where the PCs were trying to infiltrate a castle to kill its current owner. The castle had a stable for horses, as several do. The barbarian then decides to use his Speak With Animals to talk to the horses and get them to cause a distraction later on. He tries to bribe them with apples, and then to threaten them with burning the stables down. As the DM I had to suddenly think of a DC first for the Persuasion check, and then for the Intimidation check to get a well-trained, disciplined horse to do something for a stranger it doesn't recognise. No amount of skill tables can tell me what the appropriate DC is there. There are way too many situations that just can't be anticipated even by the most careful of game designers.

Astofel

2019-02-06, 12:12 AM

Let's take a specific example: pole-vaulting. Under the 5e rules, a DM wouldn't be at all out of line to decide that pole-vaulting, a task involving complicated full-body coordination, is "hard", and usually setting a DC of 20. Maybe sometimes more if the particular vault being attempted is unusually hard or less if the particular vault is unusually easy. That's legitimate, right?

Except at 4th level, the thief-acrobat described above has less than a 50% chance of successfully pole-vaulting. Is a thief-acrobat who fails more than half the time they try to pole-vault really a thief-acrobat? At 8th level, with max Dex, they have no more than a 60% chance to succeed. Still not very reliable. It's not until 11th level and Reliable Talent that the thief-acrobat can reliably pole-vault at that table, and that's with DCs set within the recommended 10-20 range. It's not a "bad DM", it's just one who (rightly or wrongly) thinks pole-vaulting is hard.

The system tells the DM to evaluate the difficulty of the task and set a DC, usually between 10 and 20. If you're going to say that a DM who follows those guidelines can nevertheless be a "bad DM", then I would suggest that the system can indeed be blamed for the inadequacy of those guidelines.

(For context, I'm assuming that the consequences of failing to pole-vault are always considered "interesting" (i.e. SPLAT!), and that a DM who thinks pole-vaulting is hard is always going to rule that there is a chance of failure.)

If the rogue is trying to pole-vault in a high-stress situation like combat, then there should be a significant chance of failure. If, however, there is no such stress and the rogue has prep time and can try again freely, the DM should just let the succeed. 'SPLAT' is not an interesting, or even necessarily possible consequence; most pole-vaulting poles aren't long enough to cause fall damage if fallen from.

The real issue here is that the DM doesn't know how hard pole-vaulting is. This is why I suggested earlier that 5e should include example of what a DC X skill check might look like for each skill. That way a DM could look at the example of a DC 20 Acrobatics check when deciding on the DC for another such check and think 'this task is easier/harder than that one, I'm going to use the next DC up/down'. I actually started working on such a skill table myself a while back, but I never finished it. If there's interest I could try finishing it and make a thread for it.

ad_hoc

2019-02-06, 05:12 AM

I've found players are far happier since I started calling for more rolls at lower DCs with less important consequences.

Far from rolling too often, the bigger problem seems to be DMs not calling for rolls often enough ... and only for high DC rolls with serious consequences.

This results in players only wanting to risk rolling for their best value rolls, or hoping the DM wont call on them for rolls at all. An arms race mentality where a higher value doesn't feel like a benefit, but a necessity.

Can't we have few rolls with sane DCs?

When I play:

1. I want my character to be able to do things
2. More importantly, I don't want to waste table time on uninteresting things with no consequence.

I find a game where a DM calls for many rolls to be boring. The game gets bogged down, and worse, rolling has no tension to it. It's not exciting. It's yet another roll to do something mundane.

I don't see how players can 'risk rolling'. Players don't decide about rolls, they just say what their character is doing.

EggKookoo

2019-02-06, 07:12 AM

I'll be honest with you Pex. In any system, not just D&D I'm not looking things up in tables. I'm going to find out on a scale of trival to superhuman how the numbers line up and then I'm going to set a DC.

Honestly, most DCs in my game are 12. If I want to impress on my players that something's very hard, I'll set it to something that sounds scary like 18. But just using 12 across the board 95% of the time works fine. The PCs that are good at the task will succeed most of the time as they would expect to. The average Joe PCs will still succeed more often than not, but only slightly, and their players are a little more afraid of the results.

I'm also potentially odd in that I rule a nat-20 is an auto-success for a check or saving throw (and a nat-1 is an auto-fail). I find that cognitively cleaner than imposing some nonsense about why 1 and 20 work the way they do for attack rolls but not checks and saves, and it doesn't break anything.

Tanarii

2019-02-06, 02:42 PM

Can't we have few rolls with sane DCs?

When I play:

1. I want my character to be able to do things
2. More importantly, I don't want to waste table time on uninteresting things with no consequence.

I find a game where a DM calls for many rolls to be boring. The game gets bogged down, and worse, rolling has no tension to it. It's not exciting. It's yet another roll to do something mundane.

I don't see how players can 'risk rolling'. Players don't decide about rolls, they just say what their character is doing.Because that's not what happens. What happens is players play "dice roll brinksmanship" with the DM. They do everything they can to persuade the DM that a check should just be an automatic success instead of rolling. Then if don't succeed at their "DM manipulation" action, they retract the action, unless it's their top score (or two if they're not raising Con) and they have proficiency and they decide it's worth the risk.

Net result: players only ever roll for their primary ability score, provided they are also proficient, and other ability scores become relatively meaningless for checks.

Aelyn

2019-02-06, 03:02 PM

Because that's not what happens. What happens is players play "dice roll brinksmanship" with the DM. They do everything they can to persuade the DM that a check should just be an automatic success instead of rolling. Then if don't succeed at their "DM manipulation" action, they retract the action, unless it's their top score (or two if they're not raising Con) and they have proficiency and they decide it's worth the risk.

Net result: players only ever roll for their primary ability score, provided they are also proficient, and other ability scores become relatively meaningless for checks.
You and I have very different experiences.

What happens at my table is that my players tell me what they're doing. I quickly decide mentally if it's (a) got a reasonable chance of both success and failure, and if (b) failure has a meaningful and interesting result. If so, I mentally set a DC and ask my player for a roll, choosing the appropriate stat and skill/tool proficiency, then describe the outcome based on whether they succeeded or failed. If the players want, they can ask if another skill/stat would apply, and I might say yes or might say no depending on the circumstances. I don't let them persuade me to give them an auto success without a very good argument, and even then it's rare I'll be swayed.

Net result: In my current campaign (six sessions in) players have tried to persuade me to change a skill roll four times. Two times were requests to change the skill (one was fair, the other I refused), one time was to change the stat (I refused), and one was saying that they really should have auto-succeeded (I disagreed, but their argument was good enough that I gave advantage). So that's one and a half successes out of four requests and a total of maybe sixty or a hundred skill checks, of which maybe half were on the primary or secondary stat.

And you know what? My players have praised me for making skill checks relevant to the game again.

EggKookoo

2019-02-06, 03:09 PM

You and I have very different experiences.

Same with me. I have never had a player ask or insist that they auto-succeed on something that might otherwise require a roll. I have had players say a given task should just be auto-success across the board (akin to saying it should fall under Use an Object rather than being a check for anyone), but never in the context of the PC being good enough to warrant auto-success.

Quite the opposite. I've had players surprised when I grant them auto-success.

Pelle

2019-02-06, 04:32 PM

Net result: players only ever roll for their primary ability score, provided they are also proficient, and other ability scores become relatively meaningless for checks.

Sounds like you don't let the approach determine the DC then? Sure, if a player wants to use another stat that is higher, and describes the approach accordingly, that's no problem. There's no guarantee that the probabilty of succeeding or that the consequence of failing will be the same, however.

Pex

2019-02-06, 05:29 PM

If the rogue is trying to pole-vault in a high-stress situation like combat, then there should be a significant chance of failure. If, however, there is no such stress and the rogue has prep time and can try again freely, the DM should just let the succeed. 'SPLAT' is not an interesting, or even necessarily possible consequence; most pole-vaulting poles aren't long enough to cause fall damage if fallen from.

The real issue here is that the DM doesn't know how hard pole-vaulting is. This is why I suggested earlier that 5e should include example of what a DC X skill check might look like for each skill. That way a DM could look at the example of a DC 20 Acrobatics check when deciding on the DC for another such check and think 'this task is easier/harder than that one, I'm going to use the next DC up/down'. I actually started working on such a skill table myself a while back, but I never finished it. If there's interest I could try finishing it and make a thread for it.

??

Then why are you disagreeing with me when that's exactly what I want also. 5E did it for object hardness, NPC reaction (DMG page 245), and tool use in Xanathar. I find it disappointing they didn't do it for skills. Walk a tightrope or a plank or something of small width could be an example benchmark given in an Acrobatics table. The DM would be welcome to apply Disadvantage if he thinks poor weather is a factor or Advantage if the character uses a balancing pole.

Tanarii

2019-02-06, 10:15 PM

Sounds like you don't let the approach determine the DC then? Sure, if a player wants to use another stat that is higher, and describes the approach accordingly, that's no problem. There's no guarantee that the probabilty of succeeding or that the consequence of failing will be the same, however.
I definitely let approach affect which ability score it uses. But occasionally DC too, because theyre doing a different thing.

But if you do that and you regularly set 10-20 DCs, you end up with an even worse situation: PCs are incompetent. Even if you "only set them for important checks", that just makes them incompetent at the fewer important checks.

Edit: you know what, I'm arguing the point too strongly. It's not that extreme. It's certainly not as extreme as it often was in earlier editions.

Pelle

2019-02-07, 04:10 AM

But if you do that and you regularly set 10-20 DCs, you end up with an even worse situation: PCs are incompetent. Even if you "only set them for important checks", that just makes them incompetent at the fewer important checks.

