Casters Can Do Everything, Even Create a New Thread [Archive]

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-10, 09:32 PM

Charismatic Leader. Fighter. Heal without spells. That's the paladin. Also, the idea did not come from wargaming and historical stuff, it came from fiction.

Cleric came first. There's more 'wargame' roots to it than paladin.
The paladin was a bid for a leader type knight in shining armor from many different fictional stories:
Oiger the Dane, Roland of Roncevalles, Sir Galahad, and so on.
To a certain extent, as ideas arose they were throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what stuck. Paladin stuck. As they added sub classes you had to roll high to qualify for them: see illusionist, ranger, monk, assassin, druid in the original game. All had min scores you had to have. That eventually changed over time.

Cleric had no qualifying score. You could have a 10 charisma and be a fine cleric.
Magic user had no qualifying score. you could have an 8 INT and be a fine magic user (BX changed that, as did AD&D)
Fighting Man had no qualifying score. you could have an 11 STR and be a fine Fighting man.
So were ranger/monk/assassin all subclasses of Fighting Man or something else? When did Barbarian come in?

I started in 3rd edition and the sky was the limit in that edition (I mean... we created Pun-Pun lol), so it's always interesting to read about the time before, when apparently things were much harder :smalleek:.

I don’t blame you for not reading everything.
Well, the thread is wildly off topic at this point. I'm not as interested in debating how skills should be adjudicated or if one edition is wildly better and more successful than another. The initial point was illustrating the difference between ability check adjudication and spellcasting adjudication, and how some of these out of combat scenarios favored casters because of that.

So I’m unsure if you’re for freedom of variance being okay, or against variance of play.
Yeah, the argument has gone around and around and around and things get mixed up. Originally, we were pointing out the variance in play; I was defending my DM and explaining that his style of play is explained clearly in the DMG. If you look closely, the other side is saying "freedom of play is good and the point", but their argumentation betrays a sort of... correct way to play the game. They can point at our example and say "you're doing it wrong", all the while proclaiming that the beauty of this edition is that each table is free to play as they want.

Hence, my mostly bowing out of the conversation. As it were, I truthfully don't disagree with almost anyone in this thread with the exception of the idea that the text in the DMG provides well enough guidance for attributing DCs for checks. But most of the other high level discussion I am perfectly fine with.

Pex

2022-03-10, 09:59 PM

But casters obviously can't create new thread topics, ones that haven't been ground into the dust over what, how many years now?

Has anything new been brought out? Anyone whose mind is still not made up?

Yes. Someone who was against DC tables existing at all now agrees they're fine to have. He only disapproves of them being similar to a previous D&D version of them. Someone who is ok with spellcasters having warrior-like combat tactics is now not okay with no armor at all classes like wizard and sorcerer being able to cast in plate mail just because they multiclass when non-heavy armor warrior classes like barbarian and monk always lose class features if they wore plate mail if they multiclass.

Rafaelfras

2022-03-10, 11:00 PM

Ok so as the first time ever I am not late to the party I will give my 2 cents

It's good to have some guidance but I do think skills are better in 5th than 3rd Ed.
The variance between tables I see as a non issue. If you put resources on a skill you will be good at. DMs setting harder DCs will make that task harder for everyone and the player with better numbers will have a greater chance of success than the other players. Failing is part of the game.

We do have some guidance on the several published adventures, we could do a compilation of the DCs and make a big table with then to present to DMs struggling it would make a fine guide.

I think magic should be magic. We use magic to go beyond the limits of what is possible, and it should accomplish that. If the solution to the problem (and I don't think there is one) is crippling caster to a point they are not fun then that's no solution. 4th Ed did that and it wasn't fun.
Giving more to martials is the way IF you feel it's needed.
As a Dm that played 3rd Ed through 16 to 20 for 2 years in a big campaign with a ranger, a paladin and a rogue in the same group as a sorcerer, a wizard, a cleric and a druid, having to go out of my way to desing encounters that could challenge that group while making everyone feeling important was really demanding
5th is a walk in the park. And I say this with a 4e monk, a ranger and a barbarian in the same group as a hexblade sorlock, an evoker and a life cleric. Our eldritch knight (SnB) is still one of the most feared members of the group and a amazing tank. The ranger though is in need of some work for now but I digress.

For spell casters if you are having problem my advice is challenge then. use strong aoe so you can kill that simulacrum right away, make them spend those resources. 2 short rests in an adventuring day and your martials will never feel overshadowed again. Also there is no problem when a caster solves an encounter with some spells, you can have those too. It's part of the fun.

Magical itens are part of the game, a poster made a really good point. Playing without then is the same as playing without spells.
All classes are complete and designed to function without then, this is not the same as they shouldn't have them and they do a lot to balance things out.

Ok I think I covered everything I wanted to say in the other thread. These are my 2 cents

Pex

2022-03-11, 12:43 AM

It's good to have some guidance but I do think skills are better in 5th than 3rd Ed.
The variance between tables I see as a non issue. If you put resources on a skill you will be good at. DMs setting harder DCs will make that task harder for everyone and the player with better numbers will have a greater chance of success than the other players. Failing is part of the game.

The DM making a skill harder just because someone puts effort into being good at it defeats the purpose of being good at it. Such a character could and should be attempting harder tasks but the tasks he did before should not suddenly be harder. Let him be that good. Nothing wrong with failure, but success is part of the game too. It's not an issue of being better than someone who did not put in the effort. It's about being able to do stuff at all.

Out of combat, the martials are only as good at stuff as the DM lets them be. The spellcaster casts a spell and gets what he wants. Having DC tables won't solve the issue entirely since when the martial has to roll there's a chance of failure but the spellcaster's spell still works all the time. That may not necessarily be a bad thing depending on the appropriate odds of doing stuff and spellcasting does use up a resource that's not used for something else. What it will do is let the player know what he can and can't do with the same self knowledge spellcaster players have instead of having to sweet talk the DM into getting to do anything. The barbarian can climb the cavern wall because he wants to just like the wizard who casts Spider Climb may do. As it is now, he can only climb the wall as much as the DM will let him do it.

ventoAureo

2022-03-11, 02:00 AM

Combat and Magic mechanics remain similar through most games because that's what the system places the most importance in. It has a specific vision of how combat between fantasy opponents is supposed to go, and magic spells functioning both in and out of combat is part of that. Everything else is left up to a DM's discretion because it isn't a major focus of the game to, for example, detail how to engage in deep, intricate social behavior or guide the players on the process of crafting an item from raw materials.

Witty Username

2022-03-11, 02:33 AM

So were ranger/monk/assassin all subclasses of Fighting Man or something else? When did Barbarian come in?

I started in 3rd edition and the sky was the limit in that edition (I mean... we created Pun-Pun lol), so it's always interesting to read about the time before, when apparently things were much harder :smalleek:.

Well, the thread is wildly off topic at this point. I'm not as interested in debating how skills should be adjudicated or if one edition is wildly better and more successful than another. The initial point was illustrating the difference between ability check adjudication and spellcasting adjudication, and how some of these out of combat scenarios favored casters because of that.

Yeah, the argument has gone around and around and around and things get mixed up. Originally, we were pointing out the variance in play; I was defending my DM and explaining that his style of play is explained clearly in the DMG. If you look closely, the other side is saying "freedom of play is good and the point", but their argumentation betrays a sort of... correct way to play the game. They can point at our example and say "you're doing it wrong", all the while proclaiming that the beauty of this edition is that each table is free to play as they want.

Hence, my mostly bowing out of the conversation. As it were, I truthfully don't disagree with almost anyone in this thread with the exception of the idea that the text in the DMG provides well enough guidance for attributing DCs for checks. But most of the other high level discussion I am perfectly fine with.

Ranger was a subset of fighting man as I recall. And Assassin was a subset of thief.
Monk was entirely it's own thing, they have always been kinda weird.

Also, I would have used a different name for the Thread, given it has been off-topic for something like 30 pages now.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 04:03 AM

Also, I would have used a different name for the Thread, given it has been off-topic for something like 30 pages now.

Yeah it was more about adjudicating ability checks for the latter half, which while tangentially related to caster-martial discrepancy still worked better as its own topic.

Rafaelfras

2022-03-11, 08:27 AM

The DM making a skill harder just because someone puts effort into being good at it defeats the purpose of being good at it. Such a character could and should be attempting harder tasks but the tasks he did before should not suddenly be harder. Let him be that good. Nothing wrong with failure, but success is part of the game too. It's not an issue of being better than someone who did not put in the effort. It's about being able to do stuff at all.
I agree with some of this, but having characters that aren't good in a set of skills will also hold a dm hand. Unless it is a skill only one player ever use and attempt and his success alone is enough to get the party what it wants and the DM what's to challenge that player. It's a lot of "ifs"
Challenging a skillful player all the time will net the party failing also most of the time.
Myself as a wizard player can tell you, I never even prepare spells that can accomplish skills. It's a waste of resources better spent elsewhere and my party being as big as it is having 2 rogues none the less has everything covered
And I agree, success is part of the game.

Out of combat, the martials are only as good at stuff as the DM lets them be. The spellcaster casts a spell and gets what he wants. Having DC tables won't solve the issue entirely since when the martial has to roll there's a chance of failure but the spellcaster's spell still works all the time. That may not necessarily be a bad thing depending on the appropriate odds of doing stuff and spellcasting does use up a resource that's not used for something else. What it will do is let the player know what he can and can't do with the same self knowledge spellcaster players have instead of having to sweet talk the DM into getting to do anything. The barbarian can climb the cavern wall because he wants to just like the wizard who casts Spider Climb may do. As it is now, he can only climb the wall as much as the DM will let him do it.

A table will not stop a dm set to make your life harder. "This wall is different" will always be an valid answer table or not (we can do that with spells also, is just less frequent)
The difference is the player can guess better.
"Is brute stone (17) or caved stone(15)" instead of " is it medium (15 ) or hard (20)"
I don't disagree with you, am just saying that the table may not solve the problem

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 08:29 AM

Well, we could just start collating all the martial/caster discrepancies in this thread :smallamused:.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 08:50 AM

It's good to have some guidance but I do think skills are better in 5th than 3rd Ed.

Why is that?

The best argument I see is the simplicity: 3E required more mastery to understand the mechanics of spending skill points, trained vs untrained and synergy.

The trade off, of course, being that 5E is inflexible and the math of DCs gets progressively worse as challenges scale.

The variance between tables I see as a non issue. If you put resources on a skill you will be good at. DMs setting harder DCs will make that task harder for everyone and the player with better numbers will have a greater chance of success than the other players. Failing is part of the game.

There are two reasons I disagree with this:

1. The Peter/Petra Problem. If Peter decides a task is Hard (DC 20) and does not get a proficiency bonus, and Petra decides a like task is Easy (DC10) and does get a proficiency bonus, then a player has no sense of what their character is capable of mechanically: it’s a 60-110% swing. Which leads into:

2. When confronted with a Peter, Magic doesn’t get harder. It just favours Casters further, because magic is mostly not designed with ability checks in mind, and when it is, it’s ridiculous like Pass Without Trace granting a bonus akin to Tier 3-4 expertise.

We do have some guidance on the several published adventures, we could do a compilation of the DCs and make a big table with then to present to DMs struggling it would make a fine guide.

I fully agree. Having a codex of skill challenges that are designed with the same rigour as the monsters in the 4 monster manuals would be fantastic.

I think magic should be magic. We use magic to go beyond the limits of what is possible, and it should accomplish that. If the solution to the problem (and I don't think there is one) is crippling caster to a point they are not fun then that's no solution. 4th Ed did that and it wasn't fun.

Magic shouldn’t be limited to SPELLS then. Monks have Ki, Barbarian’s rage, yet those supernatural qualities don’t allow for world changing agency.

4E did not cripple casters in the slightest, BTW. Not sure where that idea came from. They simply made the stuff that made Casters better than Martials in the previous edition less codified and more open ended

If that’s crippling, well, I suppose we understand how crippled the Martials are relying on a skill system built the same way…

Giving more to martials is the way IF you feel it's needed.

It is.

As a Dm that played 3rd Ed through 16 to 20 for 2 years in a big campaign with a ranger, a paladin and a rogue in the same group as a sorcerer, a wizard, a cleric and a druid, having to go out of my way to desing encounters that could challenge that group while making everyone feeling important was really demanding

As a DM who just wrapped up a 5-20 campaign in 5E that ran for 2 years, I had to work twice as hard to give Martials the ability to shine.

5th is a walk in the park. And I say this with a 4e monk, a ranger and a barbarian in the same group as a hexblade sorlock, an evoker and a life cleric. Our eldritch knight (SnB) is still one of the most feared members of the group and a amazing tank. The ranger though is in need of some work for now but I digress.

I’m curious, are you playing a dungeon focused campaign? When the Evoker and Sorlock start using force cage and a persistent AOE, what are you doing to design for it?

Likewise, how are you dealing with transportation issues? Are the casters doing all the heavy lifting, or have you homebrewed something for the Martials?

For spell casters if you are having problem my advice is challenge then. use strong aoe so you can kill that simulacrum right away, make them spend those resources. 2 short rests in an adventuring day and your martials will never feel overshadowed again. Also there is no problem when a caster solves an encounter with some spells, you can have those too. It's part of the fun.

The wider discussion is, of course, would those same encounters be any different if there were no Martials. A simulacrum thats just standing there beside the Wizard isn’t a problem.

It’s the one that stayed outside the dungeon, concentrating on summoning a Cuotal or an Air/Earth Elemental while ritually casting Rary’s Telepathic bond and every other non-con buff they can muster, while the regular Wizard still has their full arsenal at their disposal.

Magical itens are part of the game, a poster made a really good point. Playing without then is the same as playing without spells.

Unfortunately that’s not true. The designers of the edition made it a point to stress that magic items are not part of the core design (the way they were in 3E, and arguably the other editions as well)

Magic items are also not designed to favour Martials (see the treasure tables of AD&D and compare).

5.5 would go a long way to bake magic items into classes. No reason why a Lv 6 Fighter can’t have a weapon of renown that their own deeds have infused with magic, one that scales up to a +3 (or *GASP* +4 as a capstone!)

All classes are complete and designed to function without then, this is not the same as they shouldn't have them and they do a lot to balance things out.

Indeed. Which is why deciding they aren’t part of the core design was a major misstep by this edition.

Ranger was a subset of fighting man as I recall. And Assassin was a subset of thief.
Monk was entirely it's own thing, they have always been kinda weird.

Ranger was a fighter and Assassin was a thief. Monk was built on the cleric chassis, but with radical changes, though that most cleric subclasses (the druid was less weird, but still really weird)

MoiMagnus

2022-03-11, 09:15 AM

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 10:12 AM

Talking to the DM doesn't matter because whatever we discuss for his game won't apply for another game.

But you aren’t answering why that matters. Your sidestepping that altogether. Why do you care that different tables sometimes make different rulings about DCs?

When a DM says climbing trees is DC 20, telling him another DM had it at DC 15 or others suggest I should just be able to do it won't solve anything.

D&D is partially about genre emulation. Depending on the exact kind of fiction you are trying to emulate, any of those responses would be fine.

It's his game, and I'd become the annoying player who questions everything the DM does.

DMs don’t generally get annoyed at you asking questions unless you do it confrontational or right after every ruling he makes that doesn’t go in your favor.

However, any game any DM Spider Climb, Levitate, Fireball all spells work the same way. Goblins, long swords, plate mail, they all work the same. In my view, having that same consistency in being able to climb a tree or a wall or know the abilities of the monster we're facing or anything involving skill use is not unreasonable.

It’s a reasonable design goal - but not for the big tent approach that 5e took for design.

A more specialized rpg intended to emulate 1 specific setting and 1 specific genre - your idea would work great for. But not for something intended to be as broad for 5e. It’s why I said earlier I could see such tables for specific settings or specific campaigns, but not for 5e in general.

*Also of note: spells require a non-trivial resource.

As a side note one of my favorite rulings is to have proficiency play the role of determining whether a particular character needs to roll at certain tasks or whether a character without it even gets to roll at other tasks. It kind of helps establish that minimal floor you are looking for (+niche protection, which is something I value).

MeimuHakurei

2022-03-11, 10:37 AM

I'd note that a lot of peoples say that spell effectiveness don't change with your GM, which I disagree with.

Sure, invisibility always makes you invisible, but whether or not that's an effective way of infiltrating a place depends a lot on the GM, namely how they handle sound/smell and how they handle NPC's intelligence.

Sure, fireball does a fixed amount of damage to a group, but the enemy's tactical mind will change of lot of its effectiveness (do they make a close group of units like if that was a medieval non-fantastic fight? do they disperse asap? do they walk around the PCs to ensure that they can't be included in an AoE without the PCs also being affected? etc)

Counterspell is full of various interpretations and semi-houserules (I don't really consider it to be a houserule for a GM to give more information to the player than the strict minimum granted by the rules, that's the GM's role to describe the situation to give some context to the player). Suggestions and charm spells varies a lot by GM too.

However, what is true is that spellcasting tend to have a minimum "floor" of effectiveness that you're guaranteed as long as the GM somewhat sticks to the rules, and GM variability tend to make spells stronger than intended, not weaker than intended (except maybe for Suggestion), which is much less frustrating player-side.

Well in the Fireball example I can look at the battlemat and get a good idea of how effective casting it would be. Counterspell isn't a particularly worrisome spell to throw out blind as it is basically Stunning Strike as a reaction that succeeds automatically (or at least very likely so) where you don't have to worry about what slots the opponent expends in the 2-3 rounds that they are alive. What is a bit more notable to pay attention to is if you're positioned that you can Counterspell and/or if your opponents can.

Illusions however are a different situation as it is wildly variable how people react to them.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 10:46 AM

Good points on spells (especially illusions), but I think MoiMagnus' last paragraph is mostly the point:

However, what is true is that spellcasting tend to have a minimum "floor" of effectiveness that you're guaranteed as long as the GM somewhat sticks to the rules, and GM variability tend to make spells stronger than intended, not weaker than intended (except maybe for Suggestion), which is much less frustrating player-side.

I think Stealth is another good example of how adjudication can be different and your PCs will perform better or worse depending on when your DM wants you to roll and how often. But if you have something like Pass Without Trace and the entire party has a flat +10 bonus to Stealth checks, it matters less if the DM is asking for another Stealth check, and another, and another.

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 10:54 AM

Why does everyone act like spells prepared and spell slots both aren’t an extremely limited resource?

tokek

2022-03-11, 10:56 AM

There are two reasons I disagree with this:

1. The Peter/Petra Problem. If Peter decides a task is Hard (DC 20) and does not get a proficiency bonus, and Petra decides a like task is Easy (DC10) and does get a proficiency bonus, then a player has no sense of what their character is capable of mechanically: it’s a 60-110% swing. Which leads into:

2. When confronted with a Peter, Magic doesn’t get harder. It just favours Casters further, because magic is mostly not designed with ability checks in mind, and when it is, it’s ridiculous like Pass Without Trace granting a bonus akin to Tier 3-4 expertise.

I think we have a fundamental different understanding of what D&D is.

To me D&D is a game engine and each individual DM creates their game using that underlying engine. So the fact that a task is easy in one game and hard in another is just like two different PC games using the same underlying engine playing differently.

I do tend to agree that DMs who make tasks difficult are pushing a usually accidental narrative that favours casters over martial classes. There really is nothing in the game that suggests that most DC would increase with level except for the ones which are a contest (e.g. Stealth vs a monster Passive Perception). So DMs who do that are making a particular form of game with the engine that they may or may not have intended.

Not that fixed values for DC can really work. After all I can see several trees out of my window and some would be easy for a child to climb while others, due to a lack of low hanging branches, would take proficiency and possibly equipment to climb. There is no standard tree so I don't think there can be a standard DC for climbing them that does not include DM discretion.

Christew

2022-03-11, 12:19 PM

Why does everyone act like spells prepared and spell slots both aren’t an extremely limited resource?
This. Depending on the caster class, spells known is another limiting point.

The math is far from perfect, but there is certainly some attempt at design balance in mundane at will abilities vs exceptional limited resource abilities.

Entessa

2022-03-11, 12:28 PM

I don't know if they can do everything, but surely they are ten thousand times better than martial classes. Every time I roll for hp, stats, initiative, so much anxiety given that I'm martial. With mages you don't have any of these issues. There is always a spell ready that can help you.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 12:38 PM

What would be something equivalent for martials to the way that casters are just getting better and better race/background options?

The dragonmark races expand on caster spell options, broadening their abilities. The new races all get their once per long rest spells added to their spells known, so they can use them more often with slots. Ravnica and Strixhaven backgrounds expand spell lists in the same way as Dragonmark races do.

What can a background/race do that would do something similar for Martials? They simply don't get this sort of broadening of capabilities the way casters do with every new addition to the game.

Pex

2022-03-11, 12:49 PM

But you aren’t answering why that matters. Your sidestepping that altogether. Why do you care that different tables sometimes make different rulings about DCs?

As a personal matter because it directly affects me when I play in different campaigns. I brought up the extreme cases before. Warlock and monk, both ST 10, both non-proficient in Athletics. Playing the warlock I was able to swim a moat, climb a small hill of rocks, then climb a Keep wall to crawl through a window without a single die roll just because I wanted to. Bad guys were coming, we could see them coming, and the party wanted to be in a defensible position. Playing the monk we were traveling in a not so dense forest. Someone heard noise from a distance. I wanted to climb up a tree to take a look over yonder hoping I could spot what was making the noise. The DM called for a climb check, DC 20. I didn't roll a 20, so no tree climbing for me. Around that time in another game I was playing a paladin with 18 ST and proficiency in Athletics. I also wanted to climb a tree to get a look over yonder. That DM called for a climb check roll of DC 15. I happened to roll low. It's a fundamental difference in how the game is played. I'm either Tarzan or George of the Jungle depending on who is DM that day. It's never about what I choose to be good in. It's all at the whim of the DM. Meanwhile, a spellcaster casts a spell and it always works as designed. Yes, I'm aware of the issues about Conjure spells of who decides what's summoned, but they're a footnote to the point.

D&D is partially about genre emulation. Depending on the exact kind of fiction you are trying to emulate, any of those responses would be fine.

DMs don’t generally get annoyed at you asking questions unless you do it confrontational or right after every ruling he makes that doesn’t go in your favor.

It’s a reasonable design goal - but not for the big tent approach that 5e took for design.

A more specialized rpg intended to emulate 1 specific setting and 1 specific genre - your idea would work great for. But not for something intended to be as broad for 5e. It’s why I said earlier I could see such tables for specific settings or specific campaigns, but not for 5e in general.

*Also of note: spells require a non-trivial resource.

As a side note one of my favorite rulings is to have proficiency play the role of determining whether a particular character needs to roll at certain tasks or whether a character without it even gets to roll at other tasks. It kind of helps establish that minimal floor you are looking for (+niche protection, which is something I value).

I know what 5E does and how it was designed. That's not a defense. That's the flaw I'm criticizing. I am absolutely saying they were flat out wrong not to have designed the game for out of combat stuff with as much statistical analysis and thought as they did with combat stuff. We have three books on monsters, a book on dragons, a book on fiends, a plethora of PC races, another monster book coming out which will also revalue a plethora of races. All talk about complexity, it's not an unreasonable ask to have one chapter of a book, if not a whole book, to be more detailed on non-combat stuff to provide statistical numbers to use such as DC tables. We know they're capable. The DMG has tables on traps, objects hardness, and conversation reactions. The Xanathar book has DC tables for tool use, and they even revamped the rules a bit on magic item creation.

Why does everyone act like spells prepared and spell slots both aren’t an extremely limited resource?

Irrelevant. If the spellcaster cares enough about the task to use a spell slot on it then it's worth the cost. It's more worth it the harder the DM makes a skill check to do something. The value of Spider Climb increases the harder the DM makes it to climb a wall.

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 01:01 PM

I know what 5E does and how it was designed. That's not a defense. That's the flaw I'm criticizing. I am absolutely saying they were flat out wrong not to have designed the game for out of combat stuff with as much statistical analysis and thought as they did with combat stuff. We have three books on monsters, a book on dragons, a book on fiends, a plethora of PC races, another monster book coming out which will also revalue a plethora of races. All talk about complexity, it's not an unreasonable ask to have one chapter of a book, if not a whole book, to be more detailed on non-combat stuff to provide statistical numbers to use such as DC tables. We know they're capable. The DMG has tables on traps, objects hardness, and conversation reactions. The Xanathar book has DC tables for tool use, and they even revamped the rules a bit on magic item creation.

Do you believe there’s also pros and not just cons for the 5e design as is vs your proposed alteration?

Do you believe many others value the pros to current 5e design more than it’s cons and view your proposed change as a net con instead of as a net pro as they prefer the freedom 5e allows in setting DCs over the consistency of having DC tables?

If you believe those things then all your doing is arguing your personal preference should be catered to at their expense.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 01:03 PM

If you believe those things then all your doing is arguing your personal preference should be catered to at their expense.

Exactly. It's a desire to force other to play your way, no matter what they want. It's all a matter of taste--there's no right or wrong here. Just personal preference.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 01:07 PM

1. The Peter/Petra Problem. If Peter decides a task is Hard (DC 20) and does not get a proficiency bonus, and Petra decides a like task is Easy (DC10) and does get a proficiency bonus, then a player has no sense of what their character is capable of mechanically: it’s a 60-110% swing.

Is this level of extreme disparity between two playgroups for the exact same task possible? Sure. Is it a common enough occurrence to warrant throwing out all the benefits of an open-ended system? I still believe, no.

I fully agree. Having a codex of skill challenges that are designed with the same rigour as the monsters in the 4 monster manuals would be fantastic.

I mean, the good news is that if you find such a thing valuable you can do it yourself, using all the published modules you and others who want this can get your hands on. And furthermore, as the DM, you can decide which encounters in that codex are applicable/identical/informative towards the encounters you're designing in your own campaign.

WotC meanwhile shouldn't do this, because for them, neither is true.

I'd note that a lot of peoples say that spell effectiveness don't change with your GM, which I disagree with.

Sure, invisibility always makes you invisible, but whether or not that's an effective way of infiltrating a place depends a lot on the GM, namely how they handle sound/smell and how they handle NPC's intelligence.

Sure, fireball does a fixed amount of damage to a group, but the enemy's tactical mind will change of lot of its effectiveness (do they make a close group of units like if that was a medieval non-fantastic fight? do they disperse asap? do they walk around the PCs to ensure that they can't be included in an AoE without the PCs also being affected? etc)

Counterspell is full of various interpretations and semi-houserules (I don't really consider it to be a houserule for a GM to give more information to the player than the strict minimum granted by the rules, that's the GM's role to describe the situation to give some context to the player). Suggestions and charm spells varies a lot by GM too.

However, what is true is that spellcasting tend to have a minimum "floor" of effectiveness that you're guaranteed as long as the GM somewhat sticks to the rules, and GM variability tend to make spells stronger than intended, not weaker than intended (except maybe for Suggestion), which is much less frustrating player-side.

Agreed.

I think Stealth is another good example of how adjudication can be different and your PCs will perform better or worse depending on when your DM wants you to roll and how often. But if you have something like Pass Without Trace and the entire party has a flat +10 bonus to Stealth checks, it matters less if the DM is asking for another Stealth check, and another, and another.

I mean, it matters plenty if you need to sneak around longer than an hour, or you need to loudly refresh the spell.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 01:10 PM

It's a fundamental difference in how the game is played. I'm either Tarzan or George of the Jungle depending on who is DM that day. It's never about what I choose to be good in. It's all at the whim of the DM. Meanwhile, a spellcaster casts a spell and it always works as designed. Yes, I'm aware of the issues about Conjure spells of who decides what's summoned, but they're a footnote to the point.
This is about as clearly as it can be said. I'm not sure how to argue "the system is designed to give DMs the freedom to adjudicate however they want" and also "it's not at the whim of the DM".

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 01:13 PM

Exactly. It's a desire to force other to play your way, no matter what they want. It's all a matter of taste--there's no right or wrong here. Just personal preference.

Presumably the right way to design a game for mass market appeal is to design for the broadest set of tastes. I think that’s what 5e mostly did. It’s not perfect. It’s one heck of a compromise.

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to have games catering to more specialized tastes, or to have specific settings or campaigns that do so, that’s right too so long as you goal isn’t specifically mass market appeal.

Darth Credence

2022-03-11, 01:22 PM

Talking to the DM doesn't matter because whatever we discuss for his game won't apply for another game. When a DM says climbing trees is DC 20, telling him another DM had it at DC 15 or others suggest I should just be able to do it won't solve anything. It's his game, and I'd become the annoying player who questions everything the DM does. However, any game any DM Spider Climb, Levitate, Fireball all spells work the same way. Goblins, long swords, plate mail, they all work the same. In my view, having that same consistency in being able to climb a tree or a wall or know the abilities of the monster we're facing or anything involving skill use is not unreasonable.

So when you say you want a consistent DC on climbing a tree, what type of tree do you mean? An oak, a redwood, a floss silk tree that has big thorns specifically to prevent climbing? SHould there be a chart that covers every type of real world tree, plus a good selection of possible fantasy world trees? There just isn't enough space in the rulebooks to cover everything, so the DM has to make a call.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 01:23 PM

Presumably the right way to design a game for mass market appeal is to design for the broadest set of tastes. I think that’s what 5e mostly did. It’s not perfect. It’s one heck of a compromise.

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to have games catering to more specialized tastes, or to have specific settings or campaigns that do so, that’s right too so long as you goal isn’t specifically mass market appeal.

I don't disagree. Games should pick their target and aim at it, whether it's general/broad or narrow and specific. But I do believe that trying to force a game that already allows broad freedom and put it in a straight-jacket isn't going to go well. Because that'd require a fundamental re-write and end up looking quite different afterward. Similarly, taking a narrow-premise game and making it "generic" won't go well. Some things are baked in at a fundamental level.

5e is set up to allow broad (but not totally generic) freedom for DMs (specifically) and tables (more generally) to specialize it for their own needs, with many dials and levers to adjust to suit. This is in intrinsic tension with the desire for inter-table standardization.

On the other hand, there are games designed around very narrow premises (eg tournament play). In those, having a binding-by-default table for ability checks (or their analogue) might make perfect sense and constraining GM variation might be a very good thing.