I disagree. If the player wants to do something really difficult, instead of something easy, just because his stats are better for it, it's not making the PC incompetent. It's just a PC trying difficult things and failing accordingly.

Let's say the PC is facing a hostile starving wolf, and wants to keep it from attacking. He's going to try dominating it by establishing who is the alpha or something. Ok, maybe Wis(Animal Handling), DC 10. Now, the PC only has Wis +0, and wants to use his better Dex +3 instead. Fine, "what do you do instead?" Maybe the player picks up a stick and tries to play catch with wolf or something. That does sound like a more difficult approach so Dex(Animal Handling), DC 15 instead.

You can't call the PCs incompetent just because they fail checks. If they fail easy checks sure, but if they try stupidly difficult things, not necessarily so.

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 06:14 AM

I disagree. If the player wants to do something really difficult, instead of something easy, just because his stats are better for it, it's not making the PC incompetent. It's just a PC trying difficult things and failing accordingly.

Let's say the PC is facing a hostile starving wolf, and wants to keep it from attacking. He's going to try dominating it by establishing who is the alpha or something. Ok, maybe Wis(Animal Handling), DC 10. Now, the PC only has Wis +0, and wants to use his better Dex +3 instead. Fine, "what do you do instead?" Maybe the player picks up a stick and tries to play catch with wolf or something. That does sound like a more difficult approach so Dex(Animal Handling), DC 15 instead.

You can't call the PCs incompetent just because they fail checks. If they fail easy checks sure, but if they try stupidly difficult things, not necessarily so.

Interesting. I know this is a digression but I would never increase the DC just because the player switched ability scores. In my mind the entire point of the player doing that is to give themselves a better chance of success. Going +3 the roll only to see a +5 on the DC feels goalpost-movey. I would let him roll against the original DC or tell him he just can't use his Dex in this case. I mean, tossing a stick to endear himself to a hostile starving wolf is simply not going to work -- or if it is, it probably stands about as much chance of working as whatever he'd be doing with his Wisdom.

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 06:49 AM

Pelle

2019-02-07, 07:04 AM

Interesting. I know this is a digression but I would never increase the DC just because the player switched ability scores. In my mind the entire point of the player doing that is to give themselves a better chance of success. Going +3 the roll only to see a +5 on the DC feels goalpost-movey. I would let him roll against the original DC or tell him he just can't use his Dex in this case. I mean, tossing a stick to endear himself to a hostile starving wolf is simply not going to work -- or if it is, it probably stands about as much chance of working as whatever he'd be doing with his Wisdom.

See, "I mean, tossing a stick to endear himself to a hostile starving wolf is simply not going to work", here you are basically saying that the Dex approach has DC automatic failure. Why can't you let the player try that if he so wants?

The player is supposed to describe what the character is doing, and the DM is supposed to consider the intent and approach, and come up with a DC and consequences based on the merits of what the character is doing. I just judge that as fair as I can, and if the player wants to change their approach, I don't change that basic assumption of how the game is played. Then I start anew, judging the new approach by itself. The player can choose to describe doing something difficult or easy, and I will try to set a DC that matches that.

Stupid example, but if a player wants to climb a difficult climb (requiring a check), but insist on not using his arms, only his legs and teeth, then I'm judging the task at hand (climbing without using arms) as more difficult.

Note, the player isn't just switching ability scores, the player is describing a new action. And different actions have different DCs. (Sure, if the player makes a good argument for why the same task as described is better represented using another ability, that's also fine.) It's ok that the player wants a better chance of success. As long as the new approach described doesn't sound more difficult, it will be beneficial to change approach and ability.

Another example, the PC tries to convince a rules minded bureaucrat to do something. He is resistant to charm, so normal Cha based approach will be DC 15, but if you make rational arguments he is willing to concede, making an Int based approach get DC 10. If you have a higher Int than Cha, it's a double whammy. If you have a higher Cha it might be a wash or worse. So what? I don't care, I just try to neutrally set the DC according that what approach the PC is taking. It's up to the player do determine what approach they want to take to convince the bureaucrat, and some approaches are better than others.

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 07:06 AM

A player can't just decide to switch ability checks. If a different ability check is used, it's a different task, and so the DC can be different.

The player can ask to use a different ability. The DM approves it.

If using the new ability changes the task so fundamentally that you'd feel a new DC is called for, then they shouldn't be using that new ability. They simply can't make the switch in that case. You don't approve the change. If you let them use the new ability, you're saying the task in question could be pulled off with it. The DC shouldn't change.

If a player switches to an ability that gives them +X on a check and you respond by increasing the DC, especially by >=X, we in the business technically refer to that as a "**** move." I've gotten DMs fired for that mindset.

Pelle

2019-02-07, 07:19 AM

If using the new ability changes the task so fundamentally that you'd feel a new DC is called for, then they shouldn't be using that new ability. They simply can't make the switch in that case. You don't approve the change.

It sounds like you are playing much stricter with not allowing takebacks etc. I usually don't mind letting the players know before they commit to an action how difficult it will likely be. So when the player describes a new approach they want to take, switching ability score, it's not a retcon because they haven't taken the action yet. If they have started taken the action, then no they can't change ability score (unless I made a mistake when calling for a specific one, and then the DC remains).

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 07:35 AM

See, "I mean, tossing a stick to endear himself to a hostile starving wolf is simply not going to work", here you are basically saying that the Dex approach has DC automatic failure. Why can't you let the player try that if he so wants?

Because some tasks are not possible, no matter if a player wants to try to do it or not.

The player can ask to use a different ability. The DM approves it.

If using the new ability changes the task so fundamentally that you'd feel a new DC is called for, then they shouldn't be using that new ability. They simply can't make the switch in that case. You don't approve the change. If you let them use the new ability, you're saying the task in question could be pulled off with it. The DC shouldn't change.

If a player switches to an ability that gives them +X on a check and you respond by increasing the DC, especially by >=X, we in the business technically refer to that as a "**** move." I've gotten DMs fired for that mindset.

That's a weird way of approaching that situation.

A player can say "I want to do X", and then say "after all, I'd rather do Y" when you tell them what X would imply.

When a player says "I want to try and calm that wild animal", they're not committing to it until the action is resolved. They could decide that waving a stick to try to distract the beast is a better use of their time.

Pelle

2019-02-07, 07:56 AM

Because some tasks are not possible, no matter if a player wants to try to do it or not.

But if a player wants to try something that has no chance of succeeding, if the player makes an informed decision about it why should he be denied at all to try (and fail)? It may be impossible to succeed, but it's plenty possible to try.

A player can say "I want to do X", and then say "after all, I'd rather do Y" when you tell them what X would imply.

Yeah, I think there's a disconnect here, where I assume the above, while ChrisBasken would hold the player commited to X.

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 08:06 AM

A player can say "I want to do X", and then say "after all, I'd rather do Y" when you tell them what X would imply.

When a player says "I want to try and calm that wild animal", they're not committing to it until the action is resolved. They could decide that waving a stick to try to distract the beast is a better use of their time.

Sure, but what I mean is I'm not a fan of adaptive DCs. If I decide it's DC 10 to calm the wolf, it's DC 10. If you go with a conventional Wis-based approach that fits the typical interpretation of Animal Handling, fine. We do that. If you come up with a creative idea that involves throwing a stick (which, btw, would still fit fine with using Wis) and then ask to use your Dex instead, I would evaluate that in the context of accomplishing the existing task. Can you just throw a stick to calm or distract a starving wolf, and does it make sense to use your Dex as part of that, with a DC of 10? Yes? Sure, go for it. No? Then no. While you can still throw a stick as part of your Wis-based check, having a high Dex won't really help (a clumsy toss isn't any worse than a deft one). Spoiler alert: I would rule no.

What I wouldn't say is you can use your Dex for that +3 check bonus but then the DC increases by 5. Why? Because it's pointless. As soon as I say that, you'll say "never mind, I'll use Wis." The **** move I mentioned is withholding the DC increase from the player, having them roll with their +3, and then telling them they failed because they didn't hit the new, higher DC. Assuming I'm up front about the DC increase, there's no point in increasing it because the player would immediately see that it actually amounts to a -2 compared to just going with the conventional Animal Handling approach. Either you tell the player the new DC or you don't. The former will negate the use of the new ability, the latter is underhanded and deceptive.

There's nothing wrong with telling a player "no" when they ask if they can do something that might give them a benefit. Saying they can but then neutralizing the benefit is toxic for their creativity.

Yeah, I think there's a disconnect here, where I assume the above, while ChrisBasken would hold the player commited to X.

I view the task in question as having a DC. The DC doesn't change if you come up with a "better" way to do it. Just like the DC to climb a rope stays the same for Bob with a Dex of 8 as it does for Sue with a Dex of 18 (or Str or whichever, maybe that would be athletics). The DC also doesn't change if you switch out ability scores.

It's like finesse weapons. If your Str is 8 but your Dex is 18, and you use your Dex when hitting with a shortsword, I'm not going to give your target a bonus to its AC because you're attacking with a different ability score mod.

Pelle

2019-02-07, 08:20 AM

This is how it works for me:

-> Situation, PC wants to overcome obstacle...
Player: I want to do the following X approach
GM: cool, that sounds like a Wis() DC 10 check.
Player: Oh, it's going to be that difficult. Could I use Dex instead?
GM: Sure, what would you do instead then?
Player: Describe new approach Y
GM: Ok, but that sounds inherently more difficult, so that would be a Dex() DC 15. Which approach are you going to take?
(Player: what about if I do Z instead?
GM: Cool, that sounds more likely to succeed, let's say Dex() DC 10 for that approach.)
-> Player decides either X or Y (or Z)

There's no moving of goal posts nor **** moves.

Pelle

2019-02-07, 08:27 AM

I view the task in question as having a DC. The DC doesn't change if you come up with a "better" way to do it.

Then the fiction and action resolution doesn't match then. Climbing a wall without using your hands have the same DC as if using them. Yes, a specific task should have a given DC, but if you switch the approach it's not the same task anymore. It sounds more like you are giving the DC to the obstacle, not the task, with this view.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-07, 08:33 AM

Then the fiction and action resolution doesn't match then. Climbing a wall without using your hands have the same DC as if using them. Yes, a specific task should have a given DC, but if you switch the approach it's not the same task anymore. It sounds more like you are giving the DC to the obstacle, not the task, with this view.

Exactly. This is one fundamental break with earlier editions--the DC represents the difficulty of the whole task/approach/circumstances combination, not any particular piece of it. The DC for crossing a tightrope depends on
a) the tightrope
b) the wind
c) the supports
d) how the person's doing so (rushing? Taking time? Carrying an awkwardly-balanced load? etc).

The DC for "get guard to let you in" depends on
a) who you are (including race, look, social standing, etc)
b) how you approach
c) the guard's personality
d) what you offer (if anything)

A guard may be totally immune to bribes, but vulnerable to threats. Those two approaches will have radically different DCs, yet are the same fundamental task.

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 08:36 AM

It sounds more like you are giving the DC to the obstacle, not the task, with this view.

Are you saying if I have a high Dex and you have a low Dex, the DC for a given Dex-based task should be lower for me than it is for you?

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 08:41 AM

Exactly. This is one fundamental break with earlier editions--the DC represents the difficulty of the whole task/approach/circumstances combination, not any particular piece of it. The DC for crossing a tightrope depends on
a) the tightrope
b) the wind
c) the supports
d) how the person's doing so (rushing? Taking time? Carrying an awkwardly-balanced load? etc).

A, B, and C are effectively constants, so any impact they have on the DC doesn't change.

D is modified with advantage/disadvantage, or by any variation in the ability score modifier applied to the check.

The DC for "get guard to let you in" depends on
a) who you are (including race, look, social standing, etc)
b) how you approach
c) the guard's personality
d) what you offer (if anything)

Similarly, A and C are constant. B is handled by the ability score you choose and your value in it, plus anything that might offer advantage/disadvantage.

D is effectively a constant as its tied to the skill proficiency you're working with. We've been assuming that stays the same and it's just the ability score you're messing around with. Of course if you switch from Cha (Intimidation) to Cha (Persuasion) the DC can change along with it. I was assuming we're sticking with (Intimidation) and just changing the Cha (in this example).

Pelle

2019-02-07, 08:42 AM

Are you saying if I have a high Dex and you have a low Dex, the DC for a given Dex-based task should be lower for me than it is for you?

No, why do you think that?

Assuming the approach we take is the same.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-07, 08:46 AM

Are you saying if I have a high Dex and you have a low Dex, the DC for a given Dex-based task should be lower for me than it is for you?

No, because they're both the same dex-based approaches to reach a particular goal. One person's just better at that approach than the other, so it's net easier for them. Now if they take different dex-based approach (maybe parkour over the wall vs stealthing through the gate) you might have different DCs. A STR-based approach will usually have a different DC than a DEX-based approach to the same underlying goal.

Approach + intent set the DC and the type of check. Changing the approach OR the intent results in a different task (with potentially a different DC and modifier/proficiency). It also changes the consequences. Breaking down a door is a different approach than picking the lock. Both have the same intent (open the door). But they have radically different DCs and different consequences (either for success or failure).

This is especially notable for social and knowledge skills. "What do I know about X" will be quite different if you're asking about the History of X, the magical significance of X (Arcana), the religious significance of X (Religion), etc. Trying to persuade the up-tight paladin-esque guard and trying to bribe him even if you use the same skill will have radically different difficulties and consequences.

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 08:58 AM

No, why do you think that?

Assuming the approach we take is the same.

And by approach you basically mean which skill proficiency? I mean, if we both do something that the DM decides is a Dex (Acrobatics) check, we should both have the same DC, right? Again, we're trying the same task.

I think we might agree (and also with PhoenixPhyre) in that if you describe your action as something that the DM determines fits Athletics better than Acrobatics, then yes, the DC could well change. But what I'm saying is if I'm the DM and you present an alternative to using Dex (Acrobatics) where it's still Acrobatics but now you're using your Str, I would not change the DC. It's still an Acrobatics-based task, and if it's easier for you because you're using Str then that's reflected in the higher bonus to your roll, not a reduced DC.

And of course you don't get to just "choose Str." You have to describe what your character is doing that would make me think Str is more appropriate. Of course it's also very likely that in doing so you'd make me think that Athletics is more appropriate than Acrobatics, which changes the nature of the task and therefore the potential DC. I'm just saying with a straight-up ability score change, without a change in the underlying task, the DC won't change (at least in my games).

Pelle

2019-02-07, 09:18 AM

D is modified with advantage/disadvantage, or by any variation in the ability score modifier applied to the check.

And by approach you basically mean which skill proficiency? I mean, if we both do something that the DM decides is a Dex (Acrobatics) check, we should both have the same DC, right? Again, we're trying the same task.

I see what you mean by using adv/disadv instead of changing the DC. It depends on the situation maybe, and how you frame it, but I think generally no. Advantage is applied when one character doing the exact same approach as another, but should still have a benefit. When different characters are using the same approach, the DC should be the same.

So balancing on the tightrope, you could walk on your feet or your hands. That's two different approaches with different Dex(Acrobatics) DCs. Walking on your hands simply has a higher DC, because it doesn't matter who the character is, it's going to be more difficult for anyone.
So a high Dex character walking on his hands has a better chance of success than a low Dex character doing the same, but the DC is equal. If both were walking on their feet, both would have a better chance of success because the DC is lower, but still the high Dex character has the edge.
Now, a high Str character might want to change the approach completly, and just hang there with his arms, monkeying across the rope. That's a new task (same goal, get to the other side), and might even just be Str() DC automatic success.

I'm just saying with a straight-up ability score change, without a change in the underlying task, the DC won't change (at least in my games).

The point is, if the player wants to change the ability, the player needs to justify why by describing another approach, which makes it a different task. So you can't just straight-up change your ability score (unless the GM made a mistake when calling initially of course).

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 09:32 AM

I see what you mean by using adv/disadv instead of changing the DC. It depends on the situation maybe, and how you frame it, but I think generally no. Advantage is applied when one character doing the exact same approach as another, but should still have a benefit. When different characters are using the same approach, the DC should be the same.

And I understand applying disadvantage is akin to a penalty to the roll or a boost to the DC, but at the same time it's kind of not. It's a weird thing where it doesn't make the task harder but somehow makes it harder to succeed. It's really a form of forcing you to confirm your success (and advantage is a form of letting you try again if you fail).

So balancing on the tightrope, you could walk on your feet or your hands. That's two different approaches with different Dex(Acrobatics) DCs. Walking on your hands simply has a higher DC, because it doesn't matter who the character is, it's going to be more difficult for anyone.

If you mean by walking on your hands that you'd essentially handstand/handwalk upside down across, that starts to border on a simple "no, you can't do that" kind of thing. Maybe not that absolute, but I think it goes beyond Acrobatics and into some kind of specialized skill. Honestly, not sure what I'd do there. I can't think of a player ever wanting to do something the hard way when they could get across the (relatively) easy way. I think if the player just wanted to go on his hands for the fun of it, I'd just keep everything the same. Hands or feet, it's fluff at that point.

I guess I could imagine a player wanting to walk across a tightrope on his hands in an attempt to distract or impress some onlookers. I'd probably turn that into some kind of Dex (Performance) check.

So a high Dex character walking on his hands has a better chance of success than a low Dex character doing the same, but the DC is equal. If both were walking on their feet, both would have a better chance of success because the DC is lower, but still the high Dex character has the edge.

Agreed.

Now, a high Str character might want to change the approach completly, and just hang there with his arms, monkeying across the rope. That's a new task (same goal, get to the other side), and might even just be Str() DC automatic success.

Right, and I'd probably turn that into a Str (Athletics) if I made it a check at all. Hell, I'd be open to it being Dex (Athletics), as while it seems to rely on physical strength a lot it also really needs a lot of coordination. But regardless, the shift from Acrobatics to Athletics would re-frame it enough for me to reevaluate the DC.

The point is, if the player wants to change the ability, the player needs to justify why by describing another approach, which makes it a different task. So you can't just straight-up change your ability score (unless the GM made a mistake when calling initially of course).

Yes, right, as I said the player can't just swap out ability mods. The player describes what they're doing and the DM decides the appropriate combination of ability and skill proficiency, if any. Of course all once past PhoenixPhyre's "threshold decision" if a check is even needed in the first place.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-07, 09:45 AM

Pelle

2019-02-07, 10:06 AM

But regardless, the shift from Acrobatics to Athletics would re-frame it enough for me to reevaluate the DC.

Well, it's not supposed to be Acrobatics checks vs. Athletics. You are supposed to call for ability checks (and add prof. if relevant). So changing the approach from Dex to Str normally warrants a big change in the approach (although in some cases it is hard to decide which is the most appropriate, and then it's fine to allow using another without changing the description).

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 10:32 AM

I would say that approach =/= proficiency. You can use different approaches for the same proficiency:

An appeal to honor ("You promised you would...") is CHA (Persuasion). An appeal to glory ("look how good you'll look if you do ...") is also CHA (Persuasion). And the goal is the same. But they're definitely different approaches with potentially different DCs, all the way from auto-success to auto-failure.