5e tries to split the difference with AL, by imposing a particular set of rules on the format. And that's the proper (as much as I dislike AL) way to do it. If you want standardization, play AL or make your own "standardized format on top of existing rules." Don't try to force everyone else to standardize for your own benefit.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 01:23 PM

Do you believe there’s also pros and not just cons for the 5e design as is vs your proposed alteration?

Do you believe many others value the pros to current 5e design more than it’s cons and view your proposed change as a net con instead of as a net pro as they prefer the freedom 5e allows in setting DCs over the consistency of having DC tables?

If you believe those things then all your doing is arguing your personal preference should be catered to at their expense.

Exactly. It's a desire to force other to play your way, no matter what they want. It's all a matter of taste--there's no right or wrong here. Just personal preference.
Useless commentary, as that is all any of us is doing in this discussion.

I mean, it matters plenty if you need to sneak around longer than an hour, or you need to loudly refresh the spell.
Hence why I said it matters less, as opposed to not at all.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 01:25 PM

Useless commentary, as that is all any of us is doing in this discussion.

Disagree. I'm not trying to change the game at all. And anyone who wants inter-table standardization already has outlets, AL among them. But on the flip side, others are trying to take away the freedom I already have and force me to play by their standards, like it or not. And claim that resisting this is being because I want to be a tyrant.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 01:30 PM

Psyren

2022-03-11, 01:30 PM

Hence why I said it matters less, as opposed to not at all.

My point is that these drawbacks to spells are often downplayed or outright overlooked by the people saying that casters rule and martials drool all the time.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 01:32 PM

No one is doing anything though, it's just a conversation on a forum thread.

Just because you are agreeing with the current rules doesn't mean that your resistance to have tables of DCs included isn't trying to force your preference onto other people. Because obviously there are people that would prefer it to be different.

You say "just play AL" and I say "just ignore the DC tables". No one would be forcing anything on anyone right?

The people I've talked to would not have their goals met if the DC tables could be ignored. For their goals to be accomplished, I would have to play their way.

And no, I'm not trying to force anything. Because that requires change. And I don't want change.

Effectively, my desires and theirs are incompatible if implemented at the framework level. But theirs can be accomplished by adding a layer on top for a subset of games (ie AL) without breaking mine, while the reverse is not true. So rejecting that option is exactly saying that they want to force me to play their way while the reverse is not true.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 01:34 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 01:36 PM

I don't think Pex cares how things are done at your table, so he's not trying to force anything on you.

You're only thinking that because you're thinking of the rules changing to accommodate what Pex wants. So you argue against that, because you want the rules to remain the same and accommodate what you want instead.

There's no difference here. We're all arguing to have things done the way we want.

But changing the status quo has a cost. And his way would involve a huge change to the status quo, at least if he gets what he wants (total standardization across any table he runs across without talking about it with DMs). Where as my way is the status quo. It's not symmetric.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 01:41 PM

I see. So you're not trying to impose your preference on others. You're trying to keep the status quo, which happens to align perfectly with your preference.

Thank you for the clarification :smallamused:.

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 01:42 PM

The people I've talked to would not have their goals met if the DC tables could be ignored. For their goals to be accomplished, I would have to play their way.

And no, I'm not trying to force anything. Because that requires change. And I don't want change.

Effectively, my desires and theirs are incompatible if implemented at the framework level. But theirs can be accomplished by adding a layer on top for a subset of games (ie AL) without breaking mine, while the reverse is not true. So rejecting that option is exactly saying that they want to force me to play their way while the reverse is not true.

I am trying to force it to remain as is. I think that kind of standardization is bad for d&d as a whole. I understand some people prefer the standardization. But I don’t think they understand many people don’t. I don’t think they understand that a large part of 5e success is because the lack of standardization and not despite it.

Pex

2022-03-11, 01:42 PM

Do you believe there’s also pros and not just cons for the 5e design as is vs your proposed alteration?

Do you believe many others value the pros to current 5e design more than it’s cons and view your proposed change as a net con instead of as a net pro as they prefer the freedom 5e allows in setting DCs over the consistency of having DC tables?

If you believe those things then all your doing is arguing your personal preference should be catered to at their expense.

Exactly. It's a desire to force other to play your way, no matter what they want. It's all a matter of taste--there's no right or wrong here. Just personal preference.

Then agree with me there should be DC tables. Agree with me those who see value in them and want them may have them. Agree with me they should exist and for those who don't need or want them don't need to use them. Let those who find value in DC tables play their way, and you and others who don't value them may continue to play without them. Why should we who want DC tables be denied? Why are we not allowed to play the way we want?

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 01:46 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 01:47 PM

Then agree with me there should be DC tables. Agree with me those who see value in them and want them may have them. Agree with me they should exist and for those who don't need or want them don't need to use them. Let those who find value in DC tables play their way, and you and others who don't value them may continue to play without them. Why should we who want DC tables be denied? Why are we not allowed to play the way we want?

You can go ahead and make your own DC tables and play the way you want. But if you force standardization on me (which is what you've said you want), I can't not do that.

Standardization (so you don't have to ask your DM) is something that is kinda all or nothing. DC tables, standing alone, do not address your stated desire. And would impose costs on me. And that's sub-optimal.

I mean, if you just want tables, there are tons out there. And if they're so easy to make, you can make your own. And you can ask any DMs "can we please use these tables" in session 0. Which accomplishes that piece of the goal without changing anything for anyone else. Going beyond that does mean you want to force others to play your way by making it the default for everyone, like it or not.

Pex

2022-03-11, 01:56 PM

So when you say you want a consistent DC on climbing a tree, what type of tree do you mean? An oak, a redwood, a floss silk tree that has big thorns specifically to prevent climbing? SHould there be a chart that covers every type of real world tree, plus a good selection of possible fantasy world trees? There just isn't enough space in the rulebooks to cover everything, so the DM has to make a call.

Here we go again.

Yes, for that matter, let there be a chart for every tree. We have three books on monsters, a book on dragons, and a book on fiends.

Or it could be simple, if you want to be ornery about the type of tree. Something like

DC 5 A knotted rope, an unsteady ladder
DC 10 A rope not knotted, a torch lamppost
DC 15 A tree with many limbs like oak or elm, a rock cavern wall
DC 20 A tree with no low limbs like palm or redwood, a stone wall like in a dungeon
DC 25 A castle wall
DC 30 A completely smooth wall, like a wall of ice or force.

The DM may raise or lower the DC or apply Advantage/Disadvantage depending on circumstances such as a wet surface if not the ice wall, the use of climbing gear, etc.

Not married to these numbers. It's just an example. It might even be better to lower the numbers by 5.

The people I've talked to would not have their goals met if the DC tables could be ignored. For their goals to be accomplished, I would have to play their way.

And no, I'm not trying to force anything. Because that requires change. And I don't want change.

Effectively, my desires and theirs are incompatible if implemented at the framework level. But theirs can be accomplished by adding a layer on top for a subset of games (ie AL) without breaking mine, while the reverse is not true. So rejecting that option is exactly saying that they want to force me to play their way while the reverse is not true.

You do want the game to change, just not with respect to how skills work. You want the game to change how magic works, as mentioned several times in other threads. Most everyone on these Forums has their own preferences of how they would like the game to change. Skill use is my pet peeve of the matter.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 02:05 PM

For the record I want neither magic nor skills to change. I'm okay with martials getting more feature redesigns like the Tasha Ranger did however.

Then agree with me there should be DC tables. Agree with me those who see value in them and want them may have them. Agree with me they should exist and for those who don't need or want them don't need to use them. Let those who find value in DC tables play their way, and you and others who don't value them may continue to play without them. Why should we who want DC tables be denied? Why are we not allowed to play the way we want?

I never denied that you and others see value in them. But you appear to be ignoring or glossing over the costs too. Both the fiscal/development costs of designing, playtesting, and typesetting such tables, and the more intangible costs of DMs who never asked for them and don't need them now feeling pressured to at least reference them before designing any encounters, as well as by pushy players, or needing to worry about their players coming equipped with ridiculous TO threads designed to break such challenges.

Yes, for that matter, let there be a chart for every tree.

No. Make those yourself.

Pex

2022-03-11, 02:07 PM

You can go ahead and make your own DC tables and play the way you want. But if you force standardization on me (which is what you've said you want), I can't not do that.

Standardization (so you don't have to ask your DM) is something that is kinda all or nothing. DC tables, standing alone, do not address your stated desire. And would impose costs on me. And that's sub-optimal.

I mean, if you just want tables, there are tons out there. And if they're so easy to make, you can make your own. And you can ask any DMs "can we please use these tables" in session 0. Which accomplishes that piece of the goal without changing anything for anyone else. Going beyond that does mean you want to force others to play your way by making it the default for everyone, like it or not.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. If you don't want to use published DC tables you don't have to. Feats are in the book. You don't have to use them. Multiclassing is in the books. You don't have to use them. Xanathar has tables for tools. You don't have to use them.

For the record I want neither magic nor skills to change. I'm okay with martials getting more feature redesigns like the Tasha Ranger did however.

I never denied that you and others see value in them. But you appear to be ignoring or glossing over the costs too. Both the fiscal/development costs of designing, playtesting, and typesetting such tables, and the more intangible costs of DMs who never asked for them and don't need them now feeling pressured to at least reference them before designing any encounters, as well as by pushy players, or needing to worry about their players coming equipped with ridiculous TO threads designed to break such challenges.

As if those issues don't exist for all the books on monsters, dragons, fiends, races, gameworld design, adventure modules they are publishing.

strangebloke

2022-03-11, 02:14 PM

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 02:14 PM

Telok

2022-03-11, 02:17 PM

Why does everyone act like spells prepared and spell slots both aren’t an extremely limited resource?

Warlocks.

More accurately, most caster players will try to pick some flexilbe spells among a spread of spells. Often I'll see a couple different attacks, about two defenses, one or two movement, then the utility spells for the rest. Before/to level 5 its not an issue, low spell power/slots/prep/known forces rough equality. The casters will have a few "yes I can without rolling" spells, but (ideally) they hoard them untill the right time. This paradigm has stayed pretty steady from AD&D through 5e.

When it starts to show is levels 7+. The casters have the 3+ spells for combat & super-utility spells so they can be less cautious with the 2nd slots, where several skill/role replacers show up.

And recall, this isn't about combat. Combat is roughly balanced around hit point depletion over X fights per short rest per long rest. The noncasters generally have (relatively) big piles of hp & damage that carry them through and the combat rules are reliable & predictable. Players don't often want to spend several spells to avoid even a low/medium combat, they know what to expect and have a good idea of how much the characters can handle.

Yeah, everything is DM & player dependent. But people gravitate to using tools & methods they know will work. When spells are the "I do <thing>" tool and checks are the "may I roll to attempt <thing>" tool that's reliant on the DM's memory, life experiences, current state, personal interpretation of the DMG text, and understanding of the system probability math...well it feels (to me, by experience) that the checks are like a last chance saving throw when you fail to have a reliable method of accomplishing a task.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 02:22 PM

regardless, saying the skill system solves martial/caster disparity runs into the issue that Bards are almost as good as rogues with skills, and rangers are up there too. Fighters just have a few extra feats to play with and barbs and monks have very little. There are a few subclasses that can help here like BM but overall it really isn't the case that martials are better with skills than casters. I mean for starters guidance exists.

It doesn't "solve it" because "solving it" isn't supposed to be the goal. Just narrowing the gap somewhat.

As if those issues don't exist for all the books on monsters, dragons, fiends, races, gameworld design, adventure modules they are publishing.

1) People actually want books of monsters and races. "Mordenkainen's Tome of Trees" would be an abject waste of money on both sides (devs and playerbase).

2) The stats of a given monster - say, an imp - matter because you're generally going to be doing one thing with that statblock; fighting with it. The possibility space for how you interact with something like a tree is much, much broader, which is why an open-ended system for designing its role in that encounter is superior.

Warlocks.

Warlocks are even more limited than other full casters. They rarely have the extra slots available to do as much utility between short rests, plus they have limited spells known to allocate between spells that assist with all three pillars of play.

strangebloke

2022-03-11, 02:36 PM

It doesn't "solve it" because "solving it" isn't supposed to be the goal. Just narrowing the gap somewhat.

But it doesn't. Bards have expertise, but rogues can't have bardic inspiration. Non-casters don't have guidance There are a handful of ways to boost skills that are accessible to non-casters, and a massive, massive list of means that are available to casters, including most the means that martials have access to.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 02:41 PM

But it doesn't. Bards have expertise, but rogues can't have bardic inspiration. Non-casters don't have guidance There are a handful of ways to boost skills that are accessible to non-casters, and a massive, massive list of means that are available to casters, including most the means that martials have access to.

I meant "being more permissive with ability checks, more lenient with degrees of failure, and emphasizing the drawbacks of spellcasting solutions" benefits martials relative to "do none of those things and spells still exist."

Sneak Dog

2022-03-11, 02:44 PM

So when you say you want a consistent DC on climbing a tree, what type of tree do you mean? An oak, a redwood, a floss silk tree that has big thorns specifically to prevent climbing? SHould there be a chart that covers every type of real world tree, plus a good selection of possible fantasy world trees? There just isn't enough space in the rulebooks to cover everything, so the DM has to make a call.

What acid is acid splash made out of? What type of rock does magic stone require? How long are the individual magic missiles? It doesn't matter. Just make a DC for a generic tree, and when it does matter, it's a nice baseline for the GM to base the specific DC off of.

The purpose of the table isn't to provide you with a DC for any situation. It's to provide you a concrete guideline of the difficulty of a task, off which a GM can base their own DC's and off which a player can gauge their character's capabilities so they can make informed decisions without needing to ask the GM what DC it would be to climb a tree during character creation so they can decide whether playing a tree-leaping monk is even viable.

D&D is partially about genre emulation. Depending on the exact kind of fiction you are trying to emulate, any of those responses would be fine.

I don't think D&D emulates anything but itself at this point. And while any caster has a pretty rigorous definition in this genre, anything relying on skills for their non-combat abilities is a complete and utter mystery. I don't know what a high level rogue is capable of. I don't know what a high level fighter is capable of. There is nothing there. No guidance in the rulebook, no mechanics showing me their narrative, no fluffy text. Nothing. If I make a level 15 fighter and show up to a new GM with it for a one-shot, I have no idea what character I am playing. Could I climb a 2 kilometer tall tree? Or cut it in twain with a single stroke? Or move with all the grace and silence of a stalking cat sneaking up behind some guy while wearing full plate armour?

All I know is I could take on literal giants and barely break a sweat, before moving on to the real threats of pit fiends, vampires, iron golems and adult dragons. Because my combat abilities are rigorously defined.

Telok

2022-03-11, 02:49 PM

Warlocks are even more limited than other full casters. They rarely have the extra slots available to do as much utility between short rests, plus they have limited spells known to allocate between spells that assist with all three pillars of play.

Really? Because I've basically stopped playing anything but warlocks and warlock multiclasses simply for the "yeah, that's in my party niche, let me solve it with magic" aspect of being able to cast out of combat most of the time. Of course the tables I play at are more sandboxy & player plot driven than the timed railroads in many modules. Combat isn't a problem, one good spell & hp damage cantrip spam is the game combat baseline thats trivial to exceed. Out of combat though, magic or coin flips, and warlocks have the fast recharge.

I guess that just means the caster/mundane gap is even wider than I thought.

tokek

2022-03-11, 02:50 PM

I'm not forcing you to do anything. If you don't want to use published DC tables you don't have to. Feats are in the book. You don't have to use them. Multiclassing is in the books. You don't have to use them. Xanathar has tables for tools. You don't have to use them.

.

The idea of all these tables rather gives me flashbacks to the first time I opened the AD&D DMG

I don't want a big table of DC for all the possible or even likely things that can happen in the game. I don't really see how having a few examples rather than full tables would really change anything, it would still be missing things that happen at tables and would not really resolve what I think you see as the problem.

I don't want that to take up space in a core book, that inherently takes away space from other things by the very nature of publishing.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 02:56 PM

Really? Because I've basically stopped playing anything but warlocks and warlock multiclasses simply for the "yeah, that's in my party niche, let me solve it with magic" aspect of being able to cast out of combat most of the time. Of course the tables I play at are more sandboxy & player plot driven than the timed railroads in many modules. Combat isn't a problem, one good spell & hp damage cantrip spam is the game combat baseline thats trivial to exceed. Out of combat though, magic or coin flips, and warlocks have the fast recharge.

I guess that just means the caster/mundane gap is even wider than I thought.

Even if "one leveled spell + cantrip spam" is all you'll ever need, that leaves you with just one slot to do utility things with before a short rest for most of the game. And god forbid you get two challenging fights between short rests, or even more.

The purpose of the table isn't to provide you with a DC for any situation. It's to provide you a concrete guideline of the difficulty of a task, off which a GM can base their own DC's and off which a player can gauge their character's capabilities so they can make informed decisions without needing to ask the GM what DC it would be to climb a tree during character creation so they can decide whether playing a tree-leaping monk is even viable.

Putting that information in a table still encourages DMs to skip the vital first two steps of any check - first, truly asking themselves if they need one at all, and second, making sure there is a meaningful consequence for failure before a roll is called for. And that's not considering that such "guidelines" need to be calibrated to the exact situation being faced by the players, and will always be incomplete by the very nature of such tables.

The idea of all these tables rather gives me flashbacks to the first time I opened the AD&D DMG

I don't want a big table of DC for all the possible or even likely things that can happen in the game. I don't really see how having a few examples rather than full tables would really change anything, it would still be missing things that happen at tables and would not really resolve what I think you see as the problem.

I don't want that to take up space in a core book, that inherently takes away space from other things by the very nature of publishing.

Agreed.

What I would accept would be examples of utilizing the 4 steps to calling for a roll and setting a DC at various tiers.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 02:59 PM

Putting that information in a table still encourages DMs to skip the vital first two steps of any check - first, truly asking themselves if they need one at all, and second, making sure there is a meaningful consequence for failure before a roll is called for. And that's not considering that such "guidelines" need to be calibrated to the exact situation being faced by the players, and will always be incomplete by the very nature of such tables.

What I would accept would be examples of utilizing the 4 steps to calling for a roll and setting a DC at various tiers.

I agree with both of these points. And would extend the examples to also discuss tone. Because what fits in a "high flying heros" game and in a "struggling against impossible odds" campaign are very different at multiple levels.

strangebloke

2022-03-11, 03:07 PM

I meant "being more permissive with ability checks, more lenient with degrees of failure, and emphasizing the drawbacks of spellcasting solutions" benefits martials relative to "do none of those things and spells still exist."

other than the bolded bit, I disagree. Ability checks are mostly influenced by spells and features only accessible to spellcasting classes. Rogues and fighters cannot easily get enhance ability or guidance.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 03:26 PM

other than the bolded bit, I disagree. Ability checks are mostly influenced by spells and features only accessible to spellcasting classes. Rogues and fighters cannot easily get enhance ability or guidance.

Spells largely apply to making the check, which is Step 3 in the ability resolution process. Being a martial however can be relevant to both of the prior steps - i.e. are you allowed to roll at all, and what is the consequence for failure. When you're trying to give martials nice things, all those points in the process need to be taken into account.

For example, Enhance Ability (Strength) or Guidance might give a Druid a bonus to break some chains - but if they have 10 Str then they probably still won't get to even roll, so neither spell actually helps. They might instead need to burn a wild shape to get that chance in the first place - a cost that the barbarian doesn't have to pay. Similarly, if there is no other meaningful consequence for failure, the martial isn't using a resource and therefore can break those chains eventually without rolling - but since the caster is burning a resource in order to make the check, they may have a meaningful consequence baked in which then makes a failure inherently more meaningful.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 03:26 PM

But you aren’t answering why that matters. Your sidestepping that altogether. Why do you care that different tables sometimes make different rulings about DCs?

I run 4 tables for over 20 different players, with some turnover. A consistent set of rules and expectations makes that process incredibly smooth. An inconsistent set of rules makes for difficulties and slows down the game.

It’s a reasonable design goal - but not for the big tent approach that 5e took for design.

I disagree. Spells and combat are standardized. PTBA standardizes things in less than 50 pages, including combat.

Not having a complete or harmonized mechanic is just bad design.

A more specialized rpg intended to emulate 1 specific setting and 1 specific genre - your idea would work great for. But not for something intended to be as broad for 5e. It’s why I said earlier I could see such tables for specific settings or specific campaigns, but not for 5e in general.

PTBA is broader than 5e and accomplishes this.

*Also of note: spells require a non-trivial resource.

So have checks and failures have a mechanized cost, designed to interact with the system: like how most damage spells that call for a save still deal half damage.

As a side note one of my favorite rulings is to have proficiency play the role of determining whether a particular character needs to roll at certain tasks or whether a character without it even gets to roll at other tasks. It kind of helps establish that minimal floor you are looking for (+niche protection, which is something I value).

This is a good mechanic, and can be refined. PF2E is a good example of this.

I think we have a fundamental different understanding of what D&D is.

To me D&D is a game engine and each individual DM creates their game using that underlying engine. So the fact that a task is easy in one game and hard in another is just like two different PC games using the same underlying engine playing differently.

I can play Apocalypse World and Dungeon World and Monster Hearts and Masks and still have a consistent understanding of how the basic mechanics work and how I can expect to interact with the fiction.

5E’s non combat, non spell engine is buggy, incomplete and self contradictory. Were it computer code, it would crash. And it does, frequently, which is where “Blackmoor” becomes the game instead.

I do tend to agree that DMs who make tasks difficult are pushing a usually accidental narrative that favours casters over martial classes. There really is nothing in the game that suggests that most DC would increase with level except for the ones which are a contest (e.g. Stealth vs a monster Passive Perception). So DMs who do that are making a particular form of game with the engine that they may or may not have intended.

The game actually tells us that a DC 25 check “becomes more reasonable” after 10th level.

A proficiency bonus of +4 and an ability bonus of +4 make that a 20% chance of success: the game assumes that is more reasonable than the 10% chance at level 5 (+3, +3)I suppose…

That’s the real problem, the designers took bad base assumptions and wrote their guidance based on that.

We can’t blame a DM for following the DMG’s bad advice.

Not that fixed values for DC can really work. After all I can see several trees out of my window and some would be easy for a child to climb while others, due to a lack of low hanging branches, would take proficiency and possibly equipment to climb. There is no standard tree so I don't think there can be a standard DC for climbing them that does not include DM discretion.

But you can used bounded accuracy to make the discretion produce better results.

A DM has discretion over saving DCs for spells and hazards and ACs for monsters. An elaborate table, ranging from CR 1/8 to CR 30 binds AC to a max of 19 and Spells and Hazards to DC 23 (19 for CR 20)

What were they smoking when they decided to scale this up for ability checks?

A DM who introduces AC 25 monsters or DC 25 spells is deviating hard from the games guidance. Very Hard is considered “reasonable” for level 10…

Is this level of extreme disparity between two playgroups for the exact same task possible? Sure. Is it a common enough occurrence to warrant throwing out all the benefits of an open-ended system? I still believe, no. .

This isn’t extreme disparity.

Extreme disparity is DC 5 and DC 30, which produces up to a 185% disparity. These are the edge cases you can discard.

The 60-110% swing is operating under the guidance of the DMG. That’s not a variance worth keeping.

And 5E is hardly the only open ended skill system that exists. 3E was also open ended, and the math was actually better calibrated using 25 year old technology.

But leaving that ghost behind, PF2E, Mork Borg, Trophy, all these games have open ended resolution with better math than 5e.

Presenting 5E as the only open ended solution is a fallacy. It can be better designed.

I mean, the good news is that if you find such a thing valuable you can do it yourself, using all the published modules you and others who want this can get your hands on. And furthermore, as the DM, you can decide which encounters in that codex are applicable/identical/informative towards the encounters you're designing in your own campaign.

Yeah, gods forbid someone who owns multiple digital copies of the books, as well as many hard cover versions, ask the company for which *I* am the whale, for a well organized book on skills that can be consulted without 50 browser tabs open or 50 sticky notes book marking the relevant pages.

And this attitude becomes untenable when you tell me a system that requires you to homebrew a dragon is badly designed. Why the double standard for 4 books of monsters for combat but 0 books of skill challenges.

WotC meanwhile shouldn't do this, because for them, neither is true .

I’d really love to see you prove this, especially considering books with skill systems have dominated their publishing cycle in the past 3 years.

However, you cannot. Meanwhile the math is demonstrably bad.

I don't disagree. Games should pick their target and aim at it, whether it's general/broad or narrow and specific. But I do believe that trying to force a game that already allows broad freedom and put it in a straight-jacket isn't going to go well. Because that'd require a fundamental re-write and end up looking quite different afterward. Similarly, taking a narrow-premise game and making it "generic" won't go well. Some things are baked in at a fundamental level.

You don’t need to straight jacket a system to make it mechanically functional or, dare I say, elegant.

5e is set up to allow broad (but not totally generic) freedom for DMs (specifically) and tables (more generally) to specialize it for their own needs, with many dials and levers to adjust to suit. This is in intrinsic tension with the desire for inter-table standardization.

So present multiple levers rather than none.

If 5E’s solution is “Go play Blackmoor”, it’s not much of a solution.

You can go ahead and make your own DC tables and play the way you want. But if you force standardization on me (which is what you've said you want), I can't not do that.

1. No one is forcing you to use the monster manual, you can homebrew away. So why would samples of skill challenges force you to use them?

2. Standardization doesn’t even have to be the goal. You could present 3 radically different systems of resolution and allow for DMs to announce which one they are using, or even mingle them.

But not producing a system that is coherent, that’s bad and lazy.

For the record I want neither magic nor skills to change. I'm okay with martials getting more feature redesigns like the Tasha Ranger did however.

This is a solution for sure, though it results in just ignoring the ability checks system, rather than reinforcing it.

This edition has a real “replace it with a spell” design ethos that starts to bleed into 4Es homogeneous design.

This is more preference, 4E was a pretty well designed game, but I’ve always liked that D&D classes had unique mechanics for each class, or at least bundle of classes.

I never denied that you and others see value in them. But you appear to be ignoring or glossing over the costs too. Both the fiscal/development costs of designing, playtesting, and typesetting such tables, and the more intangible costs of DMs who never asked for them and don't need them now feeling pressured to at least reference them before designing any encounters, as well as by pushy players, or needing to worry about their players coming equipped with ridiculous TO threads designed to break such challenges.

No. Make those yourself.

There is an audience who will buy the Trap Book, the Wilderness Book and the Adventuring Guild book

This covers those costs. Not to mention 6 of the last 9 published books have developed skill mechanics that could literally be collated and republished without major design work (See Tasha’s)

Telling people to waste their time on homebrewing mechanics or collating these examples themselves is just apologia for WOTC. If they released an edition without a monster manual, there would be pitchforks (indeed, I seem to recall pitchforks when the first PHB was released, absent a great deal of classes and races considered core to the game in 4e)

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 03:28 PM

other than the bolded bit, I disagree. Ability checks are mostly influenced by spells and features only accessible to spellcasting classes. Rogues and fighters cannot easily get enhance ability or guidance.

Maybe it’s just how my table plays but pre cast buffs for skill checks are pretty unreliable because we don’t retcon the game so the caster got to cast it before the skill check was called for. He had to actually do so before. That eliminates alot of guidance spam and enhance ability utility right out the gate.

Darth Credence

2022-03-11, 03:34 PM

Here we go again.

Yes, for that matter, let there be a chart for every tree. We have three books on monsters, a book on dragons, and a book on fiends.

Or it could be simple, if you want to be ornery about the type of tree. Something like

DC 5 A knotted rope, an unsteady ladder
DC 10 A rope not knotted, a torch lamppost
DC 15 A tree with many limbs like oak or elm, a rock cavern wall
DC 20 A tree with no low limbs like palm or redwood, a stone wall like in a dungeon
DC 25 A castle wall
DC 30 A completely smooth wall, like a wall of ice or force.

The DM may raise or lower the DC or apply Advantage/Disadvantage depending on circumstances such as a wet surface if not the ice wall, the use of climbing gear, etc.

Not married to these numbers. It's just an example. It might even be better to lower the numbers by 5.

So, not really standardized, then? You specifically allow for the DM to adjust the DC depending on the current situation. How is that fundamentally different from what we have now? As I understood the post I first replied to, you wanted to know that if the DM says that you are in a forest approaching a destination and decided to climb a tree to have a look at the destination, the DC should be the same no matter who the DM is, and you should be able to know that DC without having to ask. (If that does not describe your position, please let me know.) Once you allow for the DM to adjust that DC because this particular forest has few low branches, or a lot of moss and vines, or whatever else, then we are back to the current situation of needing to ask the DM, right?

What acid is acid splash made out of? What type of rock does magic stone require? How long are the individual magic missiles? It doesn't matter. Just make a DC for a generic tree, and when it does matter, it's a nice baseline for the GM to base the specific DC off of.

The purpose of the table isn't to provide you with a DC for any situation. It's to provide you a concrete guideline of the difficulty of a task, off which a GM can base their own DC's and off which a player can gauge their character's capabilities so they can make informed decisions without needing to ask the GM what DC it would be to climb a tree during character creation so they can decide whether playing a tree-leaping monk is even viable.

Acid splash is an acid that is corrosive to organics (and possibly metals in games with constructs), as seen by it doing damage to a creature, rather than to anything else it would land on (there are several acids that would fit the bill, but since the spell cannot be cast to use the acid to do anything else, it doesn't matter. It would matter what type of acid you get from an alchemist's jug, so that needs to be determined by the DM). Magic stone requires it to be a pebble, with the particular type not relevant to the magic (meanwhile, the particular type of tree is relevant to being able to climb it. If the trees are small enough that one can reach the top without doing any climbing, then they would be more analogous to the pebbles, and one DC could exist). The spells do what they say they do, and have been constrained to work in a specific way. Skills are not "magic", so they don't have the convenient magic is magic and they do exactly what they say they do validation.

Let's say the DMG, or PHB, or whatever, includes a table saying that climbing a tree is DC10, with the DM making adjustments for the particular type of tree. And then it says that the characteristics of the tree, including the height of the lowest branches, total height, bark type, and other possibilities affect the possible DC, but it is highly recommended that the DMs assign a DC of 10. That's kind of what you're thinking, right? Concrete number, recommendation to use that number, but caveat that the type of tree matters. You want to make a tree jumping monk, and decide that since the table exists, it must be viable. Then the DM starts describing massive forests of floss silk trees, with spikes on the bark to deter climbing, and they say that the trees in this forest have evolved to prevent climbing, so they are DC20 to climb. They are not in any way violating the idea you have lain out, but by not asking you made a build that won't work. Or, what if you do ask, but don't delve deep into it - you just say, "Hey, DM, what do you do for climbing DCs?" The DM replies, "I stick to the tables in the books." You think, excellent, time to make the tree climbing monk! Then you are introduced to the game, set in an analog of northern Africa, with vast stretches of desert butting up against vast swaths of savannas. There are trees, sure, but they are spaced far enough from each other that no way could you leap from one to another. Well, that DC table didn't do much to help you figure out whether a tree leaping monk was a viable build.

Why not just talk to the DM? You will have to do it at some point, so why not just bring up before making the character, "Hey, DM, I am thinking about a tree leaping monk, but I won't do it if climbing trees is really hard. Any thoughts?" The DM might say, "I go by the climbing rules, and you can climb a tree without a check at half your normal speed", or "All trees are a DC10 from me", or "what very few trees you will encounter can be easily climbed, but there aren't going to be nearly enough for that to be a good build, so maybe try something else", or even, "that sounds cool! I'm going to increase the number of forests you'll travel through, so that you have more opportunity to do this!"

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 03:35 PM

Maybe it’s just how my table plays but pre cast buffs for skill checks are pretty unreliable because we don’t retcon the game so the caster got to cast it before the skill check was called for. He had to actually do so before. That eliminates alot of guidance spam and enhance ability utility right out the gate.

This just encourages procedural play then, sometimes which can get petty.

I’m reminded of the old “you said you checked the door, not the door frame” tale where the DM sets a trap off for a player not being hyper specific.

If you expect the player to announce it every time, before any statement is made, you can just result in someone spamming it.

This is why old tables used to have a caller to announce the party’s actions before the DM ruled.

5E lacks such procedural guidance.

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 03:45 PM

This just encourages procedural play then, sometimes which can get petty.

I’m reminded of the old “you said you checked the door, not the door frame” tale where the DM sets a trap off for a player not being hyper specific.

If you expect the player to announce it every time, before any statement is made, you can just result in someone spamming it.

This is why old tables used to have a caller to announce the party’s actions before the DM ruled.

5E lacks such procedural guidance.

If he’s spamming guidance literally all the time he isn’t doing anything else. That’s a fine trade off IMO. Enhance ability can’t be spammed. It’s a limited resource.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 03:48 PM

The 60-110% swing is operating under the guidance of the DMG. That’s not a variance worth keeping.

It's still a warped view to say that so many people can look at the exact same challenge and conclude they have opposite difficulty labels AND disagree on whether training can apply to them that the system as a whole doesn't function. I don't buy it.

I’d really love to see you prove this, especially considering books with skill systems have dominated their publishing cycle in the past 3 years.

However, you cannot. Meanwhile the math is demonstrably bad.

Which books are those? You mean adventure modules? :smallconfused:
Those are specific encounters, not general tables. I've never been against them designing specific encounters.

Yeah, gods forbid someone who owns multiple digital copies of the books, as well as many hard cover versions, ask the company for which *I* am the whale, for a well organized book on skills that can be consulted without 50 browser tabs open or 50 sticky notes book marking the relevant pages.
...
Telling people to waste their time on homebrewing mechanics or collating these examples themselves is just apologia for WOTC.

I don't care how much of a whale you consider yourself to be, I'd still rather they work on literally anything else. Label that whatever you want.

If he’s spamming guidance literally all the time he isn’t doing anything else. That’s a fine trade off IMO. Enhance ability can’t be spammed. It’s a limited resource.

Not to mention spamming guidance means he's not concentrating on anything else (including rituals), and he's probably using it to buff the martial anyway so they're getting to shine. And that's putting aside the instances where guidance is impractical like chanting loudly to help someone be more sneaky.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 03:48 PM

If he’s spamming guidance literally all the time he isn’t doing anything else. That’s a fine trade off IMO. Enhance ability can’t be spammed. It’s a limited resource.

That’s valid, especially regarding enhance ability, but for most tables I’ve run, the assumption of guidance quickly develops and to avoid slowing down play, I don’t demand it be announced or spammed in a chat.

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 04:06 PM

That’s valid, especially regarding enhance ability, but for most tables I’ve run, the assumption of guidance quickly develops and to avoid slowing down play, I don’t demand it be announced or spammed in a chat.

Then IMO, your playstyle is overpowering guidance. Which seems to be par for the course for casters.

Party enters a room. Dm gives a description. Rogue checks the chest for traps. Ranger stands as lookout. Wizard investigates the bookshelf for spellscrolls or spell books. What does the cleric do? Cast guidance on the rogue? DM states no traps on the chest - guidance was worthless. Or does the cleric try to do something else. Maybe he inspects the strange symbols in the corner.

Or am I correct in presuming that your table would have the rogue first check everything for traps. The wizard then investigate everything. Etc. The ranger would help them and the cleric cast guidance on them as each step was slowly and meticulously done in order.

If you play the later way then guidance is indeed OP and will be done procedurally (in fact, nearly everything will be). If you resolve things simultaneously as the first example show then not so much.

strangebloke

2022-03-11, 04:19 PM

Maybe it’s just how my table plays but pre cast buffs for skill checks are pretty unreliable because we don’t retcon the game so the caster got to cast it before the skill check was called for. He had to actually do so before. That eliminates alot of guidance spam and enhance ability utility right out the gate.

In a situation where picking a lock is really important, guidance will be cast. If guidance isn't cast, its probably because the party didn't really care about the outcome. Same goes for BI. If you aren't loading up the party face with ability check buffs before he walks in to talk to the king, its probably because the party isn't that worried about the outcome of talking to the king.

And ultimately if you get hung up on this thing as a DM, you're just asking for a player to stubbornly reiterate "I cast guidance" every ten minutes. I've seen it happen.

Regardless, ability check buffs are the caster's domain, not the martial's.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 04:21 PM

The answer to "there is a disparity between casters and martials in this regard" is not "yeah but not when spells aren't used".

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 04:24 PM

It's still a warped view to say that so many people can look at the exact same challenge and conclude they have opposite difficulty labels AND disagree on whether training can apply to them that the system as a whole doesn't function. I don't buy it.

*Shrugs*

The math is there and you can’t point to anything in the guidance that would prevent such adjudication.

The system allows for it. Indeed, it allows for FAR worse (180% swings).

You can say you don’t buy it, but that’s no defense of the system. Show your work.

Which books are those? You mean adventure modules? :smallconfused:
Those are specific encounters, not general tables. I've never been against them designing specific encounters.

Acq Inc isn’t a specific encounter. It’s not even setting specific.The rules for doors and locks are consistent in all published adventures and presented in general tables. Nor are the rules for Social Interactions in Strixhaven: those are presented agnostically, rather than connected to the setting or the published adventure.

I don't care how much of a whale you consider yourself to be, I'd still rather they work on literally anything else. Label that whatever you want.

Yes, but your preference is not fact. Claiming that it isn’t in Wizards interests just because it doesn’t align with your interests is poor form.

There’s clearly a design strategy being presented in the more socially (Strix, Acq Inc, Witch) and exploration (Rime, Saltmarsh, Avernus) oriented sourcebooks and adventures. Toss in Tasha’s (which includes rules for skill checks as well), there’s obvious work being done and sold.

What you’d prefer isn’t what they’re doing. Claiming otherwise is pretty strange.

Pex

2022-03-11, 04:25 PM

1) People actually want books of monsters and races. "Mordenkainen's Tome of Trees" would be an abject waste of money on both sides (devs and playerbase).

2) The stats of a given monster - say, an imp - matter because you're generally going to be doing one thing with that statblock; fighting with it. The possibility space for how you interact with something like a tree is much, much broader, which is why an open-ended system for designing its role in that encounter is superior.

People also want these DC tables. It doesn't have to be a book dedicated to them. We're happy with just a chapter, but yes a book about non-combat stuff like exploration, wilderness travel, etc. would be of value and have been asked for in past threads. I think it even got a mention in the prequel thread. Personally I'd be happy if there was a chapter. Xanathar did it with tool use and downtime activities.

tokek

2022-03-11, 04:27 PM

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 04:39 PM

In a situation where picking a lock is really important, guidance will be cast. If guidance isn't cast, its probably because the party didn't really care about the outcome. Same goes for BI. If you aren't loading up the party face with ability check buffs before he walks in to talk to the king, its probably because the party isn't that worried about the outcome of talking to the king.

And ultimately if you get hung up on this thing as a DM, you're just asking for a player to stubbornly reiterate "I cast guidance" every ten minutes. I've seen it happen.

Regardless, ability check buffs are the caster's domain, not the martial's.

IMO if you consistently design scenarios where the cleric has nothing else useful to do but cast guidance then you’re not designing good scenarios.

IMO If you consistently run scenarios that are handled by the players in sequential order always with the best characters skill for the task then you are not running the scenarios well.

IMO if you are never making the casting of guidance by a guidance spammer be noticed or cared about by nearby NPCs, then that’s just you giving him one more advantage.

IMO if you overuse skill checks as opposed to auto success or auto failure then guidance is going to feel a lot stronger than it should.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 04:41 PM

Case in point... if you're having these experiences, you're not doing it right.

But this edition is all about letting the DMs have the freedom to run things how they want...

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 04:41 PM

Then IMO, your playstyle is overpowering guidance. Which seems to be par for the course for casters.

I won’t disagree. I think guidance might be one of the worst designed spells in the game. I’m considering banning it at my personal tables.

But I run RAW because I run pay to play, so more work for me to balance ability check encounters.

Party enters a room. Dm gives a description. Rogue checks the chest for traps. Ranger stands as lookout. Wizard investigates the bookshelf for spellscrolls or spell books. What does the cleric do? Cast guidance on the rogue? DM states no traps on the chest - guidance was worthless. Or does the cleric try to do something else. Maybe he inspects the strange symbols in the corner.

Or am I correct in presuming that your table would have the rogue first check everything for traps. The wizard then investigate everything. Etc. The ranger would help them and the cleric cast guidance on them as each step was slowly and meticulously done in order.

Yep. And one trap missed leads right to that behaviour.

It’s the ten foot pole problem. Either you allow them to assume for the 10 foot pole, or you require them to declare that they’re tapping every inch of the hallway.

You can design around this: wandering monsters, time constraints, urgent skill encounters (just had one group escape the collapse of the boiling bubble in White Plume, for instance), but I also use published content (saves time and attracts players) so I can’t always rely on a room having a skill check for everyone.

If you play the later way then guidance is indeed OP and will be done procedurally (in fact, nearly everything will be). If you resolve things simultaneously as the first example show then not so much.

For sure. But the moment simultaneous resolution goes sideways, then the procedural party begins to emerge. And I’m not big on “gotcha” play (not implying you are), because discovering things like traps is the space where Martials can get some juice compared to casters.

People also want these DC tables. It doesn't have to be a book dedicated to them. We're happy with just a chapter, but yes a book about non-combat stuff like exploration, wilderness travel, etc. would be of value and have been asked for in past threads. I think it even got a mention in the prequel thread. Personally I'd be happy if there was a chapter. Xanathar did it with tool use and downtime activities.

Yeah, it’s like this isn’t something that’s already happening. These tables are scattered all over the place. Some organization would be nice.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 04:59 PM

You do want the game to change, just not with respect to how skills work. You want the game to change how magic works, as mentioned several times in other threads. Most everyone on these Forums has their own preferences of how they would like the game to change. Skill use is my pet peeve of the matter.

I want my games to change and if all I had to worry about was my own games (which it is, but wouldn't be if other people are using the same system), I'd make those changes in the system. But I'm not in charge of the system. I don't want to make it a forced thing for anyone else. And I would generally oppose any attempt to make such shifts globally.

Basically, I'm totally fine with large-scale variance in rules between tables. I'm totally fine with D&D 5e being a big tent, buffet-style game. Where each group picks and chooses from a wide palette of options and one group's game may be completely different than another. In fact, I'd say that I prefer that. Inter-table standardization is, to me, a defect (even if a necessary one at some level).

I want DMs and tables to feel totally free to homebrew and modify anything. And want the core system to be as open to that as possible. More "system as toolkit" than "system as contract".

Telok

2022-03-11, 05:00 PM

Even if "one leveled spell + cantrip spam" is all you'll ever need, that leaves you with just one slot to do utility things with before a short rest for most of the game. And god forbid you get two challenging fights between short rests, or even more. It feels like you're making assumptions about gameplay. The tables I've been at often have bursts of activity with downtime between them. Being able to throw down multiple utility spells without being drained when the next burst of activity comes around is pretty good. You're talking like warlocks can't cast spells out of combat because they might get ambushed any second or have to fight for their lives every 15 minutes

It's still a warped view to say that so many people can look at the exact same challenge and conclude they have opposite difficulty labels AND disagree on whether training can apply to them that the system as a whole doesn't function. I don't buy it. I do. See, I don't DM this edition, so I have a pure player perspective. In addition, until recently I was in serial groups of first time & novice DMs. Those DMs all crashed out of the games because of issues with the noncombat part of the game. The only real things players have outside combat are ability checks, spells, and sweet talking the DM.

Theres nothing to do about the sweet talking. The spells are little packets of rules the players can invoke and do what they say they do. The ability checks depend on the DM. I've had a DM witj a bad back rule all climbing was dangerous & hard & required checks. He also thought the climb DCs in modules (like DC 13s and such) were set extra low in order to make the PCs more heroic. Another decided jumping past your strength should be DC 10+distance, and honestly didn't understand the math behind making a 13 str character roll 25+ to jump 15 feet. One of them said no swimming in heavy armor. They made rulings based on their knowledge & experiences, just like you're supposed to.

More to the point of the thread, look at which rules the players can invoke to have their character accomplish a goal. Mundanes get the combat rules, equipment (mostly magic items that do stuff), class features (mostly combat again), and they can ask for ability checks. Casters get all that plus spells, each of which is its own little rule that does what it says in the book. So they're roughly equal except that casters get options to spend a spell slot and get a result instead of asking the DM if they can roll to maybe get the result.

I try not to tell people how they should be running their games. I know people assume its the person and not the situation as a first instinct. Like others I can only report my experiences.

Pex

2022-03-11, 05:05 PM

So, not really standardized, then? You specifically allow for the DM to adjust the DC depending on the current situation. How is that fundamentally different from what we have now? As I understood the post I first replied to, you wanted to know that if the DM says that you are in a forest approaching a destination and decided to climb a tree to have a look at the destination, the DC should be the same no matter who the DM is, and you should be able to know that DC without having to ask. (If that does not describe your position, please let me know.) Once you allow for the DM to adjust that DC because this particular forest has few low branches, or a lot of moss and vines, or whatever else, then we are back to the current situation of needing to ask the DM, right?

You're demanding perfection or else forget about it. All I asked for was examples. You wanted to be ornery to make a big deal about the type of tree. Examples are just that, examples. Once the DM has an idea of what things the game says is an easy task or hard task, he can work from there. I have always said DM adjudication remains. I have never advocated for a table to encompass every possible scenario. What is the DC to climb a rock cavern wall covered with slippery moss? As it is now I could be told anywhere from doesn't matter just climb it to can't climb it at all depending on who is DM that day. With the sample table the DM knows a normal generic rock wall is DC 15. One DM could say DC 17 another DM could say DC 15 with Disadvantage. The point of the table is to let a DM who has no personal real world knowledge on the difficulties of climbing know the game considers rock cavern climb to be a DC 15 task. He has a foundation to work with. That's all I want, a consistent baseline.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 05:08 PM

People also want these DC tables.

Enough to justify making them when the system already clearly works, and to outweigh those who would be alienated by them? I doubt it.

The math is there and you can’t point to anything in the guidance that would prevent such adjudication.

There's nothing in the guidance preventing the DM from replacing the party's backpacks with mimics every night either. Designing around ridiculous black swan scenarios is a waste of valuable book space and time.

Acq Inc isn’t a specific encounter. It’s not even setting specific.

It's fringe content and banned in AL. Next.

There’s clearly a design strategy being presented in the more socially (Strix, Acq Inc, Witch) and exploration (Rime, Saltmarsh, Avernus) oriented sourcebooks and adventures. Toss in Tasha’s (which includes rules for skill checks as well), there’s obvious work being done and sold.

What you’d prefer isn’t what they’re doing. Claiming otherwise is pretty strange.

Tasha's supports my position, not yours. Parleying With Monsters for example gives absolutely no DCs establishing how difficult it would be to to convince one to aid you for instance, "Peter and Petra" still have to design the encounter using the DMG guidelines. Same goes for Patrons and Syndicates. Everything in Tasha's is in line with 5e's existing challenge design.

Xanathar's includes some more specific uses for various tools, but using them in an encounter still requires designing the encounter. I'm totally fine with that.

I try not to tell people how they should be running their games. I know people assume its the person and not the situation as a first instinct. Like others I can only report my experiences.

I don't either, but I also don't think the designers should be designing based on fringe experiences.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 05:25 PM

Enough to justify making them when the system already clearly works, and to outweigh those who would be alienated by them? I doubt it.

Clearly works, except for the mountain of evidence it doesn’t….

Why would they be designing fixes if it worked as is? Not like their introducing new initiative or combat action economy in over 60% of the books published in the last 3 years.

There's nothing in the guidance preventing the DM from replacing the party's backpacks with mimics every night either. Designing around ridiculous black swan scenarios is a waste of valuable book space and time.

Yes, which is why you focus on the median range, rather than the edge cases.

The median range has a 60-110% variance, not the black swans. The black swans have a 185% variance.

It's fringe content and banned in AL. Next.

So AL is the standard we’re holding the game to?

Fascinating.

Tasha's supports my position, not yours. Parleying With Monsters for example gives absolutely no DCs establishing how difficult it would be to to convince one to aid you for instance, "Peter and Petra" still have to design the encounter using the DMG guidelines. Same goes for Patrons and Syndicates. Everything in Tasha's is in line with 5e's existing challenge design.

Uh, might want to reread that second paragraph on Parleying with Monsters. And the references to the rules for downtime from Xanathar’s that litter the Patron section.

Oh, and there’s even an example DC in there too!

I get it, the layout is bad and it’s easy to miss the DC in there. If only there was a table that made it clear, rather than burying it.

So, Tasha’s design wholly supports my argument that example DCs are already there, just badly laid out. So badly that even you missed them.

Imagine what an incompetent or novice DM might do on accident.

I don't either, but I also don't think the designers should be designing based on fringe experiences.

The social and exploration pillars represent 66% of the game.

Sounds like your definition of fringe is similar to Crawfords definition of “Easy” and “more reasonable”

Darth Credence

2022-03-11, 05:46 PM

You're demanding perfection or else forget about it. All I asked for was examples. You wanted to be ornery to make a big deal about the type of tree. Examples are just that, examples. Once the DM has an idea of what things the game says is an easy task or hard task, he can work from there. I have always said DM adjudication remains. I have never advocated for a table to encompass every possible scenario. What is the DC to climb a rock cavern wall covered with slippery moss? As it is now I could be told anywhere from doesn't matter just climb it to can't climb it at all depending on who is DM that day. With the sample table the DM knows a normal generic rock wall is DC 15. One DM could say DC 17 another DM could say DC 15 with Disadvantage. The point of the table is to let a DM who has no personal real world knowledge on the difficulties of climbing know the game considers rock cavern climb to be a DC 15 task. He has a foundation to work with. That's all I want, a consistent baseline.

Excellent, then what I thought your position was does not accurately describe your position. Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize for getting it wrong. FTR, I came to that conclusion because in the first post on this thread, you said that you wanted the same consistency in skill checks as you have for spells or monsters or equipment, which lead me to believe you wanted hard numbers.

I think, then, that we have no real disagreement. I have no problem with a section that would flesh out recommended values. I generally base my ideas on the typical difficulty chart, but I could see how that might not be enough in every situation. That said, though, how do we decide what all needs a table? You think that climbing should have something, and it already does - climbing just costs double the movement with no check needed, unless it is unusual in which case the DM decides.

The other example used was knowing things about the monsters. This is a case where I generally go with they roll, not against a specific number, but just to get a total. I then give out certain percentages of the total info I have based on how well they rolled, with a 25 giving pretty much everything. Would something like a rule of thumb on doing that, saying the kinds of things that can be learned at each threshold work? Like if you rolled nature to learn about a beast, how they fight is a 10, how they live is a 15, what they'll fight for is a 20, and remembering that these guys have this special ability is a 25? Or would we need to go farther, and add to each monster statblock what you can glean from certain numbers? The first could be implemented quickly, but would still have some DM dependencies as to what fell in each, while the latter would be something they should work on basically from the beginning on the next edition.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-11, 05:54 PM

Talking to the DM doesn't matter because whatever we discuss for his game won't apply for another game. Go back to computer games, since that is what you demand of the human being who is acting as referee / judge / GM / DM. You'll never be happy.

I just checked the RG (Referee's Guide)
The DC for having a clue is 41.
(Suggest you find a high level bard, this roll might be tricky)

So were ranger/monk/assassin all subclasses of Fighting Man or something else? When did Barbarian come in No. Ranger was subclass of Fighting Man, Monk subclass of Cleric, Assassin sub class of Thief. Barbarians came in at Unearthed Arcana (1985) after a well received Dragon magazine article.

I started in 3rd edition My condolences, but I sincerely hope that you had fun. That's the edition my nephew started in, and he's still in the game and enjoying it.
In Defense of 3e: WoTC did a lot to clean up and rationalize the underlying mechanics, and they reduced the number of saves to three (Will Reflex Fortitude) which honestly was (IMO) The Better Idea.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 06:00 PM

Clearly works, except for the mountain of evidence it doesn’t….

Mountain = handful of complaining forumites, sure.

Why would they be designing fixes if it worked as is?

What "fixes?" As I mentioned, current design still supports non-specific DCs.

Yes, which is why you focus on the median range, rather than the edge cases.

The median range has a 60-110% variance, not the black swans. The black swans have a 185% variance.
...
The social and exploration pillars represent 66% of the game.

Sounds like your definition of fringe is similar to Crawfords definition of “Easy” and “more reasonable”

"Easy + proficiency allowed vs. Hard + no proficiency allowed" for the exact same challenge is still a black swan/fringe.

So AL is the standard we’re holding the game to?

Fascinating.

When we're talking about indicative design? Absolutely.

Uh, might want to reread that second paragraph on Parleying with Monsters. And the references to the rules for downtime from Xanathar’s that litter the Patron section.

Oh, and there’s even an example DC in there too!

I get it, the layout is bad and it’s easy to miss the DC in there. If only there was a table that made it clear, rather than burying it.

So, Tasha’s design wholly supports my argument that example DCs are already there, just badly laid out. So badly that even you missed them.

Imagine what an incompetent or novice DM might do on accident.

See, if you had actually read it, you'd know the example DC there was to research something the monster likes. Acquiring that thing gives you advantage on your later interaction check. The DC for that later check is still up to the DM to determine, using the 4 steps we've been discussing up until now. Not a magic table.

Unoriginal

2022-03-11, 06:27 PM

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 06:50 PM

No. Ranger was subclass of Fighting Man, Monk subclass of Cleric, Assassin sub class of Thief. Barbarians came in at Unearthed Arcana (1985) after a well received Dragon magazine article.
I kind of wish the "thief" was sort of just... a role anyone could do. Like the two choices are "fighting person" and "spellcasting person", and each one can go into nature warrior, divine warrior, sneaky warrior, raging warrior, or nature caster, divine caster, arcane caster, sneaky caster respectively.

My condolences, but I sincerely hope that you had fun.
Lol, I loved 3rd edition! But I also liked 4th edition. 5th edition is also good. But...

I recently watched a video that helped put some of the complaints in this thread a little more into perspective. I've mentioned this before but I went by Khan the Destroyer on the WotC forum and introduced Pun-Pun to the CharOp board there. The reason it's on my mind and I'm bringing it up is because my partner asked me about it the other night. She searched for Pun-Pun online and found a YouTube video explaining how to create him. The video was entertaining but also spoke about the culture (he didn't use that word) of 3rd edition and how 5th edition's design is a response to 3rd edition. The video helped me understand because, part of what made Pun-Pun so much fun was scouring all the books looking for all the different abilities we could mix and match and combine in crazy ways. All that stuff was player-facing and we sort of felt entitled to it.

So I see where the others are coming from in this thread. To a degree. Where I think the case is overstated is that... this was the culture of the Optimization forum (both the Character Optimization board, and then the CharOp and Theoretical Optimization Board when we split it in two :smallamused: ). I don't know that this was a thing at regular tables. To further that point, I NEVER brought anything approaching "good" let alone "OP" to my tables. My first character was a human monk. My next was a half-orc barbarian. I made the most powerful character in the game and I was never interested in playing more than a warrior punching demons in the face lol. So it seems to me that the complaints, on both sides, are human interaction issues. I've been fortunate where, for the most part, my friends and I have gelled around the table very well.

Spiritchaser

2022-03-11, 07:28 PM

The DM making a skill harder just because someone puts effort into being good at it defeats the purpose of being good at it.

This is probably worth putting into the DMG.

I once had a player who had high wisdom, expertise in perception and took the observant feat. I can’t recall exactly how high her perception and passive perception were by the end (in that party she had quite a few ways to get advantage too, and so most of the time she did) It was high enough that it was functionally auto-win. Sure, extreme bad luck and high DC/poor lighting could theoretically result in failure, but I can’t think of any really important place where that actually happened.

Instead of making things harder I just went with it, and it worked out really well. The things she noticed, the information the party got to have made for some weirdness but it was a cool part of how that party worked, what they trusted, and before long I was writing stuff that made the whole “perceptatron” thing kind of a feature.

The one place I’ve had skill DC concerns, and where I could definitely do better is with persuasion. So far I’ve drawn some thick lines around what is just flat out impossible, Persuasion scores can get really high and a 30 DC might not be that hard for some builds to hit…

Frogreaver

2022-03-11, 07:33 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 07:37 PM

The one place I’ve had skill DC concerns, and where I could definitely do better is with persuasion. So far I’ve drawn some thick lines around what is just flat out impossible, Persuasion scores can get really high and a 30 DC might not be that hard for some builds to hit…

The funny thing about that is that's one area where there are tables. They only go up to DC 20, which to me says that's where it caps out. No, you don't get more for rolling a 45 than you would a 20. The best you can (are intended to be able to do) is

* Friendly attitude: The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
* Indifferent attitude: The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
* Hostile attitude: The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.

And note that all that charm X does is get you up to friendly and (depending on the effect) grant advantage on the check. That's a big boost (making things possible that wouldn't have been if they were hostile and raising the baseline to the cap of a hostile person ("The creature does as asked without taking risks or making sacrifices.")), but it's not "they do whatever you want because you're their friend, no questions asked and no check" like it's sometimes interpreted.

And "significant" (and what counts as a risk or sacrifice) are going to depend on the situation.

But I agree--having hard "no, you just can't, no matter what you roll" ideas for Charisma checks is important. But they're not going to be static (at least I don't think they should be). What's a small risk to one person might be a huge risk to another; what's well within the Zone of Negotiable Agreement for one may be completely impossible to reach for another.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-11, 08:03 PM

I kind of wish the "thief" was
I invite you to read my assessment of the ultimate adventurer.
(https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/96625/22566) :smallsmile:
The Thief of Bagdad (watch the movie) was an adventurer.
The Gray Mouser: a swords and sorcery archetype who informed the class Thief (which became rogue) in the Greyhawk supplement for the original game.
Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves? same archetype. Thief.
Aladdin, in the original story? Thief.
Conan, in the Tower of the Elephant? Thief.
The Original Pink Panther? Thief.

It takes a Thief? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062572/) Watch the show.

Heck, Oceans Eleven? A celebration of thieves!
Harry in Your Pocket? Thieves celebrated yet again!

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 08:52 PM

Go back to computer games, since that is what you demand of the human being who is acting as referee / judge / GM / DM. You'll never be happy.

This computer game comment is unnecessary. If you disagree with the criticism, defend the merits of what is being criticized, rather than gatekeep and tell people the thing they like but would like improved isn’t for them.

What "fixes?" As I mentioned, current design still supports non-specific DCs.

Uh, all the published examples I’ve cited, and you’ve either: dismissed as fringe (Penny Arcade is fringe, hilarious!), rejected as specific encounters (untrue) or just ignored.

Pay attention.

"Easy + proficiency allowed vs. Hard + no proficiency allowed" for the exact same challenge is still a black swan/fringe.

No, Very Easy-Nearly Impossible is fringe.

Hard-Easy is where most checks fall. We’ve seen myriad examples of people confusing them and arguing about what constitutes easy or hard in this very discussion. And we’ve even seen you state your disagreement based on a perfectly valid ruling result in you stating you would quit.

You can deny it, but that doesn’t change the facts.

Show your work when you make claims.

When we're talking about indicative design? Absolutely.

A *very* interesting postion for you to take.

See, if you had actually read it, you'd know the example DC there was to research something the monster likes. Acquiring that thing gives you advantage on your later interaction check. The DC for that later check is still up to the DM to determine, using the 4 steps we've been discussing up until now. Not a magic table.

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Did you just argue an EXAMPLE DC is evidence that they aren’t publishing EXAMPLE DCs.

And you’re incorrect about the DC for influencing NPCs. The rules in Tasha’s refer to a table in the DMG that lists DCs to influence NPCs in a form that is straight out of 3E:

So an Example DC that refers to another table full of Example DCs.

And you think this supports your argument that they shouldn’t publish Example DCs?

Think we’ve settled this. If you support systems with example DCs that reference tables of sample DCs, then you’ve agreed with my position, you simply misunderstand it.

I’m glad I brought you around on example DC tables! Like the one Tasha’s references!

All that stuff was player-facing and we sort of felt entitled to it.

The reality is that we’re in a world where it’s ALL player facing. The “Very Easy-Nearly Impossible” table that some have claimed is DM facing is in the SRD for everyone to see.

The internet exists. D&D beyond is littered with hyperlinks. The Google-Fu of “Word or Phrase” 5E will produce any rule you could possibly want. There are tools *wink* and wikidots *wink wink* that pretty much give anyone with a browser and an internet connexion can know the rules of the game.

And frankly, that’s a GOOD thing. It allows other players to carry the weight of a system, which permits more interesting and complex mechanics without slowing the game down.

This is probably worth putting into the DMG.