I appreciate this conversation because it's making me break down how I think about these things.

I see a difference between "I try to convince the NPC" and "I remind the NPC that he's up for a promotion in a tenday." I will almost certainly assign some kind of bonus to any check applied to the latter, or likely even allow it to succeed outright. I'm a big fan of playing out social interactions without rolls if possible, and if I can actually engage the players in an in-fiction conversation with NPCs, I'll let them use whatever logic makes sense (within the fiction) to intimidate, persuade, deceive, or otherwise convince those NPCs without backing that up with dice (although when playing the NPC role I do take things like the PCs' Cha and Int into consideration in my responses). So when I do call for a check with regard to social interaction, it's because the players have fallen back on it being just a game in this instance. That's when it doesn't matter to me how they're pulling something off, it's all fluff, and what matters is the ability mod + possible proficiency vs. a DC. If we're talking about swapping out abilities at that point, it's purely a gamist/mechanics discussion and we've lost clarity into the fiction. And that's okay, it happens, sometimes the players are tired or overwhelmed, or we're trying to play while getting lunch eaten, or any number of other reasons. Immersion ebbs and flows.

So in a case like that where we're just "playing the game," the DC doesn't change. If something could possibly cause the DC to change, then we're moving out of that just "playing the game" mode and back into roleplaying our social interactions, and at that point we're probably not dealing with dice any more. In fact I would say that's the threshold -- as soon as the possibility of modifying the DC comes up, it's happening in the context of the players describing in more detail what they're doing, and we just run with it.

That's for social interaction but it also works with other things. Looking at the tightrope-walking, assuming we're not in round-by-round mode (i.e. combat), I often just let them cross it. I might scare them by making them make rolls, or have them make some rolls to determine how long it takes them to cross. Something to create a sense of uncertainty, even if it's a facade. The reality is, they're going to make it across unless something happens that prevents it, in which case checks aren't going to help either.

So we're kind of down to making these kinds of checks when the check matters. In combat, or in time-sensitive situations like a room filling with water. Anything where we're counting out actions by rounds. Those situations, at least at my table most of the time, tend to have that "playing the game" feel. Players want to roll what will give them the best odds of success, because usually they're in a life and death situation, or at least a stressful one. All rolls at that point start to feel combat-like. The actions being taken -- social or not -- are usually quick and direct. I tend to lock down on DCs because they're functionally like AC in combat. Like I said earlier in the thread, your target's AC doesn't change because you're using your Dex mod for your shortsword instead of your Str, even though using your Dex implies a completely different approach to attacking (and AC factors Dex in different ways).

So TLDR is, when DCs matter to me, they function more like AC in combat.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-07, 10:55 AM

So TLDR is, when DCs matter to me, they function more like AC in combat.

See, I think different things should be different. If I'm even contemplating an Ability check (vs an Attack roll or a Saving throw), I'm already considering everything holistically. Every Ability check is a one-off, succeed or fail. Once the check (possibly a group check) is over, you're either past the obstacle or you're going to have to find a different route.

This means that the totality of the circumstances go into setting the DC. What they're doing is affected by how they're doing it, which effects how difficult it is. Ability checks are intentionally less codified and "stable" than the other two because they have to cover a huge range of things.

There are many things where either approach has meaningful failure (both consequences and chances of failure) but one is definitely harder than the other, even if done by someone with equal modifiers (innate capabilities).

I'll admit, I usually don't change them much. That's because 90% of the time I'm deciding between DC 10 and DC 15 on the fly, based on "sounds reasonable but not assured" (DC 10) or "might be chancy but not super hard" (DC 15). That's because my biggest concern as a DM is keeping things moving. Just like in combat (where lots of things were intentionally "nerfed" or "toned down" to keep things moving), I'd rather keep the narrative flowing all the time. Try it and move on, don't try to game the system by fishing for a better bonus. The differences overall are small because I don't do "check or die" things--it's a cascade of bad rolls that gets you, not the individual failure. That just moves things in a negative direction.

EggKookoo

2019-02-07, 11:47 AM

See, I think different things should be different. If I'm even contemplating an Ability check (vs an Attack roll or a Saving throw), I'm already considering everything holistically. Every Ability check is a one-off, succeed or fail. Once the check (possibly a group check) is over, you're either past the obstacle or you're going to have to find a different route.

This means that the totality of the circumstances go into setting the DC. What they're doing is affected by how they're doing it, which effects how difficult it is. Ability checks are intentionally less codified and "stable" than the other two because they have to cover a huge range of things.

There are many things where either approach has meaningful failure (both consequences and chances of failure) but one is definitely harder than the other, even if done by someone with equal modifiers (innate capabilities).

It's a level of resolution I'm not interested in or see much value out of getting into. My players certainly don't try to negotiate DCs. If there's anything like that it's typically from their own side -- trying to see if they can use a better modifier or gain advantage. Because DCs are the AC of non-combat (or more properly AC is the DC of combat), I think we all just view them as innate properties of the circumstance. The trick is to overcome it, not change it. At least that's how I've tended to see these things and I think my players do as well.

My reaction to the hungry wolf example came from what sounded like a bait & switch. If I put a starving wolf in front of you, and you just say "I try to persuade the wolf to let me get by," I'll probably work it out as a Wis (Animal Handling) check. If you put any creative effort into how you do it (get a stick, etc.) then however I work that out, whether it's still just Wis (Animal Handling) or Dex (Animal Handling) or whatever it is, or even rule you can't do it like that at all, what I would not do is punish you for it by making the check harder than if you just sat on your butt and ran on autopilot. I'm not deeply concerned with it being easier or harder, assuming it's possible at all. I'm concerned with encouraging you to stay in the fiction as much as possible.

And telling the player they can't do a thing is not at all like letting them do it but with a higher DC. If I tell them they can't do it, they're still free to try something else or go back to the "standard" approach. They haven't actually had their PC do anything yet.

I'll admit, I usually don't change them much. That's because 90% of the time I'm deciding between DC 10 and DC 15 on the fly, based on "sounds reasonable but not assured" (DC 10) or "might be chancy but not super hard" (DC 15). That's because my biggest concern as a DM is keeping things moving. Just like in combat (where lots of things were intentionally "nerfed" or "toned down" to keep things moving), I'd rather keep the narrative flowing all the time. Try it and move on, don't try to game the system by fishing for a better bonus. The differences overall are small because I don't do "check or die" things--it's a cascade of bad rolls that gets you, not the individual failure. That just moves things in a negative direction.

For similar reasons I tend to hang out at DC 12 for just about everything. The dice are so swingy, I don't feel the need to add to that by nickle & diming the DCs. I will bump it to something like 18 if I feel like I need to scare the players, but then it's pretty much 18 regardless of who is trying it and how.

Telok

2019-02-07, 01:19 PM

Exactly. This is one fundamental break with earlier editions--the DC represents the difficulty of the whole task/approach/circumstances combination, not any particular piece of it. The DC for crossing a tightrope depends on
a) the tightrope
b) the wind
c) the supports
d) how the person's doing so (rushing? Taking time? Carrying an awkwardly-balanced load? etc).

Actually previous editions rolled that into the DC via modifiers. There's really no difference between "To do X with stat A is DC 10, with stat B is DC 15, and without using your hands is DC 20" and "To do X is DC 10, with a different stat is -5, and without using your hands is -10". Even old AD&D where you were doing stuff like d20 under stat used modifiers to reflect that stuff.

In both methods you end up with a situation where the player rolls a d20 and needs some number or higher to succeed. If one method involves modifying the bonuses to the roll but not the DC and the other method involves modifying the DC but not the modifiers, there's no difference.

So that tightrope, wind, supports, method check? If the player is rolling +8 vs. DC 20 (DC rope 10 + breeze 2 + wobbly 5 + awkward 3) they need to roll 12+. If the player is rolling -2 vs. DC 10 (roll@ +8 - breeze 2 - wobbly 5 - load 3) they need to roll 12+. Same thing.

As long as all the factors are being considered how you arrive at that final bonus vs. DC doesn't matter. What matters is that you accounted for everything and ended up with a situation where the player knows to roll a 12+.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-07, 01:29 PM

Actually previous editions rolled that into the DC via modifiers. There's really no difference between "To do X with stat A is DC 10, with stat B is DC 15, and without using your hands is DC 20" and "To do X is DC 10, with a different stat is -5, and without using your hands is -10". Even old AD&D where you were doing stuff like d20 under stat used modifiers to reflect that stuff.

In both methods you end up with a situation where the player rolls a d20 and needs some number or higher to succeed. If one method involves modifying the bonuses to the roll but not the DC and the other method involves modifying the DC but not the modifiers, there's no difference.

So that tightrope, wind, supports, method check? If the player is rolling +8 vs. DC 20 (DC rope 10 + breeze 2 + wobbly 5 + awkward 3) they need to roll 12+. If the player is rolling -2 vs. DC 10 (roll@ +8 - breeze 2 - wobbly 5 - load 3) they need to roll 12+. Same thing.

As long as all the factors are being considered how you arrive at that final bonus vs. DC doesn't matter. What matters is that you accounted for everything and ended up with a situation where the player knows to roll a 12+.

But one's a heck of a lot less work than the other. And one supports on-the-fly fast resolution of all sorts of things, while the other is restricted to codified situations and even then is slow (multiple table lookups and addition). Because what do you do if there isn't a modifier for the exact thing in question?

The "small stacking conditional modifiers" method is painful (IMO) and encourages gaming the system to grub for individual points. It also encourages false precision (and makes all wobbly things identical).

So while the results may be similar, the path to get there is completely different, as is the underlying philosophy of when you need to make checks in the first place.