I once had a player who had high wisdom, expertise in perception and took the observant feat. I can’t recall exactly how high her perception and passive perception were by the end (in that party she had quite a few ways to get advantage too, and so most of the time she did) It was high enough that it was functionally auto-win. Sure, extreme bad luck and high DC/poor lighting could theoretically result in failure, but I can’t think of any really important place where that actually happened.

Instead of making things harder I just went with it, and it worked out really well. The things she noticed, the information the party got to have made for some weirdness but it was a cool part of how that party worked, what they trusted, and before long I was writing stuff that made the whole “perceptatron” thing kind of a feature.

The one place I’ve had skill DC concerns, and where I could definitely do better is with persuasion. So far I’ve drawn some thick lines around what is just flat out impossible, Persuasion scores can get really high and a 30 DC might not be that hard for some builds to hit…

Sounds like how the game is supposed to work. Some things are just not possible and get no roll.

Unless a spell can do it. Martials can’t have nice things, unless they’re spells I suppose. Then they get them 10 levels after the caster.

The funny thing about that is that's one area where there are tables. They only go up to DC 20, which to me says that's where it caps out. No, you don't get more for rolling a 45 than you would a 20. The best you can (are intended to be able to do) is

* Friendly attitude: The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
* Indifferent attitude: The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
* Hostile attitude: The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.

And note that all that charm X does is get you up to friendly and (depending on the effect) grant advantage on the check. That's a big boost (making things possible that wouldn't have been if they were hostile and raising the baseline to the cap of a hostile person ("The creature does as asked without taking risks or making sacrifices.")), but it's not "they do whatever you want because you're their friend, no questions asked and no check" like it's sometimes interpreted.

And "significant" (and what counts as a risk or sacrifice) are going to depend on the situation.

But I agree--having hard "no, you just can't, no matter what you roll" ideas for Charisma checks is important. But they're not going to be static (at least I don't think they should be). What's a small risk to one person might be a huge risk to another; what's well within the Zone of Negotiable Agreement for one may be completely impossible to reach for another.

This is a place where mechanics can go a LONG way.

D&D is a place where ANYTHING should be possible. Daniel Webster should be able to out lawyer Asmodeus. Orpheus should be able to convince the Raven Queen that the laws of death can be reversed. Odysseus should be able to convince a city that the Horse is just a present.

But where 5E fails is that it presents these examples, makes 30 the peak (and 20 specifically for this combo of insight and charisma that allows you to potentially shift an attitude and have them perform a task for you.), which strongly implies this is something that takes 1 or 2, MAYBE 3 checks.

If they codified some kind of success mechanic, suddenly talking a dragon out of their treasure might not just be a DC 30 roll, it would be 10.

And then you can calibrate your numbers so that munchkins can’t achieve consistent 42s and have the answer for everything. Make that 30 still risky, but let the players tilt the board.

Lock it behind a tier. Or behind expertise: let that be the benefit over “BIG NUMBERS” tm

Make it an encounter, a challenge, a designed thing.

And I mean WOTC. Hard working DMs deserve tools to make their prep easier.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 08:59 PM

I invite you to read my assessment of the ultimate adventurer.
(https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/96625/22566) :smallsmile:
The Thief of Bagdad (watch the movie) was an adventurer.
The Gray Mouser: a swords and sorcery archetype who informed the class Thief (which became rogue) in the Greyhawk supplement for the original game.
Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves? same archetype. Thief.
Aladdin, in the original story? Thief.
Conan, in the Tower of the Elephant? Thief.
The Original Pink Panther? Thief.

It takes a Thief? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062572/) Watch the show.

Heck, Oceans Eleven? A celebration of thieves!
Harry in Your Pocket? Thieves celebrated yet again!
A good read, and thank you for sharing. The evolution of the game is so interesting.

I appreciate the thief/rogue/adventurer. Most movies with strong exploration/adventure themes generally have a scoundrel protagonist that can best be described as a "rogue". And they're great and always enjoyable!

But I think that should be a subset of "fighting person". Making martials have to choose between "good at fighting" and "good at skills" makes each give up too much in my opinion.

The reality is that we’re in a world where it’s ALL player facing. The “Very Easy-Nearly Impossible” table that some have claimed is DM facing is in the SRD for everyone to see.

The internet exists. D&D beyond is littered with hyperlinks. The Google-Fu of “Word or Phrase” 5E will produce any rule you could possibly want. There are tools *wink* and wikidots *wink wink* that pretty much give anyone with a browser and an internet connexion can know the rules of the game.

And frankly, that’s a GOOD thing. It allows other players to carry the weight of a system, which permits more interesting and complex mechanics without slowing the game down.
I mean... you're not wrong lol. That said I do feel the culture is different. It's less "what can we do with this edition" and more "please don't disturb anything for the sake of my sanity" :smalltongue:

PhantomSoul

2022-03-11, 09:40 PM

The reality is that we’re in a world where it’s ALL player facing. The “Very Easy-Nearly Impossible” table that some have claimed is DM facing is in the SRD for everyone to see.

The internet exists. D&D beyond is littered with hyperlinks. The Google-Fu of “Word or Phrase” 5E will produce any rule you could possibly want. There are tools *wink* and wikidots *wink wink* that pretty much give anyone with a browser and an internet connexion can know the rules of the game.

Not actually a point of disagreement in practice (based on your argument), but I wouldn't agree as written: everything is player-accessible, but that's not the same as everything being player-facing/player-directed. Being able to google something doesn't make me the intended audience (though maybe capitalism in a book sold for money does regardless of something is in a publication called a "Dungeon Master's Guide" or in a section of optional rules with DM allowance written in, based on these threads!).

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-11, 09:44 PM

Pex

2022-03-11, 10:06 PM

Excellent, then what I thought your position was does not accurately describe your position. Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize for getting it wrong. FTR, I came to that conclusion because in the first post on this thread, you said that you wanted the same consistency in skill checks as you have for spells or monsters or equipment, which lead me to believe you wanted hard numbers.

I think, then, that we have no real disagreement. I have no problem with a section that would flesh out recommended values. I generally base my ideas on the typical difficulty chart, but I could see how that might not be enough in every situation. That said, though, how do we decide what all needs a table? You think that climbing should have something, and it already does - climbing just costs double the movement with no check needed, unless it is unusual in which case the DM decides.

The other example used was knowing things about the monsters. This is a case where I generally go with they roll, not against a specific number, but just to get a total. I then give out certain percentages of the total info I have based on how well they rolled, with a 25 giving pretty much everything. Would something like a rule of thumb on doing that, saying the kinds of things that can be learned at each threshold work? Like if you rolled nature to learn about a beast, how they fight is a 10, how they live is a 15, what they'll fight for is a 20, and remembering that these guys have this special ability is a 25? Or would we need to go farther, and add to each monster statblock what you can glean from certain numbers? The first could be implemented quickly, but would still have some DM dependencies as to what fell in each, while the latter would be something they should work on basically from the beginning on the next edition.

A DC can be a variable, as with saving throws. The DC to know something about a monster could be 10 + CR, (CR < 1) = 0. If a monster has a younger version, like dragons, even if you don't meet the DC of the creature in front of you if you meet the younger version DC you know about that. There could be advice on adjusting for gameworld lore. A creature might be only CR 2, but it is of such rarity the DC might be raised. Perhaps better a different variable DC based on creature type. Animals and Beasts are 10 + CR, Undead are 12 + CR, Aberrations are 13 + CR, etc. Not married to these numbers, just examples.

Figuring out the DC is the easy part. What information to give is a conundrum. There are different ways of handling it. The game designers could choose one and have that be it or they can give options of the different kinds, their pros and cons, and let the DM choose which one to use. There's telling everything or player gets to ask one question per (IN modifier + proficiency bonus) or one question for every three points rolled above the DC or some other way I haven't thought of. The questions players ask may be whatever the player thinks of or specific questions the designers say are ingrained in the check. That is complicated but a necessity given the variety of stuff monsters can do. This goes beyond what I'm asking here. I can agree this particular skill use of knowledge is not so simple to display in a table. The DC part is, not the information given. Here I feel it would be a worthwhile investment of verbiage to print to advise the DM on the matter. Spend the money on ink and paper for those here who would deny it because it costs too much in their eyes. They published many books on many things. They can publish an extra page or two in the Skills chapter this would require. Complexity is not inherently a bad thing.

What information are in the tables is another issue. For now I'm advocating they exist at all. If my wish is granted 5.5E has a Skills section that goes into more detail than what we have now and provide DC tables, then we can argue that content. I allow for the possibility I won't like an entry or two. Watch, they'll make climbing trees DC 20.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-11, 10:08 PM

But I think that should be a subset of "fighting person". Why? Treasure hunting is not necessarily a matter of brute force, particularly if you look at the fiction from which the inspiration of the game came.

The Fighting Person was Fighting Man, and a different role was created for 'something else' to complement Magic Man and Deity Serving Man and Fighting Man.
The Thief role was an expansion of the game, your position is a shrinking of the game. :smallconfused:

Telok

2022-03-11, 10:09 PM

I don't either, but I also don't think the designers should be designing based on fringe experiences.

You're right. Your experiences are obviously abnormal so I can just dismiss you as irrelevant.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 10:14 PM

Why? Treasure hunting is not a matter of brute force.
The Fighting Person was Fighting Man, and a different role was created for 'something else' to complement Magic Man and Deity Serving Man and Fighting Man.
The Thief role was an expansion of the game, your position is a shrinking of the game. :smallconfused:
I'm not sure it has to be framed that way, but if we are going to speak in those terms:

The introduction of the thief class meant that Fighting Man is no longer the person to climb and sneak and do skilled things.

So the potential for Fighting Man and others "shrunk", as it did for "thieves" since they are, they must be, not fighting men.

But Indiana Jones is a fighting man, so is Nathan Drake, and Rick O'Connell, and Han Solo, etc. But they are all skilled as well.

But by splitting the role between Fighting Man and Thief, you now have to choose between the two.

Pex

2022-03-11, 10:15 PM

What would you say if WotC did publish a DC table for climbing, and the DC table went:

No DC: A knotted rope, an unsteady ladder, a rope not knotted, a torch lamppost, a tree with many limbs like oak or elm, a rock cavern wall, a stone wall like in a dungeon

And only started giving DCs for things like trees with no low branches, wet walls, smooth walls, etc?

That's fine too. That's telling the DM on these specific things and similar encounters no rolls are needed the PC can just do it. Here are harder tasks that need a roll and their respective DCs. Right now I'm not advocating for any particular DC numbers. What matters is the DC tables existing at all. Once we have that, if 5.5 grants my wish, then we can argue what those values are for the given tasks. We'll never have perfection, but that's not an excuse not to have anything.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-11, 10:18 PM

But by splitting the role between Fighting Man and Thief, you now have to choose between the two. I really dislike the presumption that you have this either / or framework.
you don't.
And beyond that, in 5e there is a bit of overlap.
Backgrounds help a bit that way for every class.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-11, 10:20 PM

I really dislike the presumption that you have this either / or framework.
you don't.
And beyond that, in 5e there is a bit of overlap.
Backgrounds help a bit that way for every class.
True. And it seems more races are getting more skills. Hopefully when they revamp the PHB races they get some as well.

Pex

2022-03-11, 10:30 PM

This is probably worth putting into the DMG.

I once had a player who had high wisdom, expertise in perception and took the observant feat. I can’t recall exactly how high her perception and passive perception were by the end (in that party she had quite a few ways to get advantage too, and so most of the time she did) It was high enough that it was functionally auto-win. Sure, extreme bad luck and high DC/poor lighting could theoretically result in failure, but I can’t think of any really important place where that actually happened.

Instead of making things harder I just went with it, and it worked out really well. The things she noticed, the information the party got to have made for some weirdness but it was a cool part of how that party worked, what they trusted, and before long I was writing stuff that made the whole “perceptatron” thing kind of a feature.

The one place I’ve had skill DC concerns, and where I could definitely do better is with persuasion. So far I’ve drawn some thick lines around what is just flat out impossible, Persuasion scores can get really high and a 30 DC might not be that hard for some builds to hit…

DMG page 245 has a Conversation Reaction Table with DC numbers. That could help.

Psyren

2022-03-11, 11:37 PM

Pay attention.

To your bad examples?

Hard-Easy is where most checks fall. We’ve seen myriad examples of people confusing them and arguing about what constitutes easy or hard in this very discussion. And we’ve even seen you state your disagreement based on a perfectly valid ruling result in you stating you would quit.

"This easy check is actually hard" is not "perfectly valid."

A *very* interesting postion for you to take.

Sure. *eyeroll*

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Did you just argue an EXAMPLE DC is evidence that they aren’t publishing EXAMPLE DCs.

And you’re incorrect about the DC for influencing NPCs. The rules in Tasha’s refer to a table in the DMG that lists DCs to influence NPCs in a form that is straight out of 3E:

So an Example DC that refers to another table full of Example DCs.

And you think this supports your argument that they shouldn’t publish Example DCs?

Think we’ve settled this. If you support systems with example DCs that reference tables of sample DCs, then you’ve agreed with my position, you simply misunderstand it.

I’m glad I brought you around on example DC tables! Like the one Tasha’s references!

No response to what I actually said I see.

You're right. Your experiences are obviously abnormal so I can just dismiss you as irrelevant.

Sure thing. How are your tables coming? :smalltongue:

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-11, 11:39 PM

I appreciate the thief/rogue/adventurer. Most movies with strong exploration/adventure themes generally have a scoundrel protagonist that can best be described as a "rogue". And they're great and always enjoyable!

But I think that should be a subset of "fighting person". Making martials have to choose between "good at fighting" and "good at skills" makes each give up too much in my opinion.

This is an interesting take.

The game started with 2 classes, with the cleric being a development of a “Van Helsing” type character that got spun as an early Gish, a Fighter-Magic User.

The thief was a development that was homebrewed by a group playing in California that Gygax was inspired by (or, possibly, fittingly, stole). And this forged the “core 4” identity that dominated AD&D and D&D and has remained in some iterations, most obviously in the “core 3” of Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster that all 3 recent editions have featured.

I honestly hated 3Es decision to go to 11 core classes, and appreciated 4Es willingness to acknowledge roles, even if they were only combat ones.

Having 2 core classes might be interesting, but I think there is space for at least the triad of Combat-Skills-Magic, and I’m an advocate for 5: Combat-Skills-Arcane Magic-Divine Magic-Social.

But perhaps there’s a place for a martial-caster dichotomy that permits Combat-Exploration-Social Martials and Combat-Exploration-Social Casters.

This allows for at least 6 classes, plus another 6 bridge classes: Fighter, Fighter-Rogue, Rogue, Rogue-Bard, Bard, Fighter-Bard, for the Martials, for instance. That could translate to Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Bard, Paladin. The caster riddle is a little more complex. I don’t know it its warlock for combat, Druid for Exploration and Cleric for Social, but that’s not half bad, giving us Warlock-artificer-druid-wizard-Cleric-sorceror.

That’s actually quite interesting. It certainly violates the current paradigm, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Clerics being more of a preacher and inspirer, capable of great rhetoric, inspiring righteousness terror or committing grandiose deceptions, and less of an armoured crusdaer, surrendering that to the Paladin at last. Or a more charming Rogue. Or a magic less bard (will never happen) I can see this.

I doubt the corporate incentive of nostalgia would permit such an alignment, but it’s a curious thought experiment. For sure.

I mean... you're not wrong lol. That said I do feel the culture is different. It's less "what can we do with this edition" and more "please don't disturb anything for the sake of my sanity" :smalltongue:

The Ghost of 3E is a lot scarier than the reality. The game was not “Weaponized DC Tables”, “Pun Pun”, “COD-zilla”, “diplomancers run amok” and “Magic Item Xmas Trees”. Most of the people were just playing D&D.

A D&D that promised a way to engage with the charisma part of the game, at long last! The bard was given real support, the fighter got to make interesting choices, the game revived the half orcs and the monk!

Pets were a thing, there was so much flexibility with your character, you weren’t tied to one concept.

It was an edition about shedding the past, of reimagining the game and reforging it using modern mechanics.

5E wasn’t ever a modern game. It was an appeal to the fans of 3E who abandoned it, to the OSR that had rejected 3E and to its remaining core, that had stayed loyal to it or was attracted to 4Es robust mechanics and fine tuned balance.

It didn’t violate any paradigms, which means it carried a lot of the baggage of 3E and 4E with it.

It’s a great edition, but I sincerely doubt it will be anywhere close to where it settles. It’s still only the 3rd eldest edition: AD&D and 2 lived for 23 years, almost evenly split, and were the two most compatible editions, making the upcoming 5.5 very comparable to 2.

I think we’ll see a more focused bloat than the 2.5 years, with 5.5 behaving more like a controlled runway into 6E, with intentionally developed mechanics that signal what they intend to keep while straining what’s left of the old mechanics to inform what the new ones need to encompass.

6E is gonna be a radical departure, because 5E is so familiar. But I think that message will be more welcome after another decade of this system while more modern games fill the space 5E cannot, or at least refuses to.

D&D has always held the crown, but it’s been a rising tide that’s lifted all boats. We’re in an age of RPG development that is unheard of, and we’ve seen that one misstep can crown a contender like Pathfinder for a time. And it’s not like the Chaosiums, the Games Workshops, the White Wolf’s, the Paizos or the next mainstream alt-rpg company that contends for the belt isn’t out there somewhere, trying to perfect the alchemy that defies the zeitgeist and forges it’s own.

We live in exciting times, times which should encourage more experiments rather than conservatism in preserving something neither elegant nor novel, merely legible and serviceable.

Abracadangit

2022-03-11, 11:51 PM

I think, then, that we have no real disagreement. I have no problem with a section that would flesh out recommended values.

See, that's exactly where I'm at. I know some folks are advocating for books of example DCs, and while I don't know I'd go that far, I would definitely like something in the PHB that throws out examples. Each skill could have a few sub-headings, like Acrobatics could have one that says "Balancing," with a little write-up and then just three examples: "Moving along a plank -- 10, Moving along a railing -- 15, Walking a tightrope -- 20," and that's it. That's really it! And I don't see how this would unravel the fabric of D&D.

"So you want EVERY tightrope in the game to be 20, huh!?" The detractors seem to say. No, nobody wants all your tightropes to be 20, the same way I don't care if you change a kobold in your game to have an AC different than 12. That's what DMs are supposed to do! Give the kobold a shield, or a big kobold-mech power armor so its AC is 19. Riff on what is provided to create whatever experience you want, but at least the standard kobold AC is 12 as a baseline to work from. That's all I want from the PHB, a little guidance on what kinds of DCs connect to what kinds of tasks, and I don't see how that would be infringing on individual DM agency the same way kobolds' AC being 12 doesn't.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-12, 12:09 AM

Not actually a point of disagreement in practice (based on your argument), but I wouldn't agree as written: everything is player-accessible, but that's not the same as everything being player-facing/player-directed. Being able to google something doesn't make me the intended audience (though maybe capitalism in a book sold for money does regardless of something is in a publication called a "Dungeon Master's Guide" or in a section of optional rules with DM allowance written in, based on these threads!).

I really doubt the merit of the core mechanics being a secret set of rules. While DMs can possess hidden information, the laws of the game’s realities should not be one of them.

Player characters are immersed in the reality, they should have a grounding of how that reality works. I can look at two trees and guess which I can climb or not.

I may be wrong, but that’s kind of the function of the D20, right?

A player knowing they should expect a 60% hit rate on average in combat doesn’t violate any function of the game.

Why knowing what a +7 in athletics can accomplish doesn’t comprise the game in a way knowing where all the traps in the dungeon are ahead of time.

"This easy check is actually hard" is not "perfectly valid."

Prove that please.

I will cite the person who confused the Hard DC with the term Easy in then previous thread as a counter point.

They made a mistake. You declared it “incompetence”. The same way incompetence when you claimed the game had no example DCs for convincing an NPC to aide you.

Show your work!

Sure. *eyeroll*

Yep. Glad you concede.

No response to what I actually said I see.

You said:

Tasha's supports my position, not yours. Parleying With Monsters for example gives absolutely no DCs establishing how difficult it would be to to convince one to aid you for instance, "Peter and Petra" still have to design the encounter using the DMG guidelines. Same goes for Patrons and Syndicates. Everything in Tasha's is in line with 5e's existing challenge design.

Except Tasha’s cites the DMG for the rules for convincing one to aid you, which tells you exactly what the DC is, in a well formatted table (3 actually):

DC Hostile Creature’s Reaction
0 The creature opposes the adventurers’ actions ……..and might take risks to do so.

10 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20 The creature does as asked as long as no risks ………or sacrifices are involved.

And

See, if you had actually read it, you'd know the example DC there was to research something the monster likes. Acquiring that thing gives you advantage on your later interaction check. The DC for that later check is still up to the DM to determine, using the 4 steps we've been discussing up until now. Not a magic table.

Yes, not only do they provide a reference to a mechanical table full of escalating rewards for escalating DCs, they also present a DC mechanic that grants you advantage in that table full of escalating DCs.

If this is what you are arguing for, then my work here is done. I want mechanics that interact with base mechanics, like an intelligence check granting you advantage on a charisma check to convince an NPC to do something, replete with example DCs.

Tasha’s takes an existing mechanic (convincing NPCs) and puts new one on top with a tangible resolution: you gain advantage for success, making the roll meaningful with mechanical support.

Let’s have more of that!

Telok

2022-03-12, 12:34 AM

Sure thing. How are your tables coming? :smalltongue:

Your post chopping has led you astray, I'm not a tables one. I've just said that my experience is the books failed to provide sufficient clear guidance for novice DMs and those who don't understand probability, and that the flat d20 plus low modifiers plus the average DC being 15 makes attribute rolls so unreliable that many players prefer to use the plethora of "yes I do" magic solutions available to the "may I please roll to attempt to do something" of the checks.

Rafaelfras

2022-03-12, 12:47 AM

Why is that?

The best argument I see is the simplicity: 3E required more mastery to understand the mechanics of spending skill points, trained vs untrained and synergy.
The trade off, of course, being that 5E is inflexible and the math of DCs gets progressively worse as challenges scale.

It is. 3rd by the end is a number salad. It often took some time from my players to do the math, and I had to go sometimes to DCs over 40 for something to be challenging. Mostly traps and doors for the rogue to open. Lots of checks had higher bonuses than the DC, we had to roll anyway because of that 1 on the dice. On 5th things usually go as high as 30, ranging on 15-25 and everyone has a chance of success or failure most of the time. I like that.

There are two reasons I disagree with this:

1. The Peter/Petra Problem. If Peter decides a task is Hard (DC 20) and does not get a proficiency bonus, and Petra decides a like task is Easy (DC10) and does get a proficiency bonus, then a player has no sense of what their character is capable of mechanically: it’s a 60-110% swing. Which leads into:

2. When confronted with a Peter, Magic doesn’t get harder. It just favours Casters further, because magic is mostly not designed with ability checks in mind, and when it is, it’s ridiculous like Pass Without Trace granting a bonus akin to Tier 3-4 expertise.

The problem I see is one of them Is objectively wrong. Either in setting the DC or letting people use their proficiency bonus. (Since is a like task)
If the party goes the magic route, it's a resource spent (if it is available at all) that will not be available elsewhere in that day it should accomplish more then an ability check that can be done over and over.

Magic shouldn’t be limited to SPELLS then. Monks have Ki, Barbarian’s rage, yet those supernatural qualities don’t allow for world changing agency.
It isn't, there are plenty of magic itens too that can do crazy stuff.
I think monk and barbarian class features are more focused on their themes. What world changing things do you refer? Should a barbarian cast earth quake? Monk be able to teleport with his ki?

4E did not cripple casters in the slightest, BTW. Not sure where that idea came from. They simply made the stuff that made Casters better than Martials in the previous edition less codified and more open ended

If that’s crippling, well, I suppose we understand how crippled the Martials are relying on a skill system built the same way…

It was boring. For me at least. Everything looked the same, and I really skipped 4th Ed hard. It didn't help that they butchered Forgotten Realms along the way

As a DM who just wrapped up a 5-20 campaign in 5E that ran for 2 years, I had to work twice as hard to give Martials the ability to shine.

I believe you. But there is nothing like it was in 3rd.
Wizard, cleric and druid where objectively better than everyone else and by a huge margin followed by sorcerer and other T2 classes.
They could accomplish any task their damage was better and we had so many spells for the day, that we could pile up on each other and became almost untouchable.
It was challenging to make the paladin and the rogue and the ranger feel important (I sticked to core and the first supplement from every class so it wasn't that crazy)
On 5th martials can and do shine, and I don't have to go a mile to make sure of that (we are at 14 now).

I’m curious, are you playing a dungeon focused campaign? When the Evoker and Sorlock start using force cage and a persistent AOE, what are you doing to design for it?

Likewise, how are you dealing with transportation issues? Are the casters doing all the heavy lifting, or have you homebrewed something for the Martials?

We are playing Storm King Thunder, very modified of course because I am continuing from Princes of the Apocalypse (went 1-12 on PoTA and we are at 14 now) and we are 9 players (it's madness!!!!) 2 rogues (assassin and psiblade) 4e monk, gloom stalker ranger, hexblade/sor, eldritch knight, life cleric, Toten barbarian and a evoker.
We managed to get to chapter 4 now and got our aircraft.
SKT is very unfavorable for casters because you have big enemies with lots of hp far apart from one another. I can forcecage and dawn an enemy, but what about the 4 others? Sure it helps, but isn't winning the battle. And after that we have 2 or 3 other encounters where I can't do that again. Our sorlock is more interested in his +10 damage for each attack and smiting on a crit following a quick cone of cold for big damage numbers but again it goes at last 2 more encounters before he do it again.
On chapter 3 I made a homebrew adventure with a big dungeon inside. We made 3 short rests. Our 4 e monk shined because she used so many fireballs and water whips during the whole thing that her contribution was undeniable. The wizard stored most of his resources so at the end of the dungeon he started to load off his big spells so he shined more through the end. But our monk, warlock and fighter did most of the heavy lifting, with the ranger getting a big moment against the bbeg and the encounter after that.
Transportation the wizard do circle/teleport when it can be done, otherwise we go by foot. My players don't really mind. We got the aircraft now so they are very happy with that.
I made a thread here about finally getting to chapter 4 of SKT if you are interested to know more

The wider discussion is, of course, would those same encounters be any different if there were no Martials. A simulacrum thats just standing there beside the Wizard isn’t a problem.
it would for sure. Martials can do a lot of damage very fast. You will not be able to challenge the wizard if the fighter action surge the enemy mage to death before he can act.

It’s the one that stayed outside the dungeon, concentrating on summoning a Cuotal or an Air/Earth Elemental while ritually casting Rary’s Telepathic bond and every other non-con buff they can muster, while the regular Wizard still has their full arsenal at their disposal.

A single dispell magic and this problem is over.
It's a good set up, and should be rewarded. But it doesn't need to work all the time. Sometimes the enemy has access to banishment and dispel magic, sometimes a random encounter will get the simulacrum in trouble. And time constraints will make impossible to do another one even if you long rest.

Unfortunately that’s not true. The designers of the edition made it a point to stress that magic items are not part of the core design (the way they were in 3E, and arguably the other editions as well)
This means that every class is complete without then and monster CR will not expect a party having an fixed amount of magic itens. Not that you should play without them

Magic items are also not designed to favour Martials (see the treasure tables of AD&D and compare).

5.5 would go a long way to bake magic items into classes. No reason why a Lv 6 Fighter can’t have a weapon of renown that their own deeds have infused with magic, one that scales up to a +3 (or *GASP* +4 as a capstone!)

I prefer them as a bonus.
On 3rd edition you HAD to have magic itens to function. On 5 th they are a bonus that get you beyond your limits, I like that design more. Also +weapons and +armor don't count against your attunement ballots, this favor martials

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 01:08 AM

See, that's exactly where I'm at. I know some folks are advocating for books of example DCs, and while I don't know I'd go that far, I would definitely like something in the PHB that throws out examples. Each skill could have a few sub-headings, like Acrobatics could have one that says "Balancing," with a little write-up and then just three examples: "Moving along a plank -- 10, Moving along a railing -- 15, Walking a tightrope -- 20," and that's it. That's really it! And I don't see how this would unravel the fabric of D&D.
Because you made it player facing. Now DMs can't run a game where tightrope walking is easier or harder than a 20, because player expectations were set, as opposed to DMs being offered an example.

"So you want EVERY tightrope in the game to be 20, huh!?" The detractors seem to say. No, nobody wants all your tightropes to be 20, the same way I don't care if you change a kobold in your game to have an AC different than 12. That's what DMs are supposed to do! Give the kobold a shield, or a big kobold-mech power armor so its AC is 19. Riff on what is provided to create whatever experience you want, but at least the standard kobold AC is 12 as a baseline to work from. That's all I want from the PHB, a little guidance on what kinds of DCs connect to what kinds of tasks, and I don't see how that would be infringing on individual DM agency the same way kobolds' AC being 12 doesn't.Monsters are DM facing. If a DM changes the AC to 12 or 19, then the players 1) may not even realize it if the DM doesn't tell the the value before they attempt the task of attacking; and 2) haven't had any expectations set in the first place that AC is normally a 12.

Edit: To give an example of how player-facing info affects a DM in a way that DM-facing does not, if I tell you a monster you've never met before is wearing Chainmail and carries a Shield, what do you expect its AC to be?

Pex

2022-03-12, 02:17 AM

Because you made it player facing. Now DMs can't run a game where tightrope walking is easier or harder than a 20, because player expectations were set, as opposed to DMs being offered an example.

I'd call that a feature. Skills should be "player facing" because they're the ones who are doing it. Spellcasters get to know what their spells can do. Martials get to know what their skills can do. If it's just a generic tightrope there's no reason for the DM to change the DC. It's just there. A DM who hasn't a clue how hard tightrope walking is can look at the table and see the game says tightrope walking is a DC 20 task, so that's the DC to use. The rules are bought. Use them. Circumstances are where DM adjudication comes in. If it's windy or the PC wanting to cross is carrying a heavy load the DM might apply Disadvantage or raise the DC a bit. If the PC uses a balancing rod, perhaps his quarterstaff, the DM might give Advantage or lower the DC a bit.

There's no reason for players to yell at the DM because circumstances warrant adjudication any more than players are yelling at the DM because he has a goblin wearing plate mail and smiting a party member. No rules can stop jerk DMs or jerk players, so let's assume everyone is playing nice.