ChildofLuthic

2019-02-07, 04:55 PM

To answer the main question, the rule of thumb I use is this:

DC10 means that a character that knows what they're doing, they'll probably get it, and even if they don't know what they're doing, they have a good chance of getting it. My favorite example of this was the Animal Handling check to pacify the animal by giving it food.

DC15 means that if a character knows what they're doing, they have a decent shot of getting it, but if the character doesn't, they probably won't get it. This is a lot of my history checks for background lore: the characters that studied history might remember, or they might not. The ones that didn't study history are very unlikely to know, but they might have heard stories.

DC20 means that something is hard even if the character knows what they're doing. For example, intimidating a king who's surrounded by his guards.

Pelle

2019-02-08, 05:29 AM

My reaction to the hungry wolf example came from what sounded like a bait & switch. If I put a starving wolf in front of you, and you just say "I try to persuade the wolf to let me get by," I'll probably work it out as a Wis (Animal Handling) check. If you put any creative effort into how you do it (get a stick, etc.) then however I work that out, whether it's still just Wis (Animal Handling) or Dex (Animal Handling) or whatever it is, or even rule you can't do it like that at all, what I would not do is punish you for it by making the check harder than if you just sat on your butt and ran on autopilot. I'm not deeply concerned with it being easier or harder, assuming it's possible at all. I'm concerned with encouraging you to stay in the fiction as much as possible.

And telling the player they can't do a thing is not at all like letting them do it but with a higher DC. If I tell them they can't do it, they're still free to try something else or go back to the "standard" approach. They haven't actually had their PC do anything yet.

I find it curious that you find letting people try something difficult if they want more stifling than flat out railroading them saying they can't even try.

I think you fixated too much on the one example where the DC increased when the PC changed approach. It could just as well stay the same or even decrease. But it depends on the approach itself. However, since players often suggest the most obvious thing to do first, that frequently be the approach with lowest DC as well. IMO, this is encouraging much more creativity, because the players are considering what is the best approach overall, given that some approaches are easier, and anything can be tried even if you have low ability scores.

One comment to this was that then you just choose to do the thing which has the best chance of success (Wis+0 DC 10 instead of Dex+3 DC 15). Yes, of course you should, but the creative challenge here is coming up with the different possible approaches, that's what the game is about. And since the consequences are not the same, it may not be an obvious choice if failing the Wis based is much worse than failing the Dex based.

The problem with keeping the DC independent of what the PC actually is doing is what Tanarii observed. The creative challenge of the game becomes trying to milk your best stat, shoehorning it into every task. It's not a less obvious choice to always pick Dex based approach (Wis+0 DC 10 or Dex+3 DC 10).

Not changing the DC based on the approach also leads to mismatch between the fiction and the chance of success, as discussed. This leads to slapstick games, which is not what I want personally. I guess it comes down to what you want to reward, creative smart actions or creative expressive actions.

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 07:14 AM

I find it curious that you find letting people try something difficult if they want more stifling than flat out railroading them saying they can't even try.

I explained my reasoning above but I do object to the notion that telling a player they can't do something is railroading. It can be in some cases, but it isn't necessarily. If a player wants to hit a creature standing right next to them with their sword, and the DM says "no, you can't/don't do that," sure. I guess most of us would call that railroading. If the player wants to hit a creature a mile away with their sword and the DM says "no," then that's just reality ensuing. Assuming we're not talking about some situation where the PC can hit people magically at that distance with a melee weapon.

We tell players "no" all the time. No, you can't juggle the elephants. No, you can't attack when it's not your turn (barring OAs or something). No, you can't dodge that magic missile. No, you can't seduce the queen.

That last one may raise some eyebrows. Can't seduce the queen? Why the hell not? Surely I should let the player roll anyway to see. Sure, the queen has a happy, stable, fulfilling marriage with the king. Sure, she isn't even remotely interested in the PC. Go ahead, roll. DC is 100.

"But that's impossible to hit!" Exactly. But go ahead and waste your action/turn/whatever to prove a point.

Telling a player "no" when sensible isn't really restricting their or their character's actions. It's giving them a peek into how common sense works in the fiction. In a sense, it's the PC telling its own player that it can't do that thing. The DM is just facilitating. At least most of the time.

I think you fixated too much on the one example where the DC increased when the PC changed approach. It could just as well stay the same or even decrease. But it depends on the approach itself. However, since players often suggest the most obvious thing to do first, that frequently be the approach with lowest DC as well. IMO, this is encouraging much more creativity, because the players are considering what is the best approach overall, given that some approaches are easier, and anything can be tried even if you have low ability scores.

One comment to this was that then you just choose to do the thing which has the best chance of success (Wis+0 DC 10 instead of Dex+3 DC 15). Yes, of course you should, but the creative challenge here is coming up with the different possible approaches, that's what the game is about. And since the consequences are not the same, it may not be an obvious choice if failing the Wis based is much worse than failing the Dex based.

Yeah, so I don't think I've ever had a player choose to go with an approach with a lesser chance of success because it was more "creative." For my players, and for me for that matter, the best approach is the one that yields the best chance of success. That's the definition. So if as you say, the most obvious thing to do usually has the lowest DC, it kind of just happens that way.

What happens is a player describes what they're doing, I convert that into a check -- let's say Wis (Animal Handling). The player thinks about it and maybe thinks if they could use their Dex it would give them a better chance to succeed, as their Dex is higher than their Wis. They then try to rephrase what they're doing along those lines in the hopes of making it a Dex (Animal Handling) check. If what they say makes sense to me as the DM, I let them do that. It becomes the better approach because it grants them a better chance of succeeding and it fits their character concept better (the PC is probably Dex-heavy). If what they're asking to do either flat out wouldn't work, or wouldn't work any better than the original "default" action, I tell them that.

If it could conceivably work but not as well as the default approach, I guess you could say that yes, technically, I'm increasing the DC. But that's not how I present it to the player. I encourage the player to go with the default action because that's what the PC's gut is saying to do. And yes, I sometimes tell my players what their PCs are thinking. Thoughts sometimes come unbidden. Instincts and gut feelings are not subject to choice. There's nothing railroady about saying "yeah, you're not sure that will work..." If the player insisted on taking the less-optimal choice (from a dice perspective), I'd let them. I can tell you how often that's happened (it rhymes with "hero").

The problem with keeping the DC independent of what the PC actually is doing is what Tanarii observed. The creative challenge of the game becomes trying to milk your best stat, shoehorning it into every task. It's not a less obvious choice to always pick Dex based approach (Wis+0 DC 10 or Dex+3 DC 10).

:smallconfused:

Why wouldn't the players try to leverage their best stats? I mean surely you're not just setting high DCs and letting them roll whatever ability score they want, are you?

"I seduce the queen but I'm going to use my Con!"

"I try to calm the wolf using my Int."

"Ok, I run across the tightrope but instead of my Dex I'll use Cha..."

The "bug" you're talking about is easily stomped by having the ability to tell the players "no" when they try to do something that just wouldn't work. Telling a player they can't use Dex for everything isn't squashing creativity. Maybe it'll encourage the Dex min-maxer to put some points in something else. Or learn to rely on the bard for the Cha-based social stuff (which is what typically happens at my games -- my players become specialist go-to guys for various things). But there's nothing inherently broken about a player trying to work their best features into their actions. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Not changing the DC based on the approach also leads to mismatch between the fiction and the chance of success, as discussed. This leads to slapstick games, which is not what I want personally. I guess it comes down to what you want to reward, creative smart actions or creative expressive actions.

I'm not exactly following this. I guess I'd say I want to reward creative smart actions over creative expressive actions but TBH I'm not quite sure I get what distinction you're focusing on. And when I say "I want to reward" what I mean is I've learn that's what my players want rewarded. I want them to be satisfied with their choices and gameplay.

As I said to PhoenixPhyre earlier, the DC is just one component in success, and finagling it in the face of ability score mods, the heavy swinginess of the dice, and even possible adv/disadv, just creates a false sense of control over the outcome. It just becomes another (largely pointless) element to haggle over. This is why I tend to just sit on DC 12 for most things. It keeps the players' attention focused on what they can do.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-08, 07:52 AM

Yeah, so I don't think I've ever had a player choose to go with an approach with a lesser chance of success because it was more "creative." For my players, and for me for that matter, the best approach is the one that yields the best chance of success. That's the definition. So if as you say, the most obvious thing to do usually has the lowest DC, it kind of just happens that way.

Maybe you haven't, but I certainly have. Most of the time, in fact. They are role-playing, choosing what's best from their character's point of view, not from some detached "game mechanic" point of view. The characters don't know the odds of success beyond vague generalities.

And we have to be careful equating "obvious thing to do" and "lowest DC". Because that "easy path" is a pernicious form of pseudo-railroading. For me, the trick is to look for reasons why their attempted action will succeed, not reasons that it will fail. And not try to come up with "preferred" solutions but instead judge each attempt in its own light, based on what the characters would know.

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 08:30 AM

Maybe you haven't, but I certainly have. Most of the time, in fact. They are role-playing, choosing what's best from their character's point of view, not from some detached "game mechanic" point of view. The characters don't know the odds of success beyond vague generalities.

I'm an open-roller DM. I don't use a DM screen. I tell my players the DC and AC of any roll before they make it, mainly so the player making the roll knows immediately if they succeeded or failed without me having to tell them. I find they get more invested when I do that over just saying "make a roll," doing the DC stuff in my head, and then describing the results. It also lets me reserve that kind of thing for mystery rolls used to spook the players.

I don't let a player make a decision without them knowing the likelihood of success, unless of course there's a specific in-fiction element that would dictate otherwise (they're playing cards against NPCs or something along those lines). This isn't dogma at my end, but more of a response to what seems to generate the most interest and attention from the players. They prefer knowing these things, I don't see it as game-breaking, so that's how I do it.

Given that, I know from experience that 100% of the time, if I tell one of my players that X approach will be more likely to succeed than Y approach, they will take X. The job for me, then, is to craft encounters so X isn't always the best approach, because that could become stale. So I build some encounters so that X -- the expected, conventional approach -- doesn't translate into the best chance of success per the dice. Or I build it so that while X might give them the best results per dice, the reward for doing Y is greater and more impactful to the adventure. Sure, easy to kill the goblin, but harder (higher DC) to question him and find the location of the McGuffin. That's not two approaches to the same task in my mind. That's two completely separate tasks, each with its own DC.

(And I'd try to play out the interrogation verbally and not just make it some kind of Cha check. If I'm doing it right, no dice are touched except maybe at key tactical points to help me decide which way to go. So in practice the DC for the interrogation path is ideally nonexistent.)

And we have to be careful equating "obvious thing to do" and "lowest DC". Because that "easy path" is a pernicious form of pseudo-railroading. For me, the trick is to look for reasons why their attempted action will succeed, not reasons that it will fail. And not try to come up with "preferred" solutions but instead judge each attempt in its own light, based on what the characters would know.

Sure, well, first, the idea that the most obvious thing equates to the lowest DC was Pelle's contribution. I was just working within that context. I haven't really thought about if it's true or not. Second, I'm not sure that I believe "pseudo-railroading" is a thing. Railroading to my mind has to be pretty blatant. Railroading that the players are unaware of is just crafting the scenario (I mean, the entire game is "pseudo-railroading" in a sense). I also don't think it's railroading to tell a player "no." It could be if there's no in-fiction reason the character wouldn't think to try something. But the player can often come up with things even their own PC would laugh at (see elephant juggling). So just getting that out there.

But yes, I also champion the players and want them to succeed. I want my players to succeed in every check, attack, save, whatever. Every single one. I want them to succeed, but I also know there has to be a chance of failure in order for those successes to mean anything. I've found through experience that just having something like a flat 25% chance of failure is often enough to make success feel earned. In practice that number does and should vary based on the choices the player made -- high Dex PCs should succeed at Dex-based rolls more often, for instance. But it doesn't take much fear of failure to make success feel good.

Pelle

2019-02-08, 09:00 AM

We tell players "no" all the time. No, you can't juggle the elephants. No, you can't attack when it's not your turn (barring OAs or something). No, you can't dodge that magic missile. No, you can't seduce the queen.

You are not only saying no to something succeeding, you are saying no to letting them try at all. That's why I called it railroading. Of course the PC should be allowed to try to seduce the queen. After the player is informed this will be a bad idea that has slim chances of succeeding, it's up to the player to make the decision. Not to focus too much on this, but I just don't get why you think it's a **** move to let people try something that they know will likely fail. In my view is a much worse move to deny them the chance to even try if they want to. It might seem like a passive-agressive way of saying no, but it's really not. I have no investment in what the players should be trying, I just try to be fair with whatever they come up with.

If what they're asking to do either flat out wouldn't work, or wouldn't work any better than the original "default" action, I tell them that.

I basically do the same, but the difference is that you say No!, while I give them the option to try so that they can make an informed choice about what they want to do. And that is somehow insulting to the player?

Why wouldn't the players try to leverage their best stats? I mean surely you're not just setting high DCs and letting them roll whatever ability score they want, are you?

"I seduce the queen but I'm going to use my Con!"

"I try to calm the wolf using my Int."

"Ok, I run across the tightrope but instead of my Dex I'll use Cha..."

Me: Allright, that's cool. Tell me what your character is doing for that to work, and I will set the DC based on the approach you are taking.

You seem to have a very binary view of the situation: the DC to seduce the queen is X, irrespective of how they try to seduce her. If they try an approach that falls outside what you think is appropriate, you just deny them the chance to try. You arbitrarily reduce the possibility space of what PCs can try doing, because you have decided that a task should have a certain DC, and if players tries something outside of where that DC is appropriate they are shot down.

I instead let players try whatever approach they want, trying to be fair when I adjudicate it and giving them information about the difficulty beforehand if they ask. Players can try to use Dex for everything, but that's not always going to be the best approach, which will be reflected in the DC.

I'm not exactly following this. I guess I'd say I want to reward creative smart actions over creative expressive actions but TBH I'm not quite sure I get what distinction you're focusing on. And when I say "I want to reward" what I mean is I've learn that's what my players want rewarded. I want them to be satisfied with their choices and gameplay.

It sounds like you want to reward the Dex-based character putting extra effort into creatively describing how he solves every task with a Dex-based approach. Irregardless of how good that approach is, as long as the player puts effort into the description. I just want to be a neutral judge of whatever the player comes up with, which rewards the Dex-based character to creatively identify whichever approach is the best for the task at hand. It don't have to be Dex-based, and it is only limited by players imagination.

Pelle

2019-02-08, 09:34 AM

And we have to be careful equating "obvious thing to do" and "lowest DC". Because that "easy path" is a pernicious form of pseudo-railroading. For me, the trick is to look for reasons why their attempted action will succeed, not reasons that it will fail. And not try to come up with "preferred" solutions but instead judge each attempt in its own light, based on what the characters would know.

I'm using the term 'best approach' here, but that's really just the approach that has the highest chance of succeeding, provided that is what the players care about.

Most of the time when I am GM I just try to put the PCs in potentially interesting situations, without having thought about what they should do. I don't care what they try, that's up to them. Whatever the players want to do, I try to adjudicate by its own merits in a consistent way. So there's no preferred solution, and what approach will have the lowest DC is discovered in play as the players suggest different approaches. Normally they go with the first thing they think about based on what their character would do, but since I usually tell them the DC before they commit, they have the opportunity to consider other options.

What the players want to do is really the 'best' approach, but I don't make the fun choice any easier for funs' sake.

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 10:09 AM

You are not only saying no to something succeeding, you are saying no to letting them try at all. That's why I called it railroading. Of course the PC should be allowed to try to seduce the queen. After the player is informed this will be a bad idea that has slim chances of succeeding, it's up to the player to make the decision. Not to focus too much on this, but I just don't get why you think it's a **** move to let people try something that they know will likely fail. In my view is a much worse move to deny them the chance to even try if they want to. It might seem like a passive-agressive way of saying no, but it's really not. I have no investment in what the players should be trying, I just try to be fair with whatever they come up with.

Of course I let them try. There's just no chance of succeeding so there's no point in a roll. We roleplay it out, by which I mean I get to have the queen laugh and laugh and laugh and then throw him in the dungeon.

We've been talking about checks here. I never stop a player from having their PC do anything, even if the player knows it won't work. Go ahead and try to juggle those elephants. Just don't expect there's some kind of die roll that'll let you not get crushed.

I'm saying "no" to the player, not to the character. And by "no" I'm not saying the player can't do whatever. I'm saying that doing whatever will fail. But knock yourself out.

You seem to have a very binary view of the situation: the DC to seduce the queen is X, irrespective of how they try to seduce her. If they try an approach that falls outside what you think is appropriate, you just deny them the chance to try. You arbitrarily reduce the possibility space of what PCs can try doing, because you have decided that a task should have a certain DC, and if players tries something outside of where that DC is appropriate they are shot down.

If you had been reading my posts, you'd know that's not true. If the player comes up with something inventive or approaches it from a creative angle, we'd roleplay it out. I'd ask, specifically, what the player is trying to do. In detail. I would then decide, without reaching for dice, how the queen would respond, based on how I've designed her and crafted her personality. The I'd ask the player how, in detail, they respond to that. And so on and so forth until the player runs out of ideas or figures out a way to seduce the queen.

If, at any point, the player falls back on some equivalent of "can I make a check to see if I've convinced her?" I'd say "well, that check will fail" (because it has an arbitrarily high DC). Not all attempts at seduction would be like this, of course. Seduce a barkeep? Sure, that can be a check. Seduce a gelatinous cube? Uh...

I instead let players try whatever approach they want, trying to be fair when I adjudicate it and giving them information about the difficulty beforehand if they ask. Players can try to use Dex for everything, but that's not always going to be the best approach, which will be reflected in the DC.

So what's the DC for juggling elephants? If it's so high I could never succeed, you're effectively telling me I can't do it.

It sounds like you want to reward the Dex-based character putting extra effort into creatively describing how he solves every task with a Dex-based approach. Irregardless of how good that approach is, as long as the player puts effort into the description.

Not essentially untrue, but a bit of an oversimplification. I absolutely want any character to feel rewarded for putting extra effort into creatively describing how they solve any task. Part of that is also not rewarding them for just sticking their favorite ability into every check. If a Dex-strong character just keeps trying to use Dex for everything, I don't think I'd classify that as "creative." Certainly there would be instances where using Dex is actually pretty imaginative, but if that's all the player does all the time, it's kind of lazy.

But the additional element, which you claim I'm ignoring or not attending to, is the "regardless of how good that approach is" pat. I've said repeatedly that I would evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the "creative" suggestion. If your Con is high and you try to crowbar it into something that doesn't really fit (like a social roll), and the only real outcome I can imagine is something so unlikely that even rolling a 20 way overstates your chances, then I'm faced with either setting the DC to something impossible, or saying "you don't think that will work" (a.k.a. "no, you can't do that"), which amounts to the same thing.