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 06:26 AM

I'd call that a feature. Skills should be "player facing" because they're the ones who are doing it. Spellcasters get to know what their spells can do. Martials get to know what their skills can do.
Players don't get to know enemy AC, saving throws, ability score mods, attack bonuses, or damage. They shouldn't have any example DC tables either. That's all suggest info for the DM, not PC info for the player.

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 07:07 AM

Unless a spell can do it. Martials can’t have nice things, unless they’re spells I suppose. Then they get them 10 levels after the caster.

Spells don't do everything.
Spells have drawbacks to using, such as somatic/verbal components.
Spells are also extremely limited in what is on your spell list, what you prepare and how many slots you get.
Spells often require concentration which is also an extremely limited resource.

I am really tired of assumptions that casters always every spell from every spell list prepared, have infinite slots so they never have to consider resource management, never have any repercussions to consider around the obviousness of somatic/verbal/material components, and never encounter anything antimagic or that counterspells.

I think I'm going to start doing the same for martials. Every martial now has extra attack, divine smite, rage, expertise, reliable talent, sneak attack, cunning action, ki+stunning strike, battlemaster manuevers, etc. Martials sound pretty OP too when we treat them the same was as we do casters.

IMO,
Fighters, Barbarians and Monks could really use some out of combat love - especially in tier 1 and tier 2.
Rogues are great out of combat.
Paladins and Rangers have spells which according to the caster apologists should be enough to make them masters of out of combat.

fbelanger

2022-03-12, 08:06 AM

An opportunity to write up The complete book of trees and Walls.
50 pages of DC table for various Trees, Walls and others usual hazard for adventurers!

Pex

2022-03-12, 09:08 AM

Players don't get to know enemy AC, saving throws, ability score mods, attack bonuses, or damage. They shouldn't have any example DC tables either. That's all suggest info for the DM, not PC info for the player.

Yes they do. They can easily figure out AC by math when the DM tells players they hit or miss. Some DMs roll monster damage and saving throws in the open. Some DMs use average damage. Applying a Knowledge skill roll DC table, however that works out, these things can be in character knowledge and/or special attacks and defenses.

Even if monster statistics are DM only, that's irrelevant. Players of spellcasters get to know what their spells can do. Players of martials (all players actually) get to know what their skills can do. Skill knowledge is a separate thing from monster statistics. PCs are doing the skills, not the DM.

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 09:19 AM

Players can figure out DCs, or be told them by the DM in advance, as well. That doesn't stop them from being DM facing any more than monster statistics are. DMs set the DCs of tasks, DMs set monster statistics, and DMs creature the challenges. Not players, or player-facing tables.

Players get to know what their AC is, what their attack bonus is, what their saves are ... what their bonus to ability checks are. That's the player-facing info.

Psyren

2022-03-12, 09:47 AM

Prove that please.

You want me to "prove" that two people looking at the same challenge and having wildly divergent difficulties is a common enough occurrence to throw out open-ended DC adjudication completely?

Yep. Glad you concede.

Concede what?

You said:

Except Tasha’s cites the DMG for the rules for convincing one to aid you, which tells you exactly what the DC is, in a well formatted table (3 actually):

DC Hostile Creature’s Reaction
0 The creature opposes the adventurers’ actions ……..and might take risks to do so.

10 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20 The creature does as asked as long as no risks ………or sacrifices are involved.

And

Yes, not only do they provide a reference to a mechanical table full of escalating rewards for escalating DCs, they also present a DC mechanic that grants you advantage in that table full of escalating DCs.

If this is what you are arguing for, then my work here is done. I want mechanics that interact with base mechanics, like an intelligence check granting you advantage on a charisma check to convince an NPC to do something, replete with example DCs.

Tasha’s takes an existing mechanic (convincing NPCs) and puts new one on top with a tangible resolution: you gain advantage for success, making the roll meaningful with mechanical support.

Let’s have more of that!

So you agree Tasha didn't actually add any DCs to this process, except "figure out an object the subject might like?" Glad you concede.

I'd call that a feature. Skills should be "player facing" because they're the ones who are doing it.

DMs are the ones designing the challenge. DCs don't get to be player-facing unless the DM wants them to be.

Spells don't do everything.
Spells have drawbacks to using, such as somatic/verbal components.
Spells are also extremely limited in what is on your spell list, what you prepare and how many slots you get.
Spells often require concentration which is also an extremely limited resource.

I am really tired of assumptions that casters always every spell from every spell list prepared, have infinite slots so they never have to consider resource management, never have any repercussions to consider around the obviousness of somatic/verbal/material components, and never encounter anything antimagic or that counterspells.

Indeed.

Pex

2022-03-12, 10:23 AM

DMs are the ones designing the challenge. DCs don't get to be player-facing unless the DM wants them to be.

That's the crux of the issue. The game designers determine how things work. The DM places the things and why they're there. Players interact with the things and deal with the consequences, adjudicated by the DM. It's that adjudication that allows the DM to adjust anything that he deems need to be. Knowing how things work they have a baseline to work from instead of making up everything. The rules were bought. use them. Meanwhile, players are supposed to know what their characters can do.

tokek

2022-03-12, 11:45 AM

Yes they do. They can easily figure out AC by math when the DM tells players they hit or miss. Some DMs roll monster damage and saving throws in the open. Some DMs use average damage. Applying a Knowledge skill roll DC table, however that works out, these things can be in character knowledge and/or special attacks and defenses.

.

Players can also find out the DC of a task by trial and error. Problem solved, close the thread.

\s

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-12, 12:33 PM

. That's all I want from the PHB, a little guidance on what kinds of DCs connect to what kinds of tasks, and I don't see how that would be infringing on individual DM agency the same way kobolds' AC being 12 doesn't.

It doesn’t. You’re quite correct.

If anything, it calibrates the game and forces the designers to consider the math of their system. A table of examples shouldn’t just be Crawford yelling scenarios and Mearls writing them down and assigning random numbers. They should be white boxed and play tested. They should curate an experience that allows a DM to understand what a goblin version of a skill encounter and what a dragon version of skill encounter look like and for what level they are appropriate to.

It is. 3rd by the end is a number salad. It often took some time from my players to do the math, and I had to go sometimes to DCs over 40 for something to be challenging. Mostly traps and doors for the rogue to open. Lots of checks had higher bonuses than the DC, we had to roll anyway because of that 1 on the dice. On 5th things usually go as high as 30, ranging on 15-25 and everyone has a chance of success or failure most of the time. I like that.

I won’t argue that 3E didn’t become much more mathematically taxing at higher levels, but the typical scope of play (tiers 1 and 2) wasn’t much more math than 5E.

We’re also in an age full of digital tools that support these issues. A well designed UI can bypass a lot of the math challenges.

The problem I see is one of them Is objectively wrong. Either in setting the DC or letting people use their proficiency bonus. (Since is a like task)
If the party goes the magic route, it's a resource spent (if it is available at all) that will not be available elsewhere in that day it should accomplish more then an ability check that can be done over and over.

But they aren’t. That’s the problem with the vague guidance. Swinging on vines, lifting a portcullis and reeling a giant fishing rod are not Swimming, Climbing or Jumping. RAW, Athletics doesn’t apply. Is Petra objectively wrong for allowing it?

It isn't, there are plenty of magic itens too that can do crazy stuff.

Unfortunately that’s the DM’s decision and the game gives terrible guidance. Go look up what a 10th level fighter is expected to possess. I’ll wait.

I think monk and barbarian class features are more focused on their themes. What world changing things do you refer? Should a barbarian cast earth quake? Monk be able to teleport with his ki?

For starters. Networks of ninja spies, hordes of berserkers come to share the glory of following such a legend, running on clouds and swimming up waterfalls, screaming a king and wrestling a kraken into submission, curing diseases with pressure points, changing the course of a river to clean a Giant’s stable, moving so fast you cross a continent in a day, jumping so far that you might as well be flying. Tier 3 and 4 stuff that casters can do without breaking a sweat.

I believe you. But there is nothing like it was in 3rd.
Wizard, cleric and druid where objectively better than everyone else and by a huge margin followed by sorcerer and other T2 classes.

Yes, CODzilla has been tamed, to an extent, but casters still exert far greater agency than Martials, codified in the rules, and Clerics, Wizards Bards and Druids reign atop the 5E tiers. The Paladin is the only Martial that sees any kind of real respect, and that’s because they’re a half caster.

I made a thread here about finally getting to chapter 4 of SKT if you are interested to know more

Sounds like a fun campaign. I dare say though, if faced with more than 5 enemies, Forcecage is an awful choice. Multi target damage or cheaper lockdowns like Tasha’s are a better move. You can still use cheaper spells to great effect.

And certainly Martials will shine in combat, one of the main reasons this conversation devolved into a criticism and apology for the skill and ability mechanics of 5E is that they govern 2 of the 3 pillars of the game. The main thrust is that there should be examples both to calibrate the game and embed connected mechanics that give players concrete knowledge of their characters capabilities.

A single dispell magic and this problem is over.
It's a good set up, and should be rewarded. But it doesn't need to work all the time. Sometimes the enemy has access to banishment and dispel magic, sometimes a random encounter will get the simulacrum in trouble. And time constraints will make impossible to do another one even if you long rest.

A single counterspell and this problem isn’t. And dispel magic only targets one effect. So the elemental might get one shot, but the bond is still up. And any of the other rituals or non con buffs up. And while it stops it for the encounter, it’s rare that a short retreat won’t mean another concentration buff or summon.

This means that every class is complete without then and monster CR will not expect a party having an fixed amount of magic itens. Not that you should play without them

I agree. But a system that doesn’t assume magic items should not count on magic items to fill in the gaps. Especially when you’ve restricted access and expectation of them.

Players don't get to know enemy AC, saving throws, ability score mods, attack bonuses, or damage. They shouldn't have any example DC tables either. That's all suggest info for the DM, not PC info for the player.

Except when they do. See: a Druid’s wildshape, a Ranger’s pet, a Paladins steed, a wizards familiar, etc etc.

And of course, we’re in the digital age. Arguing that the players of the game won’t and shouldn’t have studied the game is bonkers. WotC wants everyone to own a DMG, not just Forever DMs.

Spells don't do everything.
Spells have drawbacks to using, such as somatic/verbal components.
Spells are also extremely limited in what is on your spell list, what you prepare and how many slots you get.
Spells often require concentration which is also an extremely limited resource.

Abilities definitely don’t do everything
Abilities have drawbacks, such as requiring verbal or somatic components.

Skills are even MORE extremely limited and once you’ve chosen one, you have no flexibility.

Skills usually require an investment in an ASI, an even more extremely limited resource.

If I had access to 500 potential skill moves that I could hot swap, even a limited catalogue, I might feel differently.

As it stands, I’m committed to what I took at level 1 from my background and a few from my class list. I have to invest ASIs to keep improving them, while casters incur no permanent cost for upcasting, or ASIs to purchase more with a feat. Casters can just buy more castings with gold.

I am really tired of assumptions that casters always every spell from every spell list prepared, have infinite slots so they never have to consider resource management, never have any repercussions to consider around the obviousness of somatic/verbal/material components, and never encounter anything antimagic or that counterspells.

The baseline assumption is that a party of casters will always have enough versatility to overcome any challenge that a martial may excel at, while still being fully equipped to overcome challenges catered to their strengths, whereas Martials have no such versatility nor flexibility, especially considering how cheap and easy a long rest can be.

I think I'm going to start doing the same for martials. Every martial now has extra attack, divine smite, rage, expertise, reliable talent, sneak attack, cunning action, ki+stunning strike, battlemaster manuevers, etc. Martials sound pretty OP too when we treat them the same was as we do casters.

Notice 80% of those were combat pillar. There’s a reason this conversation has shifted to skills, as they govern 66% of the game, rather than combat, where things are nearly as problematic. (Though Martials do lack auto wins)

IMO,
Fighters, Barbarians and Monks could really use some out of combat love - especially in tier 1 and tier 2.

Very much so.

Rogues are great out of combat.

Great at what? That’s a problem with this skill system. DC No can stop a lot of agency, and even when it doesn’t, both the Peter/Petra problem looms and the miscalibration due to BIG numbers seeming to represent normal ones, dragging DCs up to “provide a challenge”

Paladins and Rangers have spells which according to the caster apologists should be enough to make them masters of out of combat.

Paladins are hands down the top martial, as they have both major appeal as a Gish foundation and their status as a spell caster does indeed give the Paladin more agency. A reliable long term flight, ways to manipulate the action economy, social pillar spells and a charisma focus, on top of a rather powerful martial chassis to begin with.

The Paladin is the case for giving Martials spells or spell like abilities. The artificer too, but they’re more properly defined as a caster class.

The Ranger likely could have been the Paladin if they hadn’t been so poorly designed. Fear of pets, making them a spells known caster AND locking class features behind spells that were permanent

One of their biggest criticisms is that their flashiest powers just negate the parts of the exploration pillar that they’re supposed to engage with, which leaves the design space withered.

strangebloke

2022-03-12, 02:06 PM

IMO if you consistently design scenarios where the cleric has nothing else useful to do but cast guidance then you’re not designing good scenarios.

IMO If you consistently run scenarios that are handled by the players in sequential order always with the best characters skill for the task then you are not running the scenarios well.

IMO if you are never making the casting of guidance by a guidance spammer be noticed or cared about by nearby NPCs, then that’s just you giving him one more advantage.

IMO if you overuse skill checks as opposed to auto success or auto failure then guidance is going to feel a lot stronger than it should.
:smallsigh:

So we're now at the stage where the "solution" to casters getting all the buttons that make them better at skill checks is "don't use skill checks, or make it really annoying for spells to be used."

And yes, Guidance can't be used in every imaginable situation. If you go in to talk to the king, the conversation will probably take longer than a minute and any check would come near the end, which means that either the caster has to cast in public (which in this case is arguably allowable; you're just laying hands on your friend and praying for them) or you can't get the buff. But you can use bardic inspiration, which is a non-casting mechanic that is only accessible to a caster. You can use enhance ability(eagle's splendour) ahead of time.

Meanwhile, the noncasters in the room have.... nothing! Or, almost nothing. The rogue might have expertise in the relevant skill. (The bard might as well, and has a strong CHA mod to go with it) The fighter might be a BM with commanding presence.

Martials are not better at ability checks. Empowering ability checks does not narrow the gap. Ability checks are a universally accessible system, and Rogues are the only non-caster that receives a direct bonus to ability checks, and they're barely better than bard even before spellcasting is considered.

Ability checks are not the answer to martials having relatively little to do outside of combat.

Players can figure out DCs, or be told them by the DM in advance, as well. That doesn't stop them from being DM facing any more than monster statistics are. DMs set the DCs of tasks, DMs set monster statistics, and DMs creature the challenges. Not players, or player-facing tables.

Players get to know what their AC is, what their attack bonus is, what their saves are ... what their bonus to ability checks are. That's the player-facing info.

The issue is, unlike with monsters there are very few DM-facing tables with advisement for skill checks and a lot of the guidance is bad. DC 10 is "easy" and yet even someone with a decent ability score and proficiency will fail it 25% of the time. But that guidance is really good compared to some of the more obscure tables, where stuff like climbing a rope will be a DC 13 athletics.

most DMs who make this work are drawing on years of experience and carefully calculated judgement calls. A lot of the guidance we make about skill checks on here isn't really present in the DMG or anywhere.

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 02:24 PM

Skills are even MORE extremely limited and once you’ve chosen one, you have no flexibility.
Skills usually require an investment in an ASI, an even more extremely limited resource.

Skills aren't player-initiated buttons. That's the whole point. That's what it seems you want them to become and IMO they should never be like that. Skills are only even called for when the DM determines there's uncertainty and a consequence of failure. Because of this a good player is going to want to play smart and minimize how often he has to make skills checks.

The baseline assumption is that a party of casters will always have enough versatility to overcome any challenge that a martial may excel at, while still being fully equipped to overcome challenges catered to their strengths, whereas Martials have no such versatility nor flexibility, especially considering how cheap and easy a long rest can be.

Which is only accurate when they have unlimited slots and every spell chosen and prepared all at once. As an example, Spider Climb previously came up. Let's assume the Wizard prepares that spell. When is a Wizard going to actually cast that? Only when the following conditions are met: 1) he feels either this particular climbing problem is really important to solve or that he won't need the slot later 2) the party either already attempted to climb and aren't able to, or the consequences for failure are too steep (possibly due to major time pressure). How many walls like that are you coming across?

Your spell solution to climbing is a glorified backup plan.

And what's worse is the realization that if the party doesn't climb that wall the campaign still goes on, just in a slightly different direction. D&D isn't a videogame where if you fail to get over a wall it's game over (at least in 99.99% of circumstances). The campaign continues.

*Note the rest of the post seemed mostly pointless quibbling so I'm only responding to the really important bits.

Pex

2022-03-12, 02:26 PM

Players can also find out the DC of a task by trial and error. Problem solved, close the thread.

\s

Ooh, so close but a miss. You're still forgetting the issue of different DMs have different opinions on the difficulty of the task. The problem is not the number associated with the DC. The problem is the different numbers depending on who is DM that day, so no, players don't know what their characters can do. Their ability to do stuff is DM whim, not their choices.

Skills aren't player-initiated buttons. That's the whole point. That's what it seems you want them to become and IMO they should never be like that. Skills are only even called for when the DM determines there's uncertainty and a consequence of failure. Because of this a good player is going to want to play smart and minimize how often he has to make skills checks.

The DM has the monster statistics because he's the one running them. Then we get the Conjure spells where even accepting the DM chooses the creatures he has the statistics so he's the one who runs them. By real world exhaustion and ease he hands that responsibility off to the player who did the summoning, so that player - whose character is a spellcaster - now actually has the creature's/monster's AC, hit points, attack modifier, damage, saving throws, etc. To keep the concept of playing Pokemon but making it easier to use we get the Summon spells which summon specific creatures, and lo and behond they have AC, hit points, attack modifiers, saving throws, in the spell description itself for the player to access and use.

Players absolutely should know what their skills can do. They're the ones doing them, not the DM.

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 02:58 PM

Players absolutely should know what their skills can do. They're the ones doing them, not the DM.

That's treating skill bonus vs DC as the whole of the simulation. Skills checks alone aren't for simulation - the whole out of combat resolution process provides that. The first step of which is to determine whether a skill check is even warranted. A set DC for a specific task doesn't tell you what your character can do because it only ever comes up when that first step says there's uncertainty and a consequence of failure.

Rafaelfras

2022-03-12, 03:09 PM

I won’t argue that 3E didn’t become much more mathematically taxing at higher levels, but the typical scope of play (tiers 1 and 2) wasn’t much more math than 5E.

We’re also in an age full of digital tools that support these issues. A well designed UI can bypass a lot of the math challenges.
Pen and paper only sir, please. My cellphone is there just for the music haha.
Yes at lower levels there isn't much difference between skills in 3rd and 5th

But they aren’t. That’s the problem with the vague guidance. Swinging on vines, lifting a portcullis and reeling a giant fishing rod are not Swimming, Climbing or Jumping. RAW, Athletics doesn’t apply. Is Petra objectively wrong for allowing it?

I disagree I think it's very clear encompassed by athletics: swing in vines is encompassed in climbing be it wall or rope. Lifting a porticulis isn't, same as trying to force a door same as trying to lift a gate.(this is on par with SKT, all those things can be done for example in The Eye of all father dungeon and is a Str check) and the fishing rod is similar enough to the porticulis. So yes Petra is wrong on allowing it in the latter 2, but right in allowing it for the first one.
Which reinforce my point that published adventures are a good guide on this matter.

Unfortunately that’s the DM’s decision and the game gives terrible guidance. Go look up what a 10th level fighter is expected to possess. I’ll wait.

Yes it's the DM decision because players aren't entitled to loot. But there are rules to even buying magic itens so a player with gold to spare can work towards covering his weakness. But some campaigns can be messed up by some magic itens so o see why it's in DM purview.
But I think that it's good desing for a classe be able to function without any external source. There are scenarios where the party can lose its equipment. On 3rd this is very detrimental when facing level appropriate challenges. Case in point new player, ranger, got into the group, he was found adrift on the sea. We face some shadows soon after, he couldn't literally do anything. I gave him magic equip as fast as I could because looking into what I had prepared he was heading to a not fun experience. (And to this day 10 years latter he still remember the shadows fight)

For starters. Networks of ninja spies, hordes of berserkers come to share the glory of following such a legend, running on clouds and swimming up waterfalls, screaming a king and wrestling a kraken into submission, curing diseases with pressure points, changing the course of a river to clean a Giant’s stable, moving so fast you cross a continent in a day, jumping so far that you might as well be flying. Tier 3 and 4 stuff that casters can do without breaking a sweat.

You do know that aside from getting followers npcs (there is guidance to that on the DMG and I think that npcs should be DM purview, not class abilities)
They can do most of those stuff, monks can walk through vertical surfaces and across liquids after level 9, Tasha gave then ki healing, and a barbarian can try to grapple a kraken and can dig a craig in the river like Hercules did and Toten barbarian can literally jump as flying as a feature if he chooses eagle Totten on 14. So I see it seems we are halfway there.

Yes, CODzilla has been tamed, to an extent, but casters still exert far greater agency than Martials, codified in the rules, and Clerics, Wizards Bards and Druids reign atop the 5E tiers. The Paladin is the only Martial that sees any kind of real respect, and that’s because they’re a half caster.

I agree they are the strongest, but the gap is way smaller to the point we don't have a tier list like we did in 3rd edition with 3 degrees of separation between core classes.

Sounds like a fun campaign. I dare say though, if faced with more than 5 enemies, Forcecage is an awful choice. Multi target damage or cheaper lockdowns like Tasha’s are a better move. You can still use cheaper spells to great effect.

It is I am enjoying very much
As for the enemies, they usually are big and far apart, your aoe tends to hit 1 or 2 most of the time, same for your lockdowns, it's not that all the time ofc. But there are really challenging scenarios here that favors martial types.

A single counterspell and this problem isn’t. And dispel magic only targets one effect. So the elemental might get one shot, but the bond is still up. And any of the other rituals or non con buffs up. And while it stops it for the encounter, it’s rare that a short retreat won’t mean another concentration buff or summon.

Dispell magic has double the range of counterspell and target all the effects.

Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

(Emphasis mine)
So a sigle cast and it's all gone unless you are targeting the effect not the creature, but why would you do that?
Also retreat should be followed by the dungeon denizens.
Single encounters adventuring days are a problem and will imbalance the game on favor of everything that has long rest abilities.
It's a behavior that I as dm will work against and my players are wise enough for not to try, because they got ambushed when they did and it was a net loss from resources pov.

I agree. But a system that doesn’t assume magic items should not count on magic items to fill in the gaps. Especially when you’ve restricted access and expectation of them.

Sometimes there is no gap. The players and DM can use magic items to fill perceived gaps.
But sometimes everything is fine and everyone is happy

Pex

2022-03-12, 03:43 PM

That's treating skill bonus vs DC as the whole of the simulation. Skills checks alone aren't for simulation - the whole out of combat resolution process provides that. The first step of which is to determine whether a skill check is even warranted. A set DC for a specific task doesn't tell you what your character can do because it only ever comes up when that first step says there's uncertainty and a consequence of failure.

Here we go again.

Determining if the check is warranted is still DM whim. Remember, my warlock was able to swim a moat, climb a rocky hill, and climb a castle wall without having to roll at all, but with my monk when I wanted to climb a tree I had to roll a check of DC 20. Whatever the DC tables, there could be an entry for DC 0 or a small paragraph to advise the DM of situations that wouldn't call for a roll. Maybe climb a tree will be in that paragraph in the hypothetical future DC table of climbing. However, once that check is warranted to be needed, then it becomes DM whim of what the value of that DC is where one DM says it's 10, another 15, another 20, another whatever value. A table advises the DM an appropriate DC for the task. Game designers determine how. DM places and why placed. Player interacts and deals with results, adjudicated by the DM.

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 03:46 PM

Ooh, so close but a miss. You're still forgetting the issue of different DMs have different opinions on the difficulty of the task. The problem is not the number associated with the DC. The problem is the different numbers depending on who is DM that day, so no, players don't know what their characters can do. Their ability to do stuff is DM whim, not their choices.
Same thing with attacking a monster, casting a spell with a saving throw on a monster, etc. It depends on the creature the DM chooses to use and what stats they give it.

Clearly the players don't have the ability to know how their attacks and spells work, and the ability to use them is DM whim, not their choices.

strangebloke

2022-03-12, 03:59 PM

Same thing with attacking a monster, casting a spell with a saving throw on a monster, etc. It depends on the creature the DM chooses to use and what stats they give it.

Clearly the players don't have the ability to know how their attacks and spells work, and the ability to use them is DM whim, not their choices.

Yeah, except...

There totally is player facing guidance about AC? The armor table applies to enemies as well, and monsters that have higher natural AC are pretty obtrusive about it. Dragons and Bulletes and turtles are armored, obviously. I'm sure you could show a player a bunch of random monsters they've never seen before and they'd get them all within 3 or so. Spells that increase AC are likewise standardized.

Saves can be brought up here as well, and once again I'm pretty sure most players could guess a monster's STR save within 3 or so.

For contrast, the variance on skill checks with a DM you don't know is more like 10 or so, and its way more annoying because while I might make a dozen attacks against a monster, in most cases I only get one chance at a skill check.

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 04:14 PM

There totally is player facing guidance about AC? The armor table applies to enemies as well, and monsters that have higher natural AC are pretty obtrusive about it. No it doesn't. That's for player AC. The only way players know anything about enemies is if they go access DM-facing material. And even then, they don't know for sure that's what their DM is using.

No reason for example DC tables to be any different. Since they're determined by the DM, and the DM gets to decide if they even want to use the example table at all. No different from monster stats.

If that's not the case, then you don't want a DM. You want a CPU.

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 04:48 PM

Here we go again.

Determining if the check is warranted is still DM whim.

Whim isn't the right word. But you are right that it is determined via the DM. Which is my entire point. As long as whether you get to even roll is determined via the DM then no list of example DC's is going to matter in terms of table consistency.

Remember, my warlock was able to swim a moat, climb a rocky hill, and climb a castle wall without having to roll at all, but with my monk when I wanted to climb a tree I had to roll a check of DC 20. Whatever the DC tables, there could be an entry for DC 0 or a small paragraph to advise the DM of situations that wouldn't call for a roll.

That's not how DC's work in 5e. Before we even get to the DC step the DM determines whether a roll is needed. A DC table itself couldn't have prevented that particular issue.

Maybe climb a tree will be in that paragraph in the hypothetical future DC table of climbing. However, once that check is warranted to be needed, then it becomes DM whim of what the value of that DC is where one DM says it's 10, another 15, another 20, another whatever value. A table advises the DM an appropriate DC for the task. Game designers determine how. DM places and why placed. Player interacts and deals with results, adjudicated by the DM.

If the DM determines if there is even a check or not, then having a DC for that task across all tables still doesn't create consistency. What you appear to want is for a button to mash that says I have a X% chance of success when I want to do X. That's not how 5e skill system is designed. It's instead designed for the DM to first determine when a check is even required and no DC table is going to bypass that piece of the resolution process.

Pex

2022-03-12, 04:51 PM

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 04:56 PM

The DM doesn't give the monsters stats. The game designers did in three books, a book on dragons, and a book on fiends.

It's on the DM to use those stats or modify them as he sees fit. Monster stats are alot like the theorized DC table in that they are made for ease of use but are open to being changed by the DM as desired.

Players know how spells work. It's right there in the PHB. How to cast. The resource used. The spells' effects. Calculating the saving throw DC. Calculating the spell attack modifier.

Knowing how a spell works, depends not just on the spell but on the target as well. Players don't have all the info about their chances of success for casting any particular spell against any particular enemy.

Pex

2022-03-12, 04:56 PM

Whim isn't the right word. But you are right that it is determined via the DM. Which is my entire point. As long as whether you get to even roll is determined via the DM then no list of example DC's is going to matter in terms of table consistency.

That's not how DC's work in 5e. Before we even get to the DC step the DM determines whether a roll is needed. A DC table itself couldn't have prevented that particular issue.

If the DM determines if there is even a check or not, then having a DC for that task across all tables still doesn't create consistency. What you appear to want is for a button to mash that says I have a X% chance of success when I want to do X. That's not how 5e skill system is designed. It's instead designed for the DM to first determine when a check is even required and no DC table is going to bypass that piece of the resolution process.

I know how 5E works. That's the point. I'm saying that design itself was a mistake. Others are more lenient saying that design is not enough information. That's what the debate is about. How 5E is designed as it is now and what we would have preferred and hope to get in the future.

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 04:58 PM

I know how 5E works. That's the point. I'm saying that design itself was a mistake. Others are more lenient saying that design is not enough information. That's what the debate is about. How 5E is designed as it is now and what we would have preferred and hope to get in the future.

Thanks for clarifying your position. It seemed you've been advocating for just a table of DC's. Not changing the entire skill resolution process. Those are different things.

I am even more against changing the skill resolution process than adding in a table of DC's. I imagine most here are.

Abracadangit

2022-03-12, 05:15 PM

Because you made it player facing. Now DMs can't run a game where tightrope walking is easier or harder than a 20, because player expectations were set, as opposed to DMs being offered an example.

But in my view, putting "Walking a tightrope -- 20" in a sourcebook isn't canonizing all tightropes for player expectations. Like I can't imagine my players rolling a 16 on a tightrope, being told it was a success, and then saying "Whoa whoa whoa -- I was told all tightropes were supposed to be 20 in the examples. This is a jarring departure from the listed norms, and has subsequently damaged my enjoyment of this campaign. I want out."

It seems like this is one of the big bones of contention between the two sides in this debate -- the opponents of the examples feel like the examples would enshrine those DCs as immovable laws, and the other side is saying they're just there for general reference. Maybe some people on the pro-example side want them as immovable laws -- if that's true, that's not my position.

Monsters are DM facing. If a DM changes the AC to 12 or 19, then the players 1) may not even realize it if the DM doesn't tell the the value before they attempt the task of attacking; and 2) haven't had any expectations set in the first place that AC is normally a 12.

Sure, monsters are DM-facing, and that's a somewhat different ballgame. I concede that. But at the same time -- don't players, after a little experience playing D&D combat, start to get sea legs for ACs? Like if someone's wimpy or a minion, they tend to be 12-14, but if they're Zazorax the teleporting shiftwraith, they're 18+ or whatever. And then the sea legs feel good, because you've got a reference point that you can use to connect ACs to difficulty/monster toughness. But skill DCs have no real analog to sea legs. Sure, there's that one table that says "Easy is 10, Hard is 20," but there's no guidance whatsoever beyond that.

So my follow-up question is: would you be okay with examples being in the DMG, but not the PHB? So that way, they're only DM-facing?

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 05:27 PM

So my follow-up question is: would you be okay with examples being in the DMG, but not the PHB? So that way, they're only DM-facing?
Sure, since there already are DM-facing example DC tables in the DMG. As long as they're the 5e Social Interaction model, and not the 3e Diplomacy model.

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 05:33 PM

So my follow-up question is: would you be okay with examples being in the DMG, but not the PHB? So that way, they're only DM-facing?

I personally would be fine with some example DC's in the DMG but I think setting DC's are alot more involved than looking at a table even if one were provided.

Let me give a scenario. Let's say level 1 PC's have a legion of zombies they are running from. They are in the city and make it to the city wall. Zombies are closing in on them in all directions. They only option is to find a way over the wall fast enough. The Fighter tries to climb it. Does a standardized wall climbing DC make sense there, or should it be a bit harder due to the pressures. If so, how much harder, etc?

Now let's take that same wall with no time pressure, Fighter decides he wants to show off to an NPC to impress them and climb it with no Zombies, no extreme pressures, etc. Only consequence would be that he looks back and maybe takes a little hp damage. Should the DC be the standard wall climb DC, should it be the same as the zombie scenario, should it be auto success?

Or what if the fighter just wanted to climb the wall for his own satisfaction - no real reason. Should the DM just say he eventually succeeds? Or should there be a DC equal to the zombies or equal to the showing off to an NPC.

My only issue with DC's for specific tasks in table format, is the DC is supposed to take into account all the holistic circumstances and not just the fact that it's a rock castle wall.

Psyren

2022-03-12, 05:41 PM

But in my view, putting "Walking a tightrope -- 20" in a sourcebook isn't canonizing all tightropes for player expectations. Like I can't imagine my players rolling a 16 on a tightrope, being told it was a success, and then saying "Whoa whoa whoa -- I was told all tightropes were supposed to be 20 in the examples. This is a jarring departure from the listed norms, and has subsequently damaged my enjoyment of this campaign. I want out."

It seems like this is one of the big bones of contention between the two sides in this debate -- the opponents of the examples feel like the examples would enshrine those DCs as immovable laws, and the other side is saying they're just there for general reference. Maybe some people on the pro-example side want them as immovable laws -- if that's true, that's not my position.
...
So my follow-up question is: would you be okay with examples being in the DMG, but not the PHB? So that way, they're only DM-facing?

That's not even the issue though. You're right that the player having their immersion broken by succeeding with a check below the listed DC would be a minor problem at best. But the bigger problem is that "Walking a tightrope -- 20" signals to the DM "there's a DC listed in the book, so I should always call for a roll for walking a tightrope." Whether or not that makes sense for the encounter or the actor in question, that roll would be presumed for everyone - from the most acrobatic super-monk/super-rogue who could do so blindfolded, to the most untrained, clumsy and dyspraxic commoner. And that is what causes weird results like the commoner succeeding on a lucky roll while Black Widow and Gamora fail. Worse yet, such a signal would be repeated for everything else you stick onto that table, whether that's climbing a wall or swimming through rapids. And that mindset more than any directly leads to martials being denied nice things, because autosuccess is a lot more reasonable when there isn't a printed DC being ignored to invoke it.

By not having those DCs listed, the DM has to come up with one, which means they're forced to think about the challenge more thoroughly - which includes the important steps of determining whether a roll should even be necessary in the first place, as well as the meaningful consequence for failure. It even encourages the DM to think about alternative solutions, such as other ways across that gap that don't involve using the tightrope at all. For example, they might land on balancing across the tightrope to be Hard (DC 20, requires a measure of both practice and talent) but then they need to think about "okay, but how does the Paladin get across this gap?" The answer to which may involve adding more stuff to the obstacle, or it may involve splitting the party temporarily, but at least they've thought of it.

strangebloke

2022-03-12, 05:41 PM

Abracadangit

2022-03-12, 05:46 PM

Sure, since there already are DM-facing example DC tables in the DMG. As long as they're the 5e Social Interaction model, and not the 3e Diplomacy model.

Word. I'm still in the camp that it wouldn't hurt for players to have some of that, but I get where you're coming from.

I personally would be fine with some example DC's in the DMG but I think setting DC's are alot more involved than looking at a table even if one were provided.

Let me give a scenario. Let's say level 1 PC's have a legion of zombies they are running from. They are in the city and make it to the city wall. Zombies are closing in on them in all directions. They only option is to find a way over the wall fast enough. The Fighter tries to climb it. Does a standardized wall climbing DC make sense there, or should it be a bit harder due to the pressures. If so, how much harder, etc?

Now let's take that same wall with no time pressure, Fighter decides he wants to show off to an NPC to impress them and climb it with no Zombies, no extreme pressures, etc. Only consequence would be that he looks back and maybe takes a little hp damage. Should the DC be the standard wall climb DC, should it be the same as the zombie scenario, should it be auto success?

Or what if the fighter just wanted to climb the wall for his own satisfaction - no real reason. Should the DM just say he eventually succeeds? Or should there be a DC equal to the zombies or equal to the showing off to an NPC.

My only issue with DC's for specific tasks, is the DC is supposed to take into account all the holistic circumstances and not just the fact that it's a rock castle wall.

Ok, see, this is a PERFECT example of what SHOULD be included along with the example DCs, wherever they're provided. You're right! You are 100% right. All of that stuff matters when calculating the DC, or when determining roll vs. auto-success. Something like what you just wrote needs to accompany the example DCs, so people understand that context always matters, and you shouldn't be using the example DCs as a holy text to decide DCs for you in every situation.

My point is that in a lot of games in which I've played (lot of rookie DMs, but some not-so-rookies, too), they're ignoring all of that and saying "Well let's see, there's no one watching you, and there's no time constraint. So I'm gonna need to see a DC 20 Athletics."

To which you will respond by saying "Ok, well those sound like lousy DMs, they probably shouldn't be doing that. You can't blame the game for when people don't follow the guidelines." To which I say you're right, but the problem is that aforementioned scenario is one I see in a LOT of games, especially new DMs, but sometimes experienced DMs as well. So what's going on there.

You might respond to that with "Ok, tough luck on your sucky games, but that hasn't been my experience." I believe you, and I also envy you since you've lucked out with your games. But for those who share my experience, we're trying to figure out how to crack that code, other than "Well someone needs to sit down with them and explain that's not how it's supposed to work." Example DCs might go a long way in remedying that.

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 05:58 PM

I'd be fine with a player-facing tab that says, "here are some example DCs, your DM may change" but what I really want is DMG guidance that actually gives good numbers. The DMG as it stands has many tables which are, to put it mildly, all over the fricking the place, both from an oranizational standpoint and in terms of consistency.
What's interesting is I think the numbers in the DMG are off. That it should be something like:
DC 3 Very Easy
DC 7 Easy
DC 10 Medium
DC 15 Hard
DC 20 Very Hard
DC 21-25 only possible with proficiency or a high stat and a lot of luck.
DC 26-30 only possible with proficiency and a high stat and a lot of luck.
DC 30 Nearly Impossible

But there are a lot of folks that have expressed they think DC 10 Easy and DC 15 Medium is just right.

And as long as it's DM facing, we're all fine. Which of course the Easy/Medium/Hard table isn't.

Abracadangit

2022-03-12, 06:01 PM

That's not even the issue though. You're right that the player having their immersion broken by succeeding with a check below the listed DC would be a minor problem at best. But the bigger problem is that "Walking a tightrope -- 20" signals to the DM "there's a DC listed in the book, so I should always call for a roll for walking a tightrope." Whether or not that makes sense for the encounter or the actor in question, that roll would be presumed for everyone - from the most acrobatic super-monk/super-rogue who could do so blindfolded, to the most untrained, clumsy and dyspraxic commoner. And that is what causes weird results like the commoner succeeding on a lucky roll while Black Widow and Gamora fail. Worse yet, such a signal would be repeated for everything else you stick onto that table, whether that's climbing a wall or swimming through rapids. And that mindset more than any directly leads to martials being denied nice things, because autosuccess is a lot more reasonable when there isn't a printed DC being ignored to invoke it.

By not having those DCs listed, the DM has to come up with one, which means they're forced to think about the challenge more thoroughly - which includes the important steps of determining whether a roll should even be necessary in the first place, as well as the meaningful consequence for failure. It even encourages the DM to think about alternative solutions, such as other ways across that gap that don't involve using the tightrope at all. For example, they might land on balancing across the tightrope to be Hard (DC 20, requires a measure of both practice and talent) but then they need to think about "okay, but how does the Paladin get across this gap?" The answer to which may involve adding more stuff to the obstacle, or it may involve splitting the party temporarily, but at least they've thought of it.

This is just like my response to Frogreaver. I agree with almost everything you just said.

I would be completely in favor of including with the example DCs, a robust section explaining all the stuff in your response. That stuff is important, and vital, and necessary to being a good DM, and the example DCs shouldn't be an impediment to any of that thought process.

Where we disagree is what happens in the pipeline when a new DM doesn't have the example DCs. Your opinion is "When new DMs don't have the examples, it encourages them to look at each instance in a more piecemeal fashion, from which they learn to reason and think about situations in a more contextual and creative way." If I got your opinion wrong, I apologize, but I think that's the gist of it.

My opinion is "When they don't have the example DCs, they default to being prohibitively stingy with what non-casters can do, make everything hover around 20 as a weird default even when they shouldn't, and don't get better at any of these DM faculties which you're describing."

Even if we can't agree on this, I have to say, I'm enjoying that we're getting to the core of where we differ.

Psyren

2022-03-12, 06:24 PM

Where we disagree is what happens in the pipeline when a new DM doesn't have the example DCs. Your opinion is "When new DMs don't have the examples, it encourages them to look at each instance in a more piecemeal fashion, from which they learn to reason and think about situations in a more contextual and creative way." If I got your opinion wrong, I apologize, but I think that's the gist of it.

You're mostly right on my position. What I would add to it is "when new DMs don't have the examples, it makes them realize 'huh, there's no tables here, I'd better read through all this text about setting DCs more closely.'"

What I will concede is that the text can be greatly improved. The 4 steps for calling for a check should be made graphical and placed front-and-center in that section, and examples of the process for a couple or even all 4 tiers of play can be included.

My opinion is "When they don't have the example DCs, they default to being prohibitively stingy with what non-casters can do, make everything hover around 20 as a weird default even when they shouldn't, and don't get better at any of these DM faculties which you're describing."

1) I actually think they'd be more likely to default to 15 if theyre not following the guidance. Still not great for a martial that shouldn't need to be rolling in the first place, but for most characters, much more doable at least.

2) I think the primary way such a DM would get better at these faculties is by being challenged by their players, especially the martial player that is interacting with this system most directly. Not saying that everyone at the table should go diving through the DMG, but if it's common knowledge that 5e has no fixed DCs for most skills - a safe assumption in 2022 I'd say - means that a player who is constantly being given improbable targets has more of a basis to convey their frustrations to their DM and get them to recalibrate accordingly. Unless they don't care about the martial player having fun that is, in which case there's a way bigger problem at that table than how to set a DC.

Even if we can't agree on this, I have to say, I'm enjoying that we're getting to the core of where we differ.

Cheers :smallsmile:

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 06:38 PM

This is just like my response to Frogreaver. I agree with almost everything you just said.

I would be completely in favor of including with the example DCs, a robust section explaining all the stuff in your response. That stuff is important, and vital, and necessary to being a good DM, and the example DCs shouldn't be an impediment to any of that thought process.

Where we disagree is what happens in the pipeline when a new DM doesn't have the example DCs. Your opinion is "When new DMs don't have the examples, it encourages them to look at each instance in a more piecemeal fashion, from which they learn to reason and think about situations in a more contextual and creative way." If I got your opinion wrong, I apologize, but I think that's the gist of it.

My opinion is "When they don't have the example DCs, they default to being prohibitively stingy with what non-casters can do, make everything hover around 20 as a weird default even when they shouldn't, and don't get better at any of these DM faculties which you're describing."

Even if we can't agree on this, I have to say, I'm enjoying that we're getting to the core of where we differ.

Maybe the simple advice in the DMG should be: 'as long as you are running D&D as heroic fantasy, lean toward setting DC's between 10 and 15. Think long and hard before using DC's of 16 or higher. Also, don't call for a check in every situation, sometimes PC's should just succeed with no roll and sometimes what they want to do is just not possible.'

Pex

2022-03-12, 06:41 PM

I personally would be fine with some example DC's in the DMG but I think setting DC's are alot more involved than looking at a table even if one were provided.

Let me give a scenario. Let's say level 1 PC's have a legion of zombies they are running from. They are in the city and make it to the city wall. Zombies are closing in on them in all directions. They only option is to find a way over the wall fast enough. The Fighter tries to climb it. Does a standardized wall climbing DC make sense there, or should it be a bit harder due to the pressures. If so, how much harder, etc?

Now let's take that same wall with no time pressure, Fighter decides he wants to show off to an NPC to impress them and climb it with no Zombies, no extreme pressures, etc. Only consequence would be that he looks back and maybe takes a little hp damage. Should the DC be the standard wall climb DC, should it be the same as the zombie scenario, should it be auto success?

Or what if the fighter just wanted to climb the wall for his own satisfaction - no real reason. Should the DM just say he eventually succeeds? Or should there be a DC equal to the zombies or equal to the showing off to an NPC.

My only issue with DC's for specific tasks in table format, is the DC is supposed to take into account all the holistic circumstances and not just the fact that it's a rock castle wall.

Let's take a look how Pathfinder 1E handled it. There's a set DC to climb the wall. I think it's DC 20. A 20 is not that hard in Pathfinder numbers as the levels progress if you dedicate to a skill in skill points. The fact that it is a time pressure is why the roll exists. It's not harder. The DC is 20 because generic walls are DC 20. It doesn't matter who is climbing it or why it's being climbed. The DC is 20. The roll is made because it matters how long it takes to climb the wall. A rogue of at least 10th level may choose as a class power the ability to Take 10 in times of pressure such as this. If 5E had a skill table for whatever DC to climb a wall, let's call it DC 15 for example purposes and 5E math, the DC remains 15 because that's how hard it is to climb walls regardless of who is doing the climbing or why.

Now there are no zombies. The fighter just wants to climb walls all day long because he has a wall fetish. In Pathfinder, he can Take 10. Since there's no pressure, in that instance of wanting to climb a wall the players accepts he rolls a 10 instead of rolling. As long as his modifier to climb is at least +10, he can climb walls all day long. If his modifier is less than 10 Take 10 won't work, so the player must roll. In 5E terms, as the rules actually are the DM can say the player can climb it no roll needed. However, that's only if a particular DM accepts that. It is perfectly reasonable and allowed for another DM to disagree. Even though there's no pressure, that DM absolutely fundamentally categorically disagrees with the first DM that climbing walls is that easy so he demands a roll, and no yelling from people on the internet saying he's a bad DM doing it wrong will change the fact he is absolutely correct and permitted to do that. The DC for that roll is whatever the DM feels like which is an issue when another DM gives a different value. Now, given there is a DC table for 5E, that rule in the DMG advising DMs not to roll can still apply if he thinks it's warranted. However, the same issue applies. Once the DM disagrees it's warranted not to roll and demands there be a roll the only difference is the DC is 15, not DM make it up. Better than what we have now, but there's still an issue of is there a roll or not. So the question then is given there are 5E DC tables will there also be the Take 10/Take 20 rules? Instead of making it DM fiat whether there is a roll or not, establish as part of the rules of DC tables that Take 10/Take 20 exists. It doesn't even have to be player choice for those who hate the audacity of players knowing what their characters can do. Make it a Given. Explicitly tell the DMs Take 10/Take 20 is assumed when there is no pressure such as combat or being chased. Now the fighter can climb the walls all day long if his Athletics is at least +5. If not, the player has to roll at DC 15 each time he wants to climb a wall.

Since a +5 Athletics is possible at level 1 in 5E, a DC 15 might be too low to climb a wall. They'd be climbing walls all over towns and cities. I was just using it as an example thinking above the difference between Pathfinder and 5E math. I'm not married to the idea of DC 15 to climb walls in a hypothetical 5E DC table. Maybe it should be DC 20 as well and deal with the differences between Take 10 and Take 20. Whatever the final math involved in making the DC numbers, that's the game designers' job.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-12, 06:45 PM

Players don't get to know enemy AC, saving throws, ability score mods, attack bonuses, or damage. They shouldn't have any example DC tables either. That's all suggest info for the DM, not PC info for the player.

Players can figure out DCs, or be told them by the DM in advance, as well. That doesn't stop them from being DM facing any more than monster statistics are. DMs set the DCs of tasks, DMs set monster statistics, and DMs creature the challenges. Not players, or player-facing tables.

Players get to know what their AC is, what their attack bonus is, what their saves are ... what their bonus to ability checks are. That's the player-facing info.
Thank you.

Players can also find out the DC of a task by trial and error. Problem solved, close the thread.

\s Amusingly, in TTRPG's there's no save point, so going back and trying it again to figure out the DC is a CRPG approach. (which I suspect you may have been alluding to).

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 06:55 PM

Let's take a look how Pathfinder 1E handled it. There's a set DC to climb the wall. I think it's DC 20. A 20 is not that hard in Pathfinder numbers as the levels progress if you dedicate to a skill in skill points. The fact that it is a time pressure is why the roll exists. It's not harder. The DC is 20 because generic walls are DC 20. It doesn't matter who is climbing it or why it's being climbed. The DC is 20. The roll is made because it matters how long it takes to climb the wall. A rogue of at least 10th level may choose as a class power the ability to Take 10 in times of pressure such as this. If 5E had a skill table for whatever DC to climb a wall, let's call it DC 15 for example purposes and 5E math, the DC remains 15 because that's how hard it is to climb walls regardless of who is doing the climbing or why.

Now there are no zombies. The fighter just wants to climb walls all day long because he has a wall fetish. In Pathfinder, he can Take 10. Since there's no pressure, in that instance of wanting to climb a wall the players accepts he rolls a 10 instead of rolling. As long as his modifier to climb is at least +10, he can climb walls all day long. If his modifier is less than 10 Take 10 won't work, so the player must roll. In 5E terms, as the rules actually are the DM can say the player can climb it no roll needed. However, that's only if a particular DM accepts that. It is perfectly reasonable and allowed for another DM to disagree. Even though there's no pressure, that DM absolutely fundamentally categorically disagrees with the first DM that climbing walls is that easy so he demands a roll, and no yelling from people on the internet saying he's a bad DM doing it wrong will change the fact he is absolutely correct and permitted to do that. The DC for that roll is whatever the DM feels like which is an issue when another DM gives a different value. Now, given there is a DC table for 5E, that rule in the DMG advising DMs not to roll can still apply if he thinks it's warranted. However, the same issue applies. Once the DM disagrees it's warranted not to roll and demands there be a roll the only difference is the DC is 15, not DM make it up. Better than what we have now, but there's still an issue of is there a roll or not. So the question then is given there are 5E DC tables will there also be the Take 10/Take 20 rules? Instead of making it DM fiat whether there is a roll or not, establish as part of the rules of DC tables that Take 10/Take 20 exists. It doesn't even have to be player choice for those who hate the audacity of players knowing what their characters can do. Make it a Given. Explicitly tell the DMs Take 10/Take 20 is assumed when there is no pressure such as combat or being chased. Now the fighter can climb the walls all day long if his Athletics is at least +5. If not, the player has to roll at DC 15 each time he wants to climb a wall.

Since a +5 Athletics is possible at level 1 in 5E, a DC 15 might be too low to climb a wall. They'd be climbing walls all over towns and cities. I was just using it as an example thinking above the difference between Pathfinder and 5E math. I'm not married to the idea of DC 15 to climb walls in a hypothetical 5E DC table. Maybe it should be DC 20 as well and deal with the differences between Take 10 and Take 20. Whatever the final math involved in making the DC numbers, that's the game designers' job.

It's not just the math. The whole idea around how the skill systems are designed is fundamentally different. Pathfinder provides buttons players can press to climb or whatever. 5e just has players have their characters attempt to do things in the fiction and has the DM as the focal point for resolution. I don't want skills as buttons.

Telok

2022-03-12, 06:56 PM

By not having those DCs listed, the DM has to come up with one, which means they're forced to think about the challenge more thoroughly - which includes the important steps of determining whether a roll should even be necessary in the first place, as well as the meaningful consequence for failure. It even encourages the DM to think about alternative solutions...

One thing to note is that this is additional work and more cognitive load for the DM to deal with during game. For some of us its fine, no problem. I've had a couple DMs default to everything being the average DC 15 (or hard 20 if it would give the PC an advantage to domething) either because they went "I don't know" during some step of the process, or they just got tired of having to work through the decision process over and over and over. Which is pretty harsh for a bunch of 3rd/4th level characters who are topping out at +7 at their best stuff whenever they want to try anything that isn't an automatic yes.

In before the "but tables will stop me from setting my own DCs!", this isn't about tables that experienced DMs can ignore and bad DMs will ignore, and jerks will be jerks about (like they are with everything else). Its that the process of setting DCs is work, most people don't do stats math in their heads or on the fly, and the effects on play at the table of rolling lots of ability checks isn't obvious. Adding a cognitive load to the DM who is already juggling the scene, NPCs/monsters, remembering rules, and dealing with multiple people who want their attention, will cause more stress to the DM. The expoused system for "doing it right" is not trivial or simple. The system as primarialy presented in the DMG is simple (easy 10 - average 15 - hard 20, binary total success or total failure) but has the "lol-random results" drawback when its used often.

If the attribute check system didn't hurt game play when a DM defaults to its average DC for lots of checks when they are uncertain, then there would be less stress on novice DMs. As it stands many players prefer to use the magic system to avoid the attribute check system, leading to caster characters having higher success rates at all noncombat activities than noncasters.

Sneak Dog

2022-03-12, 07:11 PM

No it doesn't. That's for player AC. The only way players know anything about enemies is if they go access DM-facing material. And even then, they don't know for sure that's what their DM is using.

No reason for example DC tables to be any different. Since they're determined by the DM, and the DM gets to decide if they even want to use the example table at all. No different from monster stats.

If that's not the case, then you don't want a DM. You want a CPU.

A PC wearing plate armour has 18 AC. An NPC wearing plate armour can thus be reasonably assumed to have somewhere around 18 AC. A bit less if its shoddy, ill-fitting armour, a bit more if it's a warrior-type who might have some special defensive feature or if the armour looks particularly well-made to the point of being mayhaps magic.

This tells us about the world and the setting. It tells us plate armour does not make you nearly invulnerable, capable of shrugging off the blows of incompetent fighters wielding basic axes and spears. Because anyone with a +0 to attack can still hit and wound you, and those wounds will add up to your demise. That's bounded accuracy, AC and hit point mechanics informing us how the world functions.

Skills have none of that. The level 15 rogue might not be able to reliably pick expertly made locks, because advanced locks are widely available and nearly impossible (DC 30) to pick without making a fake copy of the key and the cost of failure is the anti-thief mechanic jamming the lock. Maybe throws a fireball in your face for good measure. Or an expertly made lock is a simple DC 20 and the rogue goes on thieving sprees.

Who knows? D&D sure doesn't, it only knows about the quality of armour available. Definitely no AC 23+ plate armour available, capable of letting a knight walk through a literal hail of arrows with nary a scratch from the natural 20's. (Don't even bother with a shield, it won't add much protection in that case.)

Frogreaver

2022-03-12, 07:13 PM

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 07:23 PM

A PC wearing plate armour has 18 AC. An NPC wearing plate armour can thus be reasonably assumed to have somewhere around 18 AC.
Monsters, which include NPCs, have whatever AC the DM assigns to them. And the recommendations for design are based on defensive CR. Not what's in the PHB.

So no. There's no particular reason to assume an NPC wearing plate armor has an AC of 18

Sneak Dog

2022-03-12, 07:40 PM

That sounds like a setting difference. Some setting should have DC 30 locks being widely available. Some should have antimagic stuff common. Some should have neither. Etc.

I want the possibility of having unique and different settings all being supported by the core rules. In many ways, I think DC tables should be setting specific tables and not universal 5e tables. What's the issue with handling it this way?

Unless you go through the spell list and change the spells appropriately too, you are now changing the value of certain class features. You are meddling with the class balance. Now I'm not sure 5e has a lot of class balance besides its (rather excellent) combat balance, but still. There's three pillars of play, they should all be important.

Besides that, the available spells are rigorously defined and hugely impactful on the setting. Probably far more so than a DC table. Magic items are poorly defined in availability, but also massively impactful on the setting.

Knock being a first level spell basic wizards (are they even real wizards if they can't even cast fireball?) can cast is huge. It means that without magical protections, anything protected by just a couple of locks can be gone within a minute. Not quietly but a quick getaway has its own subtleties. In such a setting, one lock is no lock, and everything of value should have as many locks as possible just to delay a wizard with thieves' tools proficiency as long as possible. (Not just wizards, its on other spell lists too. I have no particular ill feelings towards specifically wizards.)

To take an easy CRB item example: healing potion. Someone falls off a horse? Give them a healing potion, they'll be fine within seconds. Someone who living a modest lifestyle can afford it. Go life poorly for two months if you have to. This being a laborer losing their house and going couch surfing or living in a tavern's common room until they save up enough money to get themselves a basic home again.

So no. If you can have unique and different settings now with the rigorously defined spells, roughly standardised items and poorly defined skills, you can still have them with DC tables providing guidelines for what a certain skill check should make you capable of.

Monsters, which include NPCs, have whatever AC the DM assigns to them. And the recommendations for design are based on defensive CR. Not what's in the PHB.

So no. There's no particular reason to assume an NPC wearing plate armor has an AC of 18

There is. Namely that the world functions in a consistent way. This is important.

It means we can figure out that if those young fire elementals we faced had fire immunity, those adult fire elementals we will be facing will almost certainly have fire immunity. Because they're remarkably similar creatures, even if they're not identical. So we shouldn't use our fireball in that fight, because it was useless in the first fight too. (Apparently you can't burn out fire elementals by denying them environmental fuel.)

It means that if the rogue sees a chest with a lock and succeeds on a 12, they know the DC was 12 or less. Then when they see a nearly identical chest with a nearly identical lock eight levels later and they know there's awesome loot they've got to have in there, they can just pick the lock without any party member spending spell slots buffing and without risking the lock jamming up, because they acquired reliable talent and can't fail a DC 12 or less.

They can make informed decisions without asking the GM twenty questions, because they've acquired knowledge about how the world works from a variety of sources, and that information doesn't arbitrarily invalidate itself.

So when you have an NPC with plate armour with an AC not even close to plate armour's AC, describe why. Otherwise you will break your players' ability to make decisions based on information you or the system gave them before.

Pex

2022-03-12, 08:22 PM

It's not just the math. The whole idea around how the skill systems are designed is fundamentally different. Pathfinder provides buttons players can press to climb or whatever. 5e just has players have their characters attempt to do things in the fiction and has the DM as the focal point for resolution. I don't want skills as buttons.

Then there's no resolution between us because spells certainly are buttons. The player decides to cast them and they happen. That's why casters can do everything at player choice but martials can only do what the DM lets them to do. Without said buttons you're forbidding martials from being that good to do stuff. Fighters can't have Nice Things.

The alternative is to create Martial specific class button powers to give them Nice Things. They are doing that. Psi Warriors have levitation they can do instead of climbing walls, but that's not applicable to all fighters let alone barbarians, rangers, monks, paladins, and rogues. It's also true clerics don't get Fireball (Light excepted) and wizards don't get Mass Cure Wounds, but the differences in spell lists aren't relevant for this thread. You're still talking a massive rewrite of classes and subclasses. Complexity is not inherently a bad thing but also not inherently a good thing. The level of complexity involved here is beyond the 5E paradigm. The less complex solution is change how skills work in 5E, even though it would be more complex than what it is now.

Monsters, which include NPCs, have whatever AC the DM assigns to them. And the recommendations for design are based on defensive CR. Not what's in the PHB.

So no. There's no particular reason to assume an NPC wearing plate armor has an AC of 18

If everything is freeform, everything made up then there's no point to having any rule book. If everything is DM fiat then that is the ultimate Master May I. You aren't playing 5E anymore. You're playing What Will The DM Let Me Do.

Tanarii

2022-03-12, 08:48 PM

If you're assuming an NPC in plate armor is AC 18 because that's what it is for PCs, you're playing the wrong edition of D&D. Monsters don't have to follow the PC rules.

Telok

2022-03-12, 08:58 PM

If everything is freeform, everything made up then there's no point to having any rule book. If everything is DM fiat then that is the ultimate Master May I. You aren't playing 5E anymore. You're playing What Will The DM Let Me Do.

Well, sort of? The combat system is pretty well calibrated & locked down with its DCs and multi-check graduated solutions. Since that works you don't need to change it. You can just play co-op storytime out of combat and occasionally try to roll high on a die if the DM doesn't auto yep/nope your part of the story. That's my current table game and it works fine, never rolling social checks means you can invest in the combat ruled skill functions.

Sneak Dog

2022-03-12, 09:34 PM

If you're assuming an NPC in plate armor is AC 18 because that's what it is for PCs, you're playing the wrong edition of D&D. Monsters don't have to follow the PC rules.

If plate armour is AC 18 for me, and AC 12 for you, then how does this world even work? How is your full-body metal armour plus padding worse than me wearing a chain shirt with a dead average 10 dexterity? Does jumping in a lake of water even make me wet anymore? It made you wet, but that doesn't tell me anything.

If your narrative becomes void of meaning, then all that matters is the mechanics. Just tell your players they're facing an NPC with 12 AC and a 1d8 weapon. Good charisma too, so try to avoid charisma DC's. Oh, you got hit by the spell? Take 18 fire damage and 5 fire damage each turn for three turns, you can end it early by spending your action and trying a dexterity save.
...
You jump in the water? Ok... Oh to stop the fire damage? Sure, it takes your action and you get a dexterity save.