If I tell player that they can't do a thing, and they insist that their character still does that thing, fine. They "try" (whatever that means but it won't be a die roll since the DC wouldn't be achievable) and then I describe how it didn't work. I'm not railroading anything, I'm just not letting my player alter the rules of reality because they want to be "creative."

Telok

2019-02-08, 01:20 PM

what do you do if there isn't a modifier for the exact thing in question?

Exactly what you do when there isn't a predetermined DC for the exact thing in question. Make it up. Because ultimately what you're doing (if you tell players the DC before commiting to the action) is telling a player "roll X or better on the die".

How you, as DM, get to that number is personal preference. Both methods work in all editions of D&D, they just aren't presented in all editions.

Ultimately I think the beef with the 5e skill/prof system isn't the rolling or the actual DCs (although the fact that the difference between the highest and lowest modifiers is only about 15 points can lead to stupid random outcomes at times). The issue is that the PH & DMG, which is all you can assume that someone has when DMing, doesn't really talk about the things in this thread and how they change the game. There's nothing in them about the frequency of rolling being the determinant between the PCs being skilled action heroes or the Three Stooges. There's nothing saying that the 'moderate' DC of 15 isn't supposed to be the average DC that they normally use. There's nothing talking about how often characters should succeed or fail at things and how choosing DCs affects that, which is important because not all DMs can do (or even know to do) a basic probability spot check in their head.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-08, 02:12 PM

Funny you should say that the guidance is incomplete--

Everything I've said in this thread (and everything I know about setting DCs) comes directly from the DMG. When to roll? That's there. The effect that too much (or not enough) rolling can have? That's there. The meaning of the difficulty labels? That's there. It's all there if you read the words and listen to what it's actually saying.

Sure, there aren't very many tables of "do this, then this". Because different DMs are different and styles vary. But the guidance is (in my opinion) crystal clear. The big problem is that many DMs are in the habit of ignoring such guidance in favor of looking for "mechanical" rules.

And setting DC 15 as your default is a fine way to play. But (as it suggests), you should also be asking for fewer, larger scope rolls and/or allowing partial success/partial failure (both of which are discussed).

While the method of setting the DC doesn't matter in the final roll, it does matter for tone, table culture, and speed of play. A game that defaults to "look it up in a table and do math" incentivizes numerical optimization and "getting it right" It means that people will expect every challenge to come dominantly from the tables. It encourages rules-lawyering and nitpicking. It drastically slows down gameplay when you hit something that you didn't plan in advance. It limits flexibility. And in the end, since you're still going to have to make up modifiers (or decide which modifiers apply), it's just as arbitrary as just picking one of DC 10, DC 15, or DC 20.\

Edit: and a table-based system also encourages having one and only one "proper" approach to a task. There is only one way to know about a zombie in 3e: a Knowledge(X) check vs a fixed DC and it always gives stat-block information. Instead, 5e suggests you'd (as the DM) request an Intelligence check and allow them to suggest a skill and explain how that skill would be useful. And the information you get can differ. An Intelligence(Arcana) check might reveal that they're usually controlled by someone, but some arise spontaneously. A INT(Nature) check might reveal that they're unrelentingly hostile to living things unless under tight control or that they're very resilient. An INT(Religion) check might tell you what kind of person is likely to be animating such things. Etc.

We see this quite a bit here--people say "X is the only way to do Y", when that's not true. X is a common way to do Y, but Z or P or Q might also work (better in some cases, worse in others).

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 02:51 PM

Edit: and a table-based system also encourages having one and only one "proper" approach to a task. There is only one way to know about a zombie in 3e: a Knowledge(X) check vs a fixed DC and it always gives stat-block information. Instead, 5e suggests you'd (as the DM) request an Intelligence check and allow them to suggest a skill and explain how that skill would be useful. And the information you get can differ. An Intelligence(Arcana) check might reveal that they're usually controlled by someone, but some arise spontaneously. A INT(Nature) check might reveal that they're unrelentingly hostile to living things unless under tight control or that they're very resilient. An INT(Religion) check might tell you what kind of person is likely to be animating such things. Etc.

I love this, and like I said before I appreciate how these conversations make me formalize (at least to myself) how I intuitively think about these things. I guess I do, after all, think of proficiency as "approach." Kind of like the tool, or weapon in the case of combat, one might use for a mechanical or physical task. That's probably why I don't like to budge on a DC and lock it to the approach in question. The ability mod is the variable.

So in your example, I'd be okay with the Int (Arcana) check and the Int (Religion) check having different DCs. But I'd probably want to keep an Int (Religion) check and a (say) Wis (Religion) check the same. Using (Religion) is the tool. Int or Wis is how you use it. Or put another way, the skill proficiency feels more objective, something grounded, and the ability mod is your personal twist or interpretation. Your flair.

Not looking to rekindle the debate. Just kind of acknowledging the idea. I can see how you'd come at it differently.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-08, 03:14 PM

I love this, and like I said before I appreciate how these conversations make me formalize (at least to myself) how I intuitively think about these things. I guess I do, after all, think of proficiency as "approach." Kind of like the tool, or weapon in the case of combat, one might use for a mechanical or physical task. That's probably why I don't like to budge on a DC and lock it to the approach in question. The ability mod is the variable.

So in your example, I'd be okay with the Int (Arcana) check and the Int (Religion) check having different DCs. But I'd probably want to keep an Int (Religion) check and a (say) Wis (Religion) check the same. Using (Religion) is the tool. Int or Wis is how you use it. Or put another way, the skill proficiency feels more objective, something grounded, and the ability mod is your personal twist or interpretation. Your flair.

Not looking to rekindle the debate. Just kind of acknowledging the idea. I can see how you'd come at it differently.

For me, the relationship is the opposite. Ability use is primary--slipping through the bars (DEX) is different than breaking them (STR). Intuiting something to be true (WIS) is different than logically deducing something (INT). Charming (non-magical) someone (CHA) is different than debating them logically (INT). Skills are a sub-specialty beyond that. You're not only good at dealing with people (CHA), you're especially good at getting them to believe your lies (CHA (Deception)). You're not just nimble (DEX), you're good at hiding from notice (Stealth). And someone good at one sub-specialty may not be nearly as good at another--you might be great at hiding but only OK at picking pockets.

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 03:43 PM

For me, the relationship is the opposite. Ability use is primary--slipping through the bars (DEX) is different than breaking them (STR). Intuiting something to be true (WIS) is different than logically deducing something (INT). Charming (non-magical) someone (CHA) is different than debating them logically (INT). Skills are a sub-specialty beyond that. You're not only good at dealing with people (CHA), you're especially good at getting them to believe your lies (CHA (Deception)). You're not just nimble (DEX), you're good at hiding from notice (Stealth). And someone good at one sub-specialty may not be nearly as good at another--you might be great at hiding but only OK at picking pockets.

So I would see slipping through bars and breaking them as a fundamentally different tasks, using different proficiencies. Those aren't both Acrobatics, right? When I talk about not changing the DC, I mean it in the sense of using the same proficiency. So it would be Dex (Acrobatics) vs. Str (Acrobatics) if you could visualize or describe the latter without it being better represented with Athletics.

Skill proficiencies are strange overall in that many of them are ridiculously broad. Moving around quietly and picking pockets are really not at all the same kind of skill, but the game just parks them both under Stealth. Athletics and Acrobatics both cover a very wide range, even with some overlap (is a jumping-based action more Acrobatics or Athletics?). Some are more narrow. I get that they were trying to keep it from running amuck but I also wonder if they should have added another layer of Specializations (as opposed to Skills) where you could put very specialized things like juggling or pickpocketing, but used Acrobatics or Stealth respectively for more generalized things.

But now I'm way off-topic...

Pelle

2019-02-08, 03:47 PM

If you had been reading my posts, you'd know that's not true.

I think there's not too much difference between us here, I'm just sticking to commenting at the points I see differently...

Not essentially untrue, but a bit of an oversimplification. I absolutely want any character to feel rewarded for putting extra effort into creatively describing how they solve any task. Part of that is also not rewarding them for just sticking their favorite ability into every check. If a Dex-strong character just keeps trying to use Dex for everything, I don't think I'd classify that as "creative." Certainly there would be instances where using Dex is actually pretty imaginative, but if that's all the player does all the time, it's kind of lazy.

But the additional element, which you claim I'm ignoring or not attending to, is the "regardless of how good that approach is" pat. I've said repeatedly that I would evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the "creative" suggestion.

Yet still, increasing the DC slightly if that is appropriate to the approach described is unthinkable?

If your Con is high and you try to crowbar it into something that doesn't really fit (like a social roll), and the only real outcome I can imagine is something so unlikely that even rolling a 20 way overstates your chances, then I'm faced with either setting the DC to something impossible, or saying "you don't think that will work" (a.k.a. "no, you can't do that"), which amounts to the same thing.

Again, this is binary thinking. Either the DC is X or it is impossible. Can you never imagine an approach to be in between those two? Either the Con based approach is just as good as the Cha based, or it is impossible. If you can imagine one that can work, but would be somewhat more difficult, why is it negative to just relay that in a neutral manner and let the player decide? When you insist the player use the Cha based because it will have a better chance of succeeding, you are making a decision for the player. That's bad, because the player may also care about how the character succeed (cha or con), regardless of the chance of success, and additionally the consequences may be different.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-08, 03:55 PM

So I would see slipping through bars and breaking them as a fundamentally different tasks, using different proficiencies. Those aren't both Acrobatics, right? When I talk about not changing the DC, I mean it in the sense of using the same proficiency. So it would be Dex (Acrobatics) vs. Str (Acrobatics) if you could visualize or describe the latter without it being better represented with Athletics.