You're free to play any way you want. But I enjoy the fluffy side of GMing/playing, and the potential to try clever things based on the way the world works, rather than just based on how the mechanics work. And for that, I need to know how the world works and what my character can reasonably do in that world. Whether they can jump over barrels or three story buildings at level 15 with their maxed strength and athletics proficiency.
Now it'd be nice to know that already during character creation, or when I'm level 5 and want something to look forwards to that isn't just combat related.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-12, 09:35 PM

If you're assuming an NPC in plate armor is AC 18 because that's what it is for PCs, you're playing the wrong edition of D&D. Monsters don't have to follow the PC rules.
I'm quite sure that monsters list where their armor class comes from and NPCs with plate armor will say something like AC: 18 (plate armor).

strangebloke

2022-03-12, 10:04 PM

If you're assuming an NPC in plate armor is AC 18 because that's what it is for PCs, you're playing the wrong edition of D&D. Monsters don't have to follow the PC rules.

And yet, this is actually how all the npcs wearing plate armor are statted. We are even told that they are wearing plate armor.

So please tell me how the MM is doing it wrong.:smallwink:

Of course assign them whatever AC you want. You can even say that if a PC buys plate for their NPC friend, that this actually reduces the AC of the NPC friend. After all, monsters are just NPCs and NPCs don't follow PC rules. You can create any number of ridiculous rulings that have no connection to sense. But its a bad idea.

This isn't to say that I am slavishly devoted to keeping statblocks in line with player options, just that there's a degree of conveyance between player and DM that needs to occur. Monsters aren't 5x5 cubes of monster stats that are wholly divorced from their described appearances. If something is wearing plate, that should signal "they have a high AC" or possibly "they are walking loot chests!" If you end up sending someone in plate that's 17 or 19 or even 21, I don't think its a real problem.

There's something very similar that needs to happen with skill checks. Usually if a player describes an action like "I leap over the canyon" I'll say something like "It's 25 feet, I'll let you try but that's going to be a big athletics check." I'm signaling that the DC might be higher than 15 here. This makes them aware of the risk and they might back down, or they might go ahead and feel even better when they land on the other side.

Conversely, at a lot of tables, the DM will just say "roll athletics" and then the player rolls a 26 and nobody knows what the DC was and whether or not they should be hype. Or they role a 17 and plummet to their death and feel cheated.

Conveyance is one of the most basic and essential parts of running the game.

Tanarii

2022-03-13, 05:50 AM

Sneak Dog

2022-03-13, 06:03 AM

Tanarii

2022-03-13, 06:14 AM

There's a piece of setting knowledge being violated. That doesn't mean that giving players knowledge about the setting is bad.Thats just trying to reframe the player-facing knowledge in order to justify why it's hard coded. But the real reason underlying psychological reason to feel that way is because it's player-facing.

Sneak Dog

2022-03-13, 07:27 AM

Thats just trying to reframe the player-facing knowledge in order to justify why it's hard coded. But the real reason underlying psychological reason to feel that way is because it's player-facing.

Giving the players more information about their capabilities and options empowers the players by informing their decisions better.

You're playing D&D. You have a character sheet. There's a wall you want to get past. GM describes it as being cobbled together from hardened clay and wooden pointy stakes, 13 foot tall. Can you shoot fire from your hands to burn it? Can you climb the wall to get past it? Can you throw acid on it to melt it? Can you throw water on it? Can you jump over the wall to get past it? Can you hit it a lot to break it? Can you fly over it? Can you...

Knowing the capabilities of your character is integral to the act of declaring your action. Knowing you can shoot fire from your hands is relevant. Knowing you can jump 15 ft. high is relevant. Knowing gravity exists and functions roughly like it does in real life is relevant. Seeing your NPC buddy leap over it with ease, knowing they weren't able to outjump you at the tournament last week, tells you that you can jump it too. (Or the NPC wasn't trying their hardest at the tournament. Or they've since been replaced by a body snatcher. Or something. Some narrative reason, rather than a mechanical reason of PC's and NPC's not functioning the same. Really, if you fail that jump now you should probably just stab them next time you meet them to be sure.)

Tanarii

2022-03-13, 07:40 AM

Knowing exact TNs / probability isn't necessary to make decisions. If it was, most TTRPGs would fall over.

Not to mention we wouldn't be able to make decisions for our actions in real life.

Edit: To expand a bit, players already have a rough idea of probability due to player-facing Easy/Medium/Hard table in the Ability checks chapter. That means they know their off-stat (8-12) checks have a ~50% chance of success on Easy tasks, their 1st level ability score 14 with proficiency bonus (usually 2-3 skills or so at +4) has a 50% chance on Medium tasks and a 30% on Hard tasks.

Personally I don't like those numbers but that's neither here nor there.

Pex

2022-03-13, 08:50 AM

Well, sort of? The combat system is pretty well calibrated & locked down with its DCs and multi-check graduated solutions. Since that works you don't need to change it. You can just play co-op storytime out of combat and occasionally try to roll high on a die if the DM doesn't auto yep/nope your part of the story. That's my current table game and it works fine, never rolling social checks means you can invest in the combat ruled skill functions.

You misunderstood. I was responding to Tanarii saying even combat statistics are changed by DM fiat so players shouldn't rely on them, not 5E.

Knowing exact TNs / probability isn't necessary to make decisions. If it was, most TTRPGs would fall over.

Not to mention we wouldn't be able to make decisions for our actions in real life.

Edit: To expand a bit, players already have a rough idea of probability due to player-facing Easy/Medium/Hard table in the Ability checks chapter. That means they know their off-stat (8-12) checks have a ~50% chance of success on Easy tasks, their 1st level ability score 14 with proficiency bonus (usually 2-3 skills or so at +4) has a 50% chance on Medium tasks and a 30% on Hard tasks.

Personally I don't like those numbers but that's neither here nor there.

But again, what is Easy and what is Hard is whatever the DM feels like that day so it tells the player nothing. That's an important missing element to the probabilities. Is that wall Easy to climb? The player doesn't know. The DM makes it up, so the DM determines whether he can or not. The PC wants to climb the wall, not the DM. The PC should know if he can by his own ability.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-13, 10:07 AM

I'd like to thank all of you complaining about my view on NPC platemail for perfectly proving my point about why any DC example tables should never under any circumstances be player-facing. The fact that the DM creates/sets monster stats is driving ya'll crazy because in your mind there is a piece of "hard coded" player-facing information that's being violated. :smallamused:

Arguing that a player wearing chainmail shouldn’t expect the guard wearing chainmail to be similarly protected is not a good look.

At this point, I question the DM for being so arbitrary. This is exactly why this kind of stuff was designed out of “Blackmoor”.

It’s god awful design, and what’s worse, you don’t even have a defense of it. I suppose you’d be happy playing a game where the damage dice of fireball changed every time you cast it, and you had no context to know what changed it.

Plus monster ACs are player facing, RAW. True Polymorph and Shapechange and all that.

Knowing exact TNs / probability isn't necessary to make decisions. If it was, most TTRPGs would fall over.

Patently false. Every PTBA game has player facing numbers. Same for Ironsworn. Stars Without Number. Lots of RPGs operate on technology younger than “Blackmoor”.

To insinuate such a thing implies you’re uneducated in game design.

Not to mention we wouldn't be able to make decisions for our actions in real life.

In real life, we understand the context of our actions. We know how well we can perform tasks that we’ve trained to perform.

Not so in “Blackmoor”.

Edit: To expand a bit, players already have a rough idea of probability due to player-facing Easy/Medium/Hard table in the Ability checks chapter. That means they know their off-stat (8-12) checks have a ~50% chance of success on Easy tasks, their 1st level ability score 14 with proficiency bonus (usually 2-3 skills or so at +4) has a 50% chance on Medium tasks and a 30% on Hard tasks.

Except they have no context for what constitutes Easy, Moderate or Hard.

When a PC has no idea what they are capable of, you’ve ruined the immersion, and made a bad game on top of that.

And the swing is 50% for the two DMs who disagree on whether swinging on vines or pretending to be the Duke is Easy or Hard.

Worse yet, the way the system is designed, one DM might permit proficiency, whilst the other would not.

This means, in the normal course of play, there is a 60-110% variance of expectation.

If that happened in combat, the designers of the edition would likely be fired.

Personally I don't like those numbers but that's neither here nor there.

It’s quite here and there. The numbers are a large part of the problem: they’re too big to compensate for the variance.

There is no benefit in letting Peter deny proficiencies and calling tasks hard and letting Petra allow them and calling them easy. All it does is show the cracks in the twenty year old system that wasn’t really designed for this edition, mostly being a port of 4E with a little less math. (And 4E was just a port of 3E with a lot less math)

Which made the math worse. In both instances.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-13, 10:22 AM

Abracadangit

2022-03-13, 11:00 AM

What I will concede is that the text can be greatly improved. The 4 steps for calling for a check should be made graphical and placed front-and-center in that section, and examples of the process for a couple or even all 4 tiers of play can be included.

Word. Honestly, so much of me wanting established examples really just originates from the frustration of dealing with DMs who suck at this. I would be all for a longer section that breaks down the whole "Sometimes you make players roll, sometimes you don't" philosophy, and how that can enhance your game instead of being what the DMG calls "the middle path." I get they're trying not to offend the sensibilities of the DM who makes everyone roll to walk up a staircase, but c'mon.

1) I actually think they'd be more likely to default to 15 if theyre not following the guidance. Still not great for a martial that shouldn't need to be rolling in the first place, but for most characters, much more doable at least.

My experience is 20, but of course everyone's answer to that question will vary, understandably. My 20 issue is probably a symptom of playing with people who used to play 3e.

2) I think the primary way such a DM would get better at these faculties is by being challenged by their players, especially the martial player that is interacting with this system most directly. Not saying that everyone at the table should go diving through the DMG, but if it's common knowledge that 5e has no fixed DCs for most skills - a safe assumption in 2022 I'd say - means that a player who is constantly being given improbable targets has more of a basis to convey their frustrations to their DM and get them to recalibrate accordingly. Unless they don't care about the martial player having fun that is, in which case there's a way bigger problem at that table than how to set a DC.

But my fear is that instead of the martial player saying "This is inane, I need to talk to the DM about how it feels like I can't do anything," they'll instead think to themselves "Oh -- I suppose this is how D&D works. Feels like if I don't have spells to my name, I'm getting a raw deal. Oh well." And then they and their friends put it down and don't pick it back up. But now we're getting into the part of the argument where things are more hypothetical -- your notion of what happens vs. my notion of what happens is kinda impossible to prove, right. But still, that's where I'm coming from.

Then there's no resolution between us because spells certainly are buttons. The player decides to cast them and they happen. That's why casters can do everything at player choice but martials can only do what the DM lets them to do. Without said buttons you're forbidding martials from being that good to do stuff. Fighters can't have Nice Things.

You've cleanly encapsulated what one of the big problems is. Spells are buttons, and skills aren't. To which opponents say "Ok, but remember, spells are limited to X per day, so deciding to cast a spell or not is a big weighty decision, right." But if the party really needs to climb up the wall, 9 times out of 10 the wizard's gonna say "Ok, boom, Spider Climb. This is a worthwhile opportunity to use a utility spell. Let's do it." And that's that. And I don't feel like picking the spell description apart for vulnerabilities or loopholes that I can use to gotcha the caster, either. Sometimes I'll do that, if I feel like they're using a spell in a particularly foolhardy way or in a way that doesn't really match the spell's intent, but otherwise I want the players' spells to succeed as they're supposed to. As you yourself have said, let people use the abilities they're given.

Part of the problem, I think, is that over the lifetime of D&D, spells and their subsequent descriptions have acquired a certain feel. If I write "For the duration, the target feels as though..." Boom, you know it's a spell (or maybe a class/monster ability, but whatever). Players have evolved to think that descriptions like that belong on Magic Island, and other things belong on Martial Island. This was one of the big sore spots for 4e, as I recall -- all abilities in the game functioned kind of like spells, with catchy names and descriptions, so people felt like there wasn't texture anymore. As you've pointed out, WotC's trying to bridge this gap now with class abilities, but it's funny how the answer is to give psi warriors levitation instead of giving fighters... let's say... a mundane ability that lets them climb walls! "Monks already have that," some people will say. They sure do, and it's cool, and it's flavorful because it also lets you run on water and you have to keep moving to do it a la parkour. What a cool ability, which handily evokes the flavor of the monk! Now let's give more of that stuff to other classes, too.

Knowing exact TNs / probability isn't necessary to make decisions. If it was, most TTRPGs would fall over.

Not to mention we wouldn't be able to make decisions for our actions in real life.

Edit: To expand a bit, players already have a rough idea of probability due to player-facing Easy/Medium/Hard table in the Ability checks chapter. That means they know their off-stat (8-12) checks have a ~50% chance of success on Easy tasks, their 1st level ability score 14 with proficiency bonus (usually 2-3 skills or so at +4) has a 50% chance on Medium tasks and a 30% on Hard tasks.

Personally I don't like those numbers but that's neither here nor there.

There are PC games out now that simulate a D&D-like experience, but before you select what character is going to do what thing, it tells you the character's probability of success. The one coming to my mind right now is Renowned Explorers: International Society (think Around the World in 80 Days as an RPG), but I'm sure other people more games-literate than I am can think of others. Seeing characters' probabilities isn't just tactical, it also feels good when there's a task coincidentally perfect for one of my characters, and I see the 100%. It's like "Ok, you just happened to bring the zany gunpowder-engineering expert on the mission where you have to disarm a bomb. You get this one, free of charge." None of the game experience falls apart because I can see what the odds of success are.

I can hear the gears turning in your head, already. "Ok, that's well and good, but then go play Renowned Explorers, or whatever. You've just declared your preference for games that aren't D&D, then you should go play them to get that non-D&D experience you crave." Yes, I do that quite a bit, but also, I would like to see D&D evolve in such a way that it learns from these games instead of clinging to old ideas because it's the Way It's Always Been Done.

All the 4e memories coming back, today! A big complaint of people who didn't like 4e was that it "just didn't feel like D&D anymore," that the game's "soul had been changed." It's an interesting idea, because then you gotta ask, what does comprise the "soul" of D&D. In your head, part of that soul is players not seeing/knowing the DCs when they roll, but for me, that is not part of the soul, and thus I can imagine a version of D&D where DCs are viewable to provide better strategic consideration and better player satisfaction for when a character is uniquely equipped to handle a certain task. Why is that not part of the soul for me? I don't know, I wish I could answer that in an elegant way, but I can't.

To be clear -- I 100% respect your vision of the game's soul, and respect that part of the integral D&D experience for you is not knowing DCs, and that my idea sounds patently awful to you. I'm just trying to prematurely cut off the argument that I see a lot around here, which is "Then you should go play a different game, because D&D isn't for you."

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 11:25 AM

Abracadangit

2022-03-13, 11:36 AM

Knowing the odds for any given check can be done much more simply and with less disturbance by the DM simply telling you "ok, the DC for that is X, commit?" Before calling for the roll. Which I'd call one of several (1) good ways to play anyway. Those games don't give you the probability for every possible action as you start the game, only in the moment (because the odds depend on what you've done, etc).

That's an argument for transparency at the individual check level, not one for up front required standardization.

1. Telling the descriptive difficulty (easy, moderate, etc) is fine with me as well, and I don't really care if I don't know it.

Oh, totally. Yeah, I don't think D&D needs to precisely map to that model (your "commit?" phrasing is a perfect example of why, well played, ha ha), but I was using that as a counterpoint to the argument that knowing DCs for things makes the fun part of D&D crumble away.

But here we go 'round the bend again -- I don't think D&D needs complete standardization, either, and this seems like one of those points where the two sides can't get on the same page, like same-pole magnet ends pushing each other away. I don't perceive providing example DCs as a blanket standardization of everything, I see it as providing a hand-wavey baseline which can be altered or changed per individual campaign, but at least provides more solid footing than what we have now. I think your side perceives it as a sort of effort to turn D&D into almost like a collective MMO, where the DC to leap over a hedge vs. the DC to leap over a shrubbery is standardized across every single game, and then if a DM tries to change it, the players are gonna scream at them.

Again -- maybe some people want the MMO model, but it ain't me, so I can't speak to that task. What I can say is what I've been saying in my back-and-forths with Psyren, that I think in the absence of examples, novice (and some experienced!) DMs are making bad calls and leading wonky games that discourage people from the hobby, as opposed to getting better at adjudicating. But again -- your personal experience with that sounds like it varies, so I'm understanding where different thoughts on that subject are coming from.

Frogreaver

2022-03-13, 12:00 PM

But here we go 'round the bend again -- I don't think D&D needs complete standardization, either, and this seems like one of those points where the two sides can't get on the same page, like same-pole magnet ends pushing each other away. I don't perceive providing example DCs as a blanket standardization of everything, I see it as providing a hand-wavey baseline which can be altered or changed per individual campaign, but at least provides more solid footing than what we have now. I think your side perceives it as a sort of effort to turn D&D into almost like a collective MMO, where the DC to leap over a hedge vs. the DC to leap over a shrubbery is standardized across every single game, and then if a DM tries to change it, the players are gonna scream at them.

Again -- maybe some people want the MMO model, but it ain't me, so I can't speak to that task. What I can say is what I've been saying in my back-and-forths with Psyren, that I think in the absence of examples, novice (and some experienced!) DMs are making bad calls and leading wonky games that discourage people from the hobby, as opposed to getting better at adjudicating. But again -- your personal experience with that sounds like it varies, so I'm understanding where different thoughts on that subject are coming from.

In all fairness there were some that advocated for that very thing. Maybe they've changed their mind, but it was either in this thread or it's predecessor.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 12:09 PM

Oh, totally. Yeah, I don't think D&D needs to precisely map to that model (your "commit?" phrasing is a perfect example of why, well played, ha ha), but I was using that as a counterpoint to the argument that knowing DCs for things makes the fun part of D&D crumble away.

But here we go 'round the bend again -- I don't think D&D needs complete standardization, either, and this seems like one of those points where the two sides can't get on the same page, like same-pole magnet ends pushing each other away. I don't perceive providing example DCs as a blanket standardization of everything, I see it as providing a hand-wavey baseline which can be altered or changed per individual campaign, but at least provides more solid footing than what we have now. I think your side perceives it as a sort of effort to turn D&D into almost like a collective MMO, where the DC to leap over a hedge vs. the DC to leap over a shrubbery is standardized across every single game, and then if a DM tries to change it, the players are gonna scream at them.

Again -- maybe some people want the MMO model, but it ain't me, so I can't speak to that task. What I can say is what I've been saying in my back-and-forths with Psyren, that I think in the absence of examples, novice (and some experienced!) DMs are making bad calls and leading wonky games that discourage people from the hobby, as opposed to getting better at adjudicating. But again -- your personal experience with that sounds like it varies, so I'm understanding where different thoughts on that subject are coming from.

Here's my (quite solidified over the years of fighting this same battle with the same people) opinion:

I can't see how "add example tables" solves any of the stated concerns except as a stalking horse for full lock-down standardization and "if you deviate, you're cheating."

I've heard twothree(...I'll come in again) basic concerns:

Concern: DMs making bad calls.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Because DMs making bad calls do so, generally, for one or more of a few reasons:
1. They didn't read the existing guidance.
2. They decided not to follow the existing guidance (whether out of hubris or out of mistake or out of malice or out of honest disagreement).
3. They don't think that they're making bad calls.
4. They're not actually making bad calls, it's just the players don't like the calls that they do make. There is a difference here--there are players who get angry at failing or being told no. Even if that's the right thing both by the rules and for the health of the game.

Tables don't affect #1 (because they won't read that guidance) or #2 (because they've consciously decided to go other directions). #4 won't change, because they're already making good calls (and the only issue here is perception, which can't be solved by pointing to the books, since any call that ends up telling them no will receive the same reaction). So #3 is the only place it could change things...and changing anything requires the tables to be the unambiguously right call. In every circumstance. Which they, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature, can't be. In fact, the table DC will be wrong more often than it's right. Or at least imperfect. And also require that the tables actually address what's going on. Which they can't, again, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature. Unless we railroad everything so it has to come from those tables.

There's also the very possible (nay overwhelmingly likely) possibility that the tables will have garbage in them. Creating a good set of tables that cover all the possibilities requires massive amounts of man-power, editing, play-testing, and a very firm grasp on numerics. None of which are things that WotC has shown any substantial aptitude for. They've got garbage in every other part, letting things that are both overpowered and just plain bad (and loony and nonsense) through the gates. So my expectation is that any such tables would contain just as much garbage. And would probably increase the proportion of garbage, because they'd stretch resources even thinner. So I don't see (personal judgement) adding tables as providing any value to this concern--the frequency of bad calls won't substantially change, and now those few that happen to line up with books will just have more fuel for argument on either/both sides. Net negative value provided.

Concern: I have to re-learn how to play at every table because the DCs change.
How will tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Not unless every DM must use those tables and only those tables. And the tables are exhaustive. Because this can't be meaningfully addressed (as a global matter) without full standardization and a culture that says departure is bad. And, furthermore, that won't happen. Because some people won't read them or decide to do it differently. There will always be variance. Variance is inevitable. 5e embraces that variance and accepts it. A hypothetical system that achieves low variance will also require killing most of the things I enjoy about D&D and TTRPGs in general.

Concern: The DMG's guidance is poor and people don't learn how to DM.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. In fact, they make it worse. Tables are bad scaffolding for learning. Speaking as a (former) teacher, tables act like a cheat sheet. Great for "getting the right answer" (if the answer is on the sheet), horrible and counterproductive for actually learning.

Note: This does not mean that the DMG's guidance is great or can't be improved. I absolutely think it can. Having worked, explained examples of doing Psyren's 4-step method would be a massive improvement IMO. But a set of bare tables? Worse than useless for teaching.

-----

So from my perspective, tables don't actually address the stated concerns unless there's full mandatory standardization. And carry strong intrinsic costs[1]. Which makes me highly loath to support the developers[2] spending any time on this.

[1] Time spent editing, writing, and play-testing those tables (and they'd need tons of it) detracts from time spent doing actually useful things for the rest of the game. And adding 50+ pages (ie a 30% increase in the size of the DMG) means they'd have to cut out other stuff, since there are binding page limits. Those are all costs.
[2] If a table or group of tables wants to do this--feel free. You don't have to standardize the whole game to standardize your own tables. All it takes is discussion with the DMs and a willingness to not play at some tables.[3]
[3] Which leads to another point. If standardization has so many benefits, show your (generic) work. Do the leg work to do a proof of concept at a smaller group of tables. Then report on that. Persuade, don't compel. Heck, as a starting point for the tables you could take the PF version and cut all the DCs in half, plus rename the skills as appropriate.

Warlush

2022-03-13, 12:48 PM

Why does everyone act like spells prepared and spell slots both aren’t an extremely limited resource?

My guess would be more "white room" experience than actual game play experience.

Abracadangit

2022-03-13, 01:04 PM

In all fairness there were some that advocated for that very thing. Maybe they've changed their mind, but it was either in this thread or it's predecessor.

Word. Maybe us "Baseliners" are a third camp, in which case that's where I reside.

But it's also a problem of tangled perceptions. I think a lot of people on the pro-examples side are in fact "Baseliners," but when others hear the idea "Ok, like the book could say walking along a railing is 15 but walking along a tightrope is 20," they see it as an attempt to reach into the very games they're running right now and hack the values of their railings and tightropes to be DCs 15 and 20, respectively. And I, as a Baseliner, don't want that -- I merely want examples so that different games, while still entitled to their own variations and DC philosophies, more closely resemble a coherent idea.

Of course, then the responses are "Well then how are DMs gonna learn how to fly, by doing that players will walk in with certain expectations, then you'd need to have an example for everything," etc, etc. Which I don't agree with, but I recognize that it seems like for some DMs, these are very serious concerns which warrant the continued absence of said examples. I'd like to see the game evolve in a different direction, honestly, but I understand that this is a big item on a lot of DMs' un-wish-list.

I can't see how "add example tables" solves any of the stated concerns except as a stalking horse for full lock-down standardization and "if you deviate, you're cheating."

But see, this right here is in and of itself super-interesting. The hypothetical players in my head sound very, very different than the hypothetical players in your head. I cannot imagine one of my players screaming at me that if I changed one of the DCs on them, I would be "cheating" and ruining the game for them. But I recognize that for you, that's the endpoint of where examples lead everything, so then this debate feels very different from your side of the table.

Concern: DMs making bad calls.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Because DMs making bad calls do so, generally, for one or more of a few reasons:
1. They didn't read the existing guidance.
2. They decided not to follow the existing guidance (whether out of hubris or out of mistake or out of malice or out of honest disagreement).
3. They don't think that they're making bad calls.
4. They're not actually making bad calls, it's just the players don't like the calls that they do make. There is a difference here--there are players who get angry at failing or being told no. Even if that's the right thing both by the rules and for the health of the game.

Tables don't affect #1 (because they won't read that guidance) or #2 (because they've consciously decided to go other directions). #4 won't change, because they're already making good calls (and the only issue here is perception, which can't be solved by pointing to the books, since any call that ends up telling them no will receive the same reaction). So #3 is the only place it could change things...and changing anything requires the tables to be the unambiguously right call. In every circumstance. Which they, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature, can't be. In fact, the table DC will be wrong more often than it's right. Or at least imperfect. And also require that the tables actually address what's going on. Which they can't, again, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature. Unless we railroad everything so it has to come from those tables.

This seems like you're imagining the examples as a sort of atlas, that DMs should be checking as intensely as they do when reading the description of a spell. I don't see them that way -- I see them as providing a general baseline, from which DMs are free to use however they please. You don't like them, don't use them. And I don't see them as having an answer for every contingency, that seems like a fool's errand, like some goofy bureaucrat from The Phantom Tollbooth who has to look in a book of tables to answer anyone in a conversation. I don't see them being used that way or in that manner, but it seems like that's your logic of how the tables would be used.

I don't see putting the tables in a book as "Codification," I see putting the tables in a book as "Creating A General Ballpark Estimate for How Certain DCs Could Be Adjudicated."

There's also the very possible (nay overwhelmingly likely) possibility that the tables will have garbage in them. Creating a good set of tables that cover all the possibilities requires massive amounts of man-power, editing, play-testing, and a very firm grasp on numerics. None of which are things that WotC has shown any substantial aptitude for. They've got garbage in every other part, letting things that are both overpowered and just plain bad (and loony and nonsense) through the gates. So my expectation is that any such tables would contain just as much garbage. And would probably increase the proportion of garbage, because they'd stretch resources even thinner. So I don't see (personal judgement) adding tables as providing any value to this concern--the frequency of bad calls won't substantially change, and now those few that happen to line up with books will just have more fuel for argument on either/both sides. Net negative value provided.

But like, again -- this feels you're arguing with someone standing to the left of me. "A good set of tables that cover all the possibilities"? That's like... I dunno, a bajillion tables. That'd be nuts! I'm saying under Acrobatics, why don't we have a couple of sub-headings, like "Balancing," "Tumbling," etc, each of those with like 3 or 4 example DCs to paint a picture. That's it!! That's all I want, I swear! I don't want actuary tables of balancing on each and every kind of narrow footing that exists. That's a bridge (and tightrope, heh heh) too far.

And I understand, like Frogreaver, you're gonna say "Ok, but scroll back through the last thread, you'll find people that literally want a bajillion tables, that's who I'm talking to." I acknowledge that, I didn't read all the way through the old thread. All I want are the little sub-headings beneath the skill names, with like 3 or 4 example DCs each. Honest.

Concern: I have to re-learn how to play at every table because the DCs change.
How will tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Not unless every DM must use those tables and only those tables. And the tables are exhaustive. Because this can't be meaningfully addressed (as a global matter) without full standardization and a culture that says departure is bad. And, furthermore, that won't happen. Because some people won't read them or decide to do it differently. There will always be variance. Variance is inevitable. 5e embraces that variance and accepts it. A hypothetical system that achieves low variance will also require killing most of the things I enjoy about D&D and TTRPGs in general.

Sure! Variance is always gonna happen, that's a given. But again -- and I hate to retread old ground, so I apologize in advance -- but it seems like your side has zero problem with full standardization of anything and everything relating to combat. You like that a dagger does d4 damage in your game and d4 damage in your friend's game, right? Because coherence, familiarity, a sense of the ground rules being the same from game to game, right? I'm saying that on the spectrum of cross-game variability, where "A dagger deals d4 damage" on one end and "What exactly you can accomplish with a Wish spell" on the other, I'd like to see general skill DCs move a couple of nodes closer to the "Less Variable" side. I do NOT want every tightrope to be 20, that would be lame, and I would agree with you that then tightropes becomes sort of intrinsically boring because you just sort of think "Okay, DC 20, whatever" when you approach one. But, I would like the range of tightrope DCs/accessibility to be slightly narrower than what it is now, where it's all over the place.

However, this particular point seems to be one where we're grazing your personal ideas of What RPGs Are About, and so I concede that I don't think I can convince you of why I think this is valuable, it's just gonna be a spot where we disagree. No problem, no bad blood, I respect your ideas of What RPGs Are About.

Concern: The DMG's guidance is poor and people don't learn how to DM.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. In fact, they make it worse. Tables are bad scaffolding for learning. Speaking as a (former) teacher, tables act like a cheat sheet. Great for "getting the right answer" (if the answer is on the sheet), horrible and counterproductive for actually learning.

For what it's worth, I have some teaching experience too. Limited to only a couple of subjects, but that still counts for something. Different students learn at different paces, especially when information is presented in certain ways that doesn't sync with a student's individual learning style. I've learned that having something akin to "training wheels" for students to get their sea legs can be incredibly helpful, and for the students who don't need the training wheels, they just don't use them. I don't see how "Well this is gonna hold some people back who learn to rely on them" is a valid reason to completely abolish them entirely, thus negating any benefit for the learners that could have started with them and then flourished.

Note: This does not mean that the DMG's guidance is great or can't be improved. I absolutely think it can. Having worked, explained examples of doing Psyren's 4-step method would be a massive improvement IMO. But a set of bare tables? Worse than useless for teaching.

Boom, agreement. But why do the tables have to be "bare tables." In my head, these tables would be accompanied by lots of the kind of explanation and description that you're talking about, so that people understand these aren't concrete absolutes, these are intended to provide a kind of general baseline.

So from my perspective, tables don't actually address the stated concerns unless there's full mandatory standardization. And carry strong intrinsic costs[1]. Which makes me highly loath to support the developers[2] spending any time on this.

Again -- I think there's a very wide gulf between "Complete Standardization" and "General Baselines," but you perceive it as a slippery slope. Noted, no hard feelings.

Which leads to another point. If standardization has so many benefits, show your (generic) work. Do the leg work to do a proof of concept at a smaller group of tables. Then report on that. Persuade, don't compel. Heck, as a starting point for the tables you could take the PF version and cut all the DCs in half, plus rename the skills as appropriate.

Why would you trust any of my research? I don't mean that as an attack or anything -- I'm just saying that if anyone in a forum debate presented me data on how the Idea They've Been Defending For A Whole Thread turns out to be totally rad, I'd be highly suspect.

-----------

Here's my piece -- clearly the two sides aren't gonna see eye to eye on this, but I do think that in this debate, there's a lot of tangled perceptions and ideas where people talk past each other. And I don't think it's constructive when people (on either side) tell the opponent they need to quit D&D because their understanding of what makes D&D special is so fundamentally flawed. Clearly if people are gonna argue through a whole thread up to its page limit, they are very, very passionate about D&D, and are envisioning something they see as improving the experience.

If we're gonna reach an impasse, we can at least acknowledge the merit of the opponent's position -- just like I acknowledge your opinion has merit, and I understand why you really don't like the ideas of examples -- without making the opponent feel like their position is somehow intrinsically less intelligent or valuable. And then we can at least build a campfire on the impasse and cook marshmallows over it together, even though we're standing on opposite sides of it.

CapnWildefyr

2022-03-13, 01:06 PM

Tanarii

2022-03-13, 01:56 PM

But again, what is Easy and what is Hard is whatever the DM feels like that day so it tells the player nothing. That's an important missing element to the probabilities. Is that wall Easy to climb? The player doesn't know. The DM makes it up, so the DM determines whether he can or not. The PC wants to climb the wall, not the DM. The PC should know if he can by his own ability.Setting aside that the default for climbing is specifically, in player facing rules, no check ...

Yes. Even with tables of example DCs, the DM still has to choose which row applies to e.g. THIS specific wall, and communicate difficulty to the player if the PC can estimate it. Either directly or by telegraphing/description. There's room for additional DMG tables and guidance. (Since we already have some of both, it's additional.) But the DM choosing the specifics and communicating some degree of their PCs estimate of difficulty (if any) to the player is still required. And always will be, unless we either walk the game backwards to AD&D NWPs (fixed chance of any action based on ability score) or replace the DM with a CPU and stop having an open game in which the PCs can (try to) take any action they can think of.

Meanwhile players have some idea of what a +0 vs +4 vs +9 bonus actually means, due to the 10/15/20 being the typical range.

Pex

2022-03-13, 01:58 PM

Here's my (quite solidified over the years of fighting this same battle with the same people) opinion:

I can't see how "add example tables" solves any of the stated concerns except as a stalking horse for full lock-down standardization and "if you deviate, you're cheating."

I've heard twothree(...I'll come in again) basic concerns:

Concern: DMs making bad calls.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Because DMs making bad calls do so, generally, for one or more of a few reasons:
1. They didn't read the existing guidance.
2. They decided not to follow the existing guidance (whether out of hubris or out of mistake or out of malice or out of honest disagreement).
3. They don't think that they're making bad calls.
4. They're not actually making bad calls, it's just the players don't like the calls that they do make. There is a difference here--there are players who get angry at failing or being told no. Even if that's the right thing both by the rules and for the health of the game.

Tables don't affect #1 (because they won't read that guidance) or #2 (because they've consciously decided to go other directions). #4 won't change, because they're already making good calls (and the only issue here is perception, which can't be solved by pointing to the books, since any call that ends up telling them no will receive the same reaction). So #3 is the only place it could change things...and changing anything requires the tables to be the unambiguously right call. In every circumstance. Which they, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature, can't be. In fact, the table DC will be wrong more often than it's right. Or at least imperfect. And also require that the tables actually address what's going on. Which they can't, again, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature. Unless we railroad everything so it has to come from those tables.

There's also the very possible (nay overwhelmingly likely) possibility that the tables will have garbage in them. Creating a good set of tables that cover all the possibilities requires massive amounts of man-power, editing, play-testing, and a very firm grasp on numerics. None of which are things that WotC has shown any substantial aptitude for. They've got garbage in every other part, letting things that are both overpowered and just plain bad (and loony and nonsense) through the gates. So my expectation is that any such tables would contain just as much garbage. And would probably increase the proportion of garbage, because they'd stretch resources even thinner. So I don't see (personal judgement) adding tables as providing any value to this concern--the frequency of bad calls won't substantially change, and now those few that happen to line up with books will just have more fuel for argument on either/both sides. Net negative value provided.

Bad calls are subjective. You may not like a DM saying it's DC 20 to climb trees, but a DM will do it anyway only because he disagrees with you on the difficulty of climbing trees. You're not wrong. He's not wrong. DC tables provide guidance on what tasks are Easy or Hard or whatever difficulty rating. It helps the DM because he doesn't have to think up numbers on the fly given the tables provide examples of the more common things adventurers encounter. I never claimed nor will it ever be that a table is an exhaustive list. Please stop saying that as you did below. Examples are just that, examples. They give something for a DM to compare to adjudicate difficulty for whatever comes up that is not on the table.

Concern: I have to re-learn how to play at every table because the DCs change.
How will tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Not unless every DM must use those tables and only those tables. And the tables are exhaustive. Because this can't be meaningfully addressed (as a global matter) without full standardization and a culture that says departure is bad. And, furthermore, that won't happen. Because some people won't read them or decide to do it differently. There will always be variance. Variance is inevitable. 5e embraces that variance and accepts it. A hypothetical system that achieves low variance will also require killing most of the things I enjoy about D&D and TTRPGs in general.

DMs like to follow the rules. The rules are bought. Use them. Every DM have long swords do 1d8 damage. Every DM using a goblin as standard generic fodder have them at 7 hit points. Every DM using a banshee uses the wail as a DC 13 Con save. Every DM has plate mail giving AC 18. If a table says it's DC 15 to climb a tree every DM will use that. There's no reason not to until such time as a specific special scenario requires something different, for anything. The DM can always change anything to suit the encounter if he needs to, but until such time it matters they will use the default because it's there. Players are entitled to know how the game works. They are entitled to know what their characters can do. When something unexpected happens they're supposed to notice. They don't automatically know what caused the exception, but they know it happened. When the goblin doesn't die after 7 hp damage they know he's special in some way. Not why or how, but that he is. When the human fighter attacks with a long sword one handed but does 1d12 damage, something is up. Maybe the long sword is magical. Maybe the fighter has special training. Since we're assuming the DM is not a jerk he's not going to arbitrarily change things to screw over the players.

Concern: The DMG's guidance is poor and people don't learn how to DM.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. In fact, they make it worse. Tables are bad scaffolding for learning. Speaking as a (former) teacher, tables act like a cheat sheet. Great for "getting the right answer" (if the answer is on the sheet), horrible and counterproductive for actually learning.

Note: This does not mean that the DMG's guidance is great or can't be improved. I absolutely think it can. Having worked, explained examples of doing Psyren's 4-step method would be a massive improvement IMO. But a set of bare tables? Worse than useless for teaching.

Because DMs are real life people. They do not know everything. They have different perspectives on how to do even the simple task of jumping. I have met a player who was a surgeon. It's safe to say not every DM knows the difficulty in diagnosing a sickness in someone or determining the cause of death upon seeing a corpse. People climb Mount Everest. Not every DM will know what it takes to climb a wall. DC tables help the DM who doesn't know anything about what it takes to do a task to provide a difficulty value the game expects adventurers to do.

So from my perspective, tables don't actually address the stated concerns unless there's full mandatory standardization. And carry strong intrinsic costs[1]. Which makes me highly loath to support the developers[2] spending any time on this.

[1] Time spent editing, writing, and play-testing those tables (and they'd need tons of it) detracts from time spent doing actually useful things for the rest of the game. And adding 50+ pages (ie a 30% increase in the size of the DMG) means they'd have to cut out other stuff, since there are binding page limits. Those are all costs.
[2] If a table or group of tables wants to do this--feel free. You don't have to standardize the whole game to standardize your own tables. All it takes is discussion with the DMs and a willingness to not play at some tables.[3]
[3] Which leads to another point. If standardization has so many benefits, show your (generic) work. Do the leg work to do a proof of concept at a smaller group of tables. Then report on that. Persuade, don't compel. Heck, as a starting point for the tables you could take the PF version and cut all the DCs in half, plus rename the skills as appropriate.

The time it takes to edit, write, and play test tables for perhaps one chapter in a book is less than the time it took to edit, write, and play test, on an individual basis, the PHB, Xanathar, Tasha, three books on monsters, a book on dragons, a book on fiends, several campaign settings like Eberron, Theros, and Strixhaven, plus lots of individual modules.

Telok

2022-03-13, 04:36 PM

Why would you trust any of my research? I don't mean that as an attack or anything -- I'm just saying that if anyone in a forum debate presented me data on how the Idea They've Been Defending For A Whole Thread turns out to be totally rad, I'd be highly suspect.

People aren't naturally data driven, most decisions apparently get made emotionally & unconsiously before you finish reading/hearing something. I considered linking actual studies of stuff that are relevant to this thread's arguments, but people have to intentionally commit to accepting information that may conflict with their ideas. Without that they just try to ignore it.

Edit: and since 5e is balanced on +0 to +10 mods like first level 3e you could probably just crib those tables and knock a few points off the DCs. But what would be more fun would be to rewrite 5e combat to use the attribute check system. Much simpler, faster combat, fewer screwy edge cases, more rulings not rules.

Abracadangit

2022-03-13, 05:09 PM

People aren't naturally data driven, most decisions apparently get made emotionally & unconsiously before you finish reading/hearing something. I considered linking actual studies of stuff that are relevant to this thread's arguments, but people have to intentionally commit to accepting information that may conflict with their ideas. Without that they just try to ignore it.

Edit: and since 5e is balanced on +0 to +10 mods like first level 3e you could probably just crib those tables and knock a few points off the DCs. But what would be more fun would be to rewrite 5e combat to use the attribute check system. Much simpler, faster combat, fewer screwy edge cases, more rulings not rules.

Yeah, exactly. I'm actually flattered, in a way, that PhoenixPhyre suggests that I do some homework myself, run the numbers, and show the results, because it means they trust me to do so in an authentic matter and not just skew the data to show that my way is right. I would never ask anyone on a forum to do so, because I 100% expect that person's biases to leak into their work and end up proving them right, but again, the very fact that Phoenix asked me to implies some sort of trust (I think), which I do appreciate.

Despite the disagreements, what I'm enjoying is figuring out exactly where people perceive the limits of D&D to be. For some people, as soon as you provide a few DCs as a general reference, in no way enforcing that those are concrete standards that must be observed in every instance of that situation, the game would suddenly turn into Something That Isn't D&D. I don't share that opinion, but I will always be interested in discussing where those lines are for people, because then I learn something about how people define D&D, which is a topic with no wrong answers and is fascinating all by itself.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 05:36 PM

Yeah, exactly. I'm actually flattered, in a way, that PhoenixPhyre suggests that I do some homework myself, run the numbers, and show the results, because it means they trust me to do so in an authentic matter and not just skew the data to show that my way is right. I would never ask anyone on a forum to do so, because I 100% expect that person's biases to leak into their work and end up proving them right, but again, the very fact that Phoenix asked me to implies some sort of trust (I think), which I do appreciate.

Despite the disagreements, what I'm enjoying is figuring out exactly where people perceive the limits of D&D to be. For some people, as soon as you provide a few DCs as a general reference, in no way enforcing that those are concrete standards that must be observed in every instance of that situation, the game would suddenly turn into Something That Isn't D&D. I don't share that opinion, but I will always be interested in discussing where those lines are for people, because then I learn something about how people define D&D, which is a topic with no wrong answers and is fascinating all by itself.

Note: That "you" was the generic you, not the specific you. But in general, I'm much more persuaded by anyone doing the effort to try something, see how it works, and report on that. Instead of the, to me, substanceless "why won't WotC give me magic thing without me trying" feel. And that's about most things. If you want a Warlord class, go write one. In part, I don't share any reverence for the developers. No, being professional means absolutely nothing. There are a lot of the "amateur" homebrewers I trust more than I do WotC. And just because something's "official" doesn't mean anything for me. This is part and parcel of the "I want everyone to make their own decisions" standpoint I'm coming from. It's part of why I consider arguing about what is/isn't RAW to be among the most utterly pointless activities possible. It doesn't matter what RAW is. The only thing that matters are the decisions made by any individual table. And while there are decisions that work better or worse for that one table, I'm in no position to say that anyone else is doing it wrong. Unless they're trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong. Because they don't have any authority to do so either.

I don't think that providing any DCs as a general reference makes it not D&D, but I think that it
1) provides very little value (at least for any of my use-cases)
2) has strong costs (that affect me)
And the more you pour into it and the more comprehensive the tables get, the cost scales much faster than the value.

And I absolutely don't trust WotC to do a good job with this and not muck it up and either produce something that no one uses or that get exploited and cause issues. CF Tasha's, where the intent wasn't horrible, but the execution led to lots of arguments because it was half-baked and slapdash and they immediately went back on their promises.

And I also don't think that getting such tables would actually end the complaints. Because, as I mentioned, it doesn't really address the root of the problems they've expressed. A genie could magic the tables into the books and very little would change. Except now I'd have more pages to flip past. And some games would run a bit slower. You wouldn't appreciably change the predictability. Or teach new people anything. It'd mainly (at best) just sit there and take up space. More likely it would make new, rules-conscientious DMs think that they had to memorize another 50 pages of rules lest they be "playing it wrong." And that's a much bigger barrier than picking the wrong DC.

Most fundamentally, I don't think that the actual numerical values of DCs matter very much at all once you've gotten past the threshold of "should this even be a check". Any of 10, 15, 20 will work. Pick one, move on. Game works just fine. At most say "ok, default to 10 if you're not very sure it should be higher." That gets 90% of the value for < 1% of the effort.

Abracadangit

2022-03-13, 06:00 PM

Note: That "you" was the generic you, not the specific you.

Noted. I'm still not offended, ha ha.

But in general, I'm much more persuaded by anyone doing the effort to try something, see how it works, and report on that. Instead of the, to me, substanceless "why won't WotC give me magic thing without me trying" feel. And that's about most things. If you want a Warlord class, go write one. In part, I don't share any reverence for the developers. No, being professional means absolutely nothing. There are a lot of the "amateur" homebrewers I trust more than I do WotC. And just because something's "official" doesn't mean anything for me. This is part and parcel of the "I want everyone to make their own decisions" standpoint I'm coming from. It's part of why I consider arguing about what is/isn't RAW to be among the most utterly pointless activities possible. It doesn't matter what RAW is. The only thing that matters are the decisions made by any individual table. And while there are decisions that work better or worse for that one table, I'm in no position to say that anyone else is doing it wrong. Unless they're trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong. Because they don't have any authority to do so either.

I don't think that providing any DCs as a general reference makes it not D&D, but I think that it
1) provides very little value (at least for any of my use-cases)
2) has strong costs (that affect me)
And the more you pour into it and the more comprehensive the tables get, the cost scales much faster than the value.

And I absolutely don't trust WotC to do a good job with this and not muck it up and either produce something that no one uses or that get exploited and cause issues. CF Tasha's, where the intent wasn't horrible, but the execution led to lots of arguments because it was half-baked and slapdash and they immediately went back on their promises.

And I also don't think that getting such tables would actually end the complaints. Because, as I mentioned, it doesn't really address the root of the problems they've expressed. A genie could magic the tables into the books and very little would change. Except now I'd have more pages to flip past. And some games would run a bit slower. You wouldn't appreciably change the predictability. Or teach new people anything. It'd mainly (at best) just sit there and take up space. More likely it would make new, rules-conscientious DMs think that they had to memorize another 50 pages of rules lest they be "playing it wrong." And that's a much bigger barrier than picking the wrong DC.

Most fundamentally, I don't think that the actual numerical values of DCs matter very much at all once you've gotten past the threshold of "should this even be a check". Any of 10, 15, 20 will work. Pick one, move on. Game works just fine. At most say "ok, default to 10 if you're not very sure it should be higher." That gets 90% of the value for < 1% of the effort.

I agree with a lot of what you've said (the WotC designers' work is not somehow sacred, RAW debates can certainly be aggravating, etc), but I think the bottom line underscoring a lot of the disagreements is that the pro-examplers are saying "Skills/abilities not covered by exacting descriptions vary widely from game to game, and this can exacerbate martial/caster disparity as well as lessen overall D&D cohesion," while you're saying "Yeah, the differences from game to game in skill execution are a feature, Game 1 might interpret this as an Athletics check, Game 2 might let you add tool proficiency, and Game 3 might prof-gate people, that's the system working as intended and I prefer it that way."

Because at the end of the day, the tables are just a symbol. I as a Baseliner don't necessarily want literal tables, but I would like more cohesion regarding how skills are handled, like how combat has a sense of cohesion. Again, I in no way intend this as some kind of iron-fisted attempt to force you to run skills in your game per some method of my design, but it seems like each time the conversation gets to this point, the anti-examplers start busting out the "So then you must want a table for EVERYTHING" and "Who are you to tell me how to run my game!?" rhetoric, and the fight starts anew.

I don't perceive the idea as a form of aggression, but it seems to keep being interpreted that way. So I'll just say that your way also makes sense, and I respect it based on the evidence and arguments you have provided, but that I maintain that more cohesion across skills wouldn't gut part of the game, much like how cohesion across combat doesn't create that sense for most players.

Telok

2022-03-13, 06:07 PM

I don't think that providing any DCs as a general reference makes it not D&D, but I think that it
1) provides very little value (at least for any of my use-cases)
2) has strong costs (that affect me)
And the more you pour into it and the more comprehensive the tables get, the cost scales much faster than the value.

And I absolutely don't trust WotC to do a good job with this and not muck it up and either produce something that no one uses or that get exploited and cause issues. CF Tasha's, where the intent wasn't horrible, but the execution led to lots of arguments because it was half-baked and slapdash and they immediately went back on their promises.....

......Most fundamentally, I don't think that the actual numerical values of DCs matter very much at all once you've gotten past the threshold of "should this even be a check". Any of 10, 15, 20 will work. Pick one, move on. Game works just fine. At most say "ok, default to 10 if you're not very sure it should be higher." That gets 90% of the value for < 1% of the effort.

It's nice to know where you're coming from, mainly as a DM. I really disagree on your #2 because people often (done it myself) significantly overestimate potential bad results. As a player I'm coming from a point where I enjoy the game less when the ability check system is used because I don't feel that my actions or character really matter (except the Lucky feat). That I have no agency or control because the novice DMs I've played with default to using the mechanics (roll vs DC), don't know statistics, and often choose 15 as the "low" DC because middle=average=normal.

And I'm totally with you on not trusting WotC to do math. The extended failures of 4e's skill challenges... <sigh>

I write simulations for dice systems (5e is too simplified, you can basic math its systems). Thats so I can understand the probabilities & results before I publish anything, and rewrite the system if it doesn't do what I want. Heck, I did one for another poster not long ago just because it was interesting and the king of system that could encourage perverse incentives.

I don't however agree that it doesn't matter choosing between 10, 15, 20. People habituate and take shortcuts. If you don't provide good shortcuts or push them towards good habits early on then you get bad habits. When a DM's shortcuts to rolling when undecided and habitually chooses 15 or 20 as the DC it's bad for the non-casters (actually its bad for all characters but non-casters have no agency to bypass the checks so they get it worse).

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 06:21 PM

It's nice to know where you're coming from, mainly as a DM. I really disagree on your #2 because people often (done it myself) significantly overestimate potential bad results. As a player I'm coming from a point where I enjoy the game less when the ability check system is used because I don't feel that my actions or character really matter (except the Lucky feat). That I have no agency or control because the novice DMs I've played with default to using the mechanics (roll vs DC), don't know statistics, and often choose 15 as the "low" DC because middle=average=normal.

And I'm totally with you on not trusting WotC to do math. The extended failures of 4e's skill challenges... <sigh>

I write simulations for dice systems (5e is too simplified, you can basic math its systems). Thats so I can understand the probabilities & results before I publish anything, and rewrite the system if it doesn't do what I want. Heck, I did one for another poster not long ago just because it was interesting and the king of system that could encourage perverse incentives.

I don't however agree that it doesn't matter choosing between 10, 15, 20. People habituate and take shortcuts. If you don't provide good shortcuts or push them towards good habits early on then you get bad habits. When a DM's shortcuts to rolling when undecided and habitually chooses 15 or 20 as the DC it's bad for the non-casters (actually its bad for all characters but non-casters have no agency to bypass the checks so they get it worse).

That's why just saying "ok, default to 10" gets you most of the benefit for basically 0 cost.

And the costs involved, as I see it, are
1. Less time and space to write, playtest, and edit material that actually might be useful to me. Having done a bit of this, trying to nail down things that are inherently squishy and find good examples for such things isn't free or particularly easy to get right. And getting it wrong is actively detrimental, worse than not providing guidance.

2. Slowed play at any table that uses the tables actively. Which I detest.

3. A culture that prioritizes doing it right over making decisions and rolling with it. That's a culture that is mechanics-first. One that calculates all the probabilities and generally focuses on doing the "optimal" thing because they don't want to fail. I don't want players thinking about the probabilities or worrying about failure. I want them doing things that are in character, whether or not they're going to fail. And I want failure to be fun as well. If I can't find a way for a failed check to move the narrative along[1] just as much as a success, then I'm not going to call for a check at all. Does that mean I don't generally call for checks? Yes. Which also means that those "avoidance" mechanisms casters have don't mean as much, because they're bypassing something that didn't really bite hard. Failure and success are just different branches of the code. Different forks in the road, all leading to interesting things. Just different interesting things. Succeeding or failing at any one thing just nudges the game in a different way. Some options get closed off, others open up. Which means you can succeed (at one level) by failing (at a different level). And that goes for combat as well as anything else.

4. Diminishes (if the tables actually get used) variation. I consider variation a strong feature. I want (to use the crappy tree-climbing example) climbing a tree to vary between tables. I want people who look like they're wearing plate to not always have AC 18. I don't want to always know the numbers. That gives me more to explore. And exploration is my primary source of fun.

[1] not in any pre-set direction, because I don't pre-set directions for anything. But somewhere. The worst game-state possible is "and nothing happens, try again." Only slightly less worse than that is "you take <minimal amount of damage> and fail." Or "you succeed, you need X more successes for anything to happen".[2] Lack of interesting changes due to either success or failure are a waste of my and everyone else's time.

[2] which is why I'm not fond of 4e's skill challenges in implementation--it boils down to just a dice counting exercise. Now if each individual check changed the overall situation, forcing adaptation and possibly foreclosing (or opening!) other paths, that might work much better for me. But that's not something you can boil down to a simple mechanic, because the details are going to be extremely variable.

Pex

2022-03-13, 06:38 PM

That's why just saying "ok, default to 10" gets you most of the benefit for basically 0 cost.

And the costs involved, as I see it, are
1. Less time and space to write, playtest, and edit material that actually might be useful to me. Having done a bit of this, trying to nail down things that are inherently squishy and find good examples for such things isn't free or particularly easy to get right. And getting it wrong is actively detrimental, worse than not providing guidance.

2. Slowed play at any table that uses the tables actively. Which I detest.

3. A culture that prioritizes doing it right over making decisions and rolling with it. That's a culture that is mechanics-first. One that calculates all the probabilities and generally focuses on doing the "optimal" thing because they don't want to fail. I don't want players thinking about the probabilities or worrying about failure. I want them doing things that are in character, whether or not they're going to fail. And I want failure to be fun as well. If I can't find a way for a failed check to move the narrative along[1] just as much as a success, then I'm not going to call for a check at all. Does that mean I don't generally call for checks? Yes. Which also means that those "avoidance" mechanisms casters have don't mean as much, because they're bypassing something that didn't really bite hard. Failure and success are just different branches of the code. Different forks in the road, all leading to interesting things. Just different interesting things. Succeeding or failing at any one thing just nudges the game in a different way. Some options get closed off, others open up. Which means you can succeed (at one level) by failing (at a different level). And that goes for combat as well as anything else.

4. Diminishes (if the tables actually get used) variation. I consider variation a strong feature. I want (to use the crappy tree-climbing example) climbing a tree to vary between tables. I want people who look like they're wearing plate to not always have AC 18. I don't want to always know the numbers. That gives me more to explore. And exploration is my primary source of fun.

[1] not in any pre-set direction, because I don't pre-set directions for anything. But somewhere. The worst game-state possible is "and nothing happens, try again." Only slightly less worse than that is "you take <minimal amount of damage> and fail." Or "you succeed, you need X more successes for anything to happen".[2] Lack of interesting changes due to either success or failure are a waste of my and everyone else's time.

[2] which is why I'm not fond of 4e's skill challenges in implementation--it boils down to just a dice counting exercise. Now if each individual check changed the overall situation, forcing adaptation and possibly foreclosing (or opening!) other paths, that might work much better for me. But that's not something you can boil down to a simple mechanic, because the details are going to be extremely variable.

What you want is free form. No rules at all. Everything made up for the narrative. That's fine. That's not what I want. I want to play 5E. It has rules of game mechanics I enjoy. The rules are tools to use to play the story that is the adventures and campaign plot. I find 5E lacks rules in one particular area. I want it to have rules in that particular area. As DM it doesn't matter to you what other DMs do because you're not there. I am there as a player. It affects the play when the DM has to make up the rules as he goes along. We're not playing 5E at that moment. We're playing whether or not the DM had coffee in the morning. Because that bothers me people say I should play Sweet Talk The DM. For all the talk about weaponizing rules as of now there are no rules to argue over. To disagree a tree is DC 20 to climb is to disagree with the DM himself and argue how he runs the game. There are issues to disagree with the DM on how he runs the game - Monty Hall, Killer, Tyranny, etc. Knowing my ability to climb a tree should not be added to that list. We can't play a game if we don't agree what the rules are, and the rules being whatever the DM thinks of is not the answer.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 06:43 PM

What you want is free form. No rules at all. Everything made up for the narrative. That's fine. That's not what I want. I want to play 5E. It has rules of game mechanics I enjoy. The rules are tools to use to play the story that is the adventures and campaign plot. I find 5E lacks rules in one particular area. I want it to have rules in that particular area. As DM it doesn't matter to you what other DMs do because you're not there. I am there as a player. It affects the play when the DM has to make up the rules as he goes along. We're not playing 5E at that moment. We're playing whether or not the DM had coffee in the morning. Because that bothers me people say I should play Sweet Talk The DM. For all the talk about weaponizing rules as of now there are no rules to argue over. To disagree a tree is DC 20 to climb is to disagree with the DM himself and argue how he runs the game. There are issues to disagree with the DM on how he runs the game - Monty Hall, Killer, Tyranny, etc. Knowing my ability to climb a tree should not be added to that list.

No. You're jumping to extremes again. And I'll thank you not to do that.

The printed words set defaults. And there are lots of really valid ones, ones that just about every table will use. Just not this one. I might as well say that you want robotic, no-choice DMs who can only beep boop there is no printed rule so it can't happen. But I don't believe that either.

Tanarii

2022-03-13, 07:11 PM

What you want is free form. No rules at all.
What you want is a computer game. Perfectly repeatable rules that are known in advance or can be figured out and communicated to the community, that are the same for everyone. :smallamused:

Telok

2022-03-13, 09:10 PM

The printed words set defaults. And there are lots of really valid ones, ones that just about every table will use.

Like DC 15+ being default for checks at all the tables I've been at. Which is why the casters are better, the spells give the players agency in the game beyond "hope to roll high".

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 09:13 PM

Like DC 15+ being default for checks at all the tables I've been at. Which is why the casters are better, the spells give the players agency in the game beyond "hope to roll high".

Again. You can solve that by a simple "ok guys, use 10 as your default if you really need to roll" statement. 90% of the benefit, 0% of the cost. Adding tables only helps if the things people are trying to do aren't DC 15 or above. I'd actually be fairly confident that people inclined to DC 15 as a baseline will look at it and just pick the things that are DC 15 already. So no effect, but more fixed of a mindset.

Frogreaver

2022-03-13, 10:16 PM

Like DC 15+ being default for checks at all the tables I've been at. Which is why the casters are better, the spells give the players agency in the game beyond "hope to roll high".

It's more than that though. Let's say there are 100 events that happen in a 10 session adventure that DM#1 calls for a check on. DM#2 only calls for checks on 10 of those events. However, DM#1 uses a DC 10 for most of the checks but DM#2 uses 15 for most of his. In which game were characters able to accomplish more without spells?

Pex

2022-03-13, 10:57 PM

It's more than that though. Let's say there are 100 events that happen in a 10 session adventure that DM#1 calls for a check on. DM#2 only calls for checks on 10 of those events. However, DM#1 uses a DC 10 for most of the checks but DM#2 uses 15 for most of his. In which game were characters able to accomplish more without spells?

Exactly! Now you're getting it. Different DMs, different values, different opinions on when to call for a check, different experiences for the same task made more of a problem for a player like me who happens to play at both tables. With printed examples there wouldn't be this problem because the DMs wouldn't have to make it up. When they need to adjudicate the examples help them find an appropriate DC. If they figure to go between 10 and 15 and one says 12 while another says 14 I'm willing to accept that discrepancy in the name of don't sweat the minutiae.

Telok

2022-03-13, 11:06 PM

Again. You can solve that by a simple "ok guys, use 10 as your default if you really need to roll" statement. 90% of the benefit, 0% of the cost. Adding tables only helps if the things people are trying to do aren't DC 15 or above. I'd actually be fairly confident that people inclined to DC 15 as a baseline will look at it and just pick the things that are DC 15 already. So no effect, but more fixed of a mindset.

Will they? All I know is that DMs call for lots of 15+s and no 10-s right now from their reading of the books. Maybe my characters climbing a rope, swimming a moat, all arcana and history and deceive and survival checks might end up with some DC 10s instead of all 15+s from levels 1 to 10 in some of the games I've been in?* I've had too many DMs say something like "can you? I don't know. Uh, roll <stat> DC 15" to agree that the current state of affairs is worth keeping.

And that's what pushes the "casters rule" meme, DMs using the system provided uncertainty resolution mechanics, picking the average DC, and PCs failing lots & lots of rolls unless they cast