Skill proficiencies are strange overall in that many of them are ridiculously broad. Moving around quietly and picking pockets are really not at all the same kind of skill, but the game just parks them both under Stealth. Athletics and Acrobatics both cover a very wide range, even with some overlap (is a jumping-based action more Acrobatics or Athletics?). Some are more narrow. I get that they were trying to keep it from running amuck but I also wonder if they should have added another layer of Specializations (as opposed to Skills) where you could put very specialized things like juggling or pickpocketing, but used Acrobatics or Stealth respectively for more generalized things.

But now I'm way off-topic...

The idea is that the DM sets the Ability score (and doesn't change it), but proficiencies are not fixed to that ability score and so can be argued/changed. That means that by default, you're not letting the player choose the Ability score (and thus the overall idea) but you are letting them substitute a different specialty if they can argue it. Sometimes the two overlap, but by default there are no skill checks in 5e. There are only Ability checks to which you might add proficiency. Or not. Thus, changing the Ability score represents fundamentally different tasks, not different approaches. Using CHA(Religion) to persuade a particularly devout individual vs a more general CHA(Persuasion) is what the book expects. But "dealing with people" is fundamentally a CHA thing.

Edit: and picking pockets is Sleight-of-Hand, not Stealth. As is pocketing something so it doesn't get found on a cursory search. Remember that 5e skills are adventuring things, focused on the types of things adventurers do. So no Baking proficiency.

So Ability scores are more fundamental than proficiencies--skills are small modulations on top of large (thematically) Ability scores. This is a major change from earlier editions, where skills were primary.

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 04:10 PM

Yet still, increasing the DC slightly if that is appropriate to the approach described is unthinkable?

"Unthinkable" isn't the word I'd use. Impractical, maybe? I mean breaking it down, it would have to be 1) I describe the situation and ask you what you're going to do, 2) you describe your intended action, 3) I (assuming it's roll-worthy at all) express it back to you as an ability (skill) check, 4) you evaluate that and then ask if there's a way you can accomplish the same thing using a different ability.

We'd have to pause the example here. When you ask about the alternate ability, I'd have to consider reframing things with a different skill proficiency. So if I say it's Str (Athletics) and you come back with an alternate idea that parses better as Dex (Acrobatics), I have to consider that. If it feels better to go with a new skill proficiency, I'd re-evaluate the entire thing as a new task with a potentially new DC. Of course since I like to just go with 12, that probably wouldn't change anyway, but it's not "unthinkable." On the other hand, if what you suggest still feels like it's better paired with the original proficiency, so I guess it's Dex (Athletics), I still think I'd think of it as fundamentally the same "problem" you're dealing with, so I wouldn't tend to change the DC.

Especially because most likely you're moving it to Dex because your Dex is better than your Str. You could, I suppose, be moving it to a lower Dex because that fits your concept better but I have yet to have a player do that kind of thing. I think they only reason I could imagine that they would is because there's some larger benefit to them using Dex, like some aspect of the setting surrounding the event ("Behold warriors, the most nimble of you will get the prize!"). The player in that case may think that they're more likely to succeed in their check with Str but they want that prize, so they're willing to risk a lower chance. But this is kind of beside the point...

Again, this is binary thinking. Either the DC is X or it is impossible. Can you never imagine an approach to be in between those two? Either the Con based approach is just as good as the Cha based, or it is impossible.

Allow myself to quote myself...

"If your Con is high and you try to crowbar it into something that doesn't really fit (like a social roll), and the only real outcome I can imagine is something so unlikely that even rolling a 20 way overstates your chances, then I'm faced with either setting the DC to something impossible, or saying "you don't think that will work" (a.k.a. "no, you can't do that"), which amounts to the same thing."

That initial "if" applies to the part where I'm talking about the only outcome I can imagine. If I can imagine an outcome that might work, then you can roll.

I'd probably keep the DC at 12 though... :smallcool:

If you can imagine one that can work, but would be somewhat more difficult, why is it negative to just relay that in a neutral manner and let the player decide? When you insist the player use the Cha based because it will have a better chance of succeeding, you are making a decision for the player. That's bad, because the player may also care about how the character succeed (cha or con), regardless of the chance of success, and additionally the consequences may be different.

If the player comes up with a creative and convincing explanation for how they can use their Con in an attempt to (Persuade) when normally most sane people would use Cha, I'm going to reward them by not increasing the DC. They get a nice bonus to what would otherwise feel intuitively like a hard thing to do.

The price is that that explanation better be pretty darn convincing.

Note here, I'm not saying it's inherently unrealistic to use Con for persuasion. You could, I guess, put on a show of pain resistance to convince a warlord to respect you. But given that context, that's probably easier than just straight up using your Cha in a conventional manner (the warlord can't stand that bard, he talks too much!). In order to qualify for this example, the Con approach has to be very unlikely to succeed over the default Cha one.

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 04:21 PM

The idea is that the DM sets the Ability score (and doesn't change it), but proficiencies are not fixed to that ability score and so can be argued/changed. That means that by default, you're not letting the player choose the Ability score (and thus the overall idea) but you are letting them substitute a different specialty if they can argue it. Sometimes the two overlap, but by default there are no skill checks in 5e. There are only Ability checks to which you might add proficiency. Or not. Thus, changing the Ability score represents fundamentally different tasks, not different approaches. Using CHA(Religion) to persuade a particularly devout individual vs a more general CHA(Persuasion) is what the book expects. But "dealing with people" is fundamentally a CHA thing.

Ah, I'm working off the Variant: Skills with Different Abilities on p175. It talks about swapping in either direction. For example:

"Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."

So the ability score in question isn't locked down, at least if you use this variant.

Edit: and picking pockets is Sleight-of-Hand, not Stealth. As is pocketing something so it doesn't get found on a cursory search. Remember that 5e skills are adventuring things, focused on the types of things adventurers do. So no Baking proficiency.

Thank you, good correction.

So Ability scores are more fundamental than proficiencies--skills are small modulations on top of large (thematically) Ability scores. This is a major change from earlier editions, where skills were primary.

I'm not sure that's true given the variant above. How could you swap out the ability score for Intimidation if that was the case?

Pelle

2019-02-08, 04:37 PM

"
I'd probably keep the DC at 12 though... :smallcool:

Well, if you only use DC 12 and automatic failure as the only two options, that's the source of the binary issue...

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-08, 04:44 PM

Ah, I'm working off the Variant: Skills with Different Abilities on p175. It talks about swapping in either direction. For example:

"Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."

So the ability score in question isn't locked down, at least if you use this variant.

Thank you, good correction.

I'm not sure that's true given the variant above. How could you swap out the ability score for Intimidation if that was the case?

You're doing a Strength thing (using raw STR) for the purpose of Intimidation. So being good at intimidating people carries over. But note it's at the DM's discretion, not the players'. But yes, you can go either direction but the fundamental is the Ability score. That's part of the design of 5e in general (specific exceptions not withstanding).

EggKookoo

2019-02-08, 05:11 PM

Well, if you only use DC 12 and automatic failure as the only two options, that's the source of the binary issue...

Hm. The DC for trying to cast my gameplay style according to your worldview is... 12.

Edit: It's actually mono...nary? Since we're still talking about checks, auto-fail falls outside that. If we expand what we're talking about to all kinds of resolution, then there's auto-success as well as the very fine-grained process of roleplaying out the thing at the table without resorting to dice. I would even let you try to explain how you juggle elephants that way.

You're doing a Strength thing (using raw STR) for the purpose of Intimidation. So being good at intimidating people carries over. But note it's at the DM's discretion, not the players'. But yes, you can go either direction but the fundamental is the Ability score. That's part of the design of 5e in general (specific exceptions not withstanding).

"In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check."

Seems to flow both ways?

Edit: Specifically, I mean the impetus for swapping abilities and proficiencies can come from both player and DM. The DM has final say but the DM has final say in pretty much everything, even things that are typically considered purely in the land of player agency.

Zalabim

2019-02-09, 04:55 AM

A lot of talk has gone on without considering two other aspects of "how hard is it," degrees of success/failure, and when you are rolling against time/failure without inherent consequence. So here we go. Using the terms from DMG page 242, and hopefully any additional terms will make sense in that context.

With a +4 bonus, against DC 10 the PC will succeed 75% of the time on the first try. There's a further 10% chance of success at a cost. There's only a 5% chance of a second degree of failure. There's a 50% chance of passing with an extra degree of success.

With a +4 bonus, against DC 15 the PC succeeds 50% of the time on the first try. There's still a 10% chance of success at a cost. There's now 30% chance of a second degree of failure. There's a 5% chance of an even worse failure, if applicable. There's only 25% chance of passing with an extra degree of success. In terms of time, it takes two rolls to reach an average 75% chance of success.

With a +4 bonus, against DC 20 the PC succeeds 25% of the time on the first try. There's still a 10% chance of success at a cost. Two or more degrees of failure is now the majority of results at 55% chance. Passing with an extra degree of success is impossible. In terms of time, it takes five rolls to pass an average 75% chance of success.

Putting some terms into fictional contexts, succeeding at climbing means you make progress at half your speed. Failure at climbing may mean no progress this time period (typically this turn). Success with a cost at climbing might mean taking damage (either from exertion or being exposed to some hazard or attacks), taking more effort (if you spend your action, you can make progress at half speed, no second roll needed/normally allowed on a turn), or ending up in a vulnerable position (you reach the top, but are prone/the rope is fraying and in danger of breaking/an enemy hangs onto you but you manage to pull you both up). An extra degree of failure at climbing means actually losing progress, sliding downhill in loose gravel or falling off a cliff. An extra degree of success at climbing may mean faster progress/less effort, or a benefit that can help your allies like showing them an easier path or giving someone advantage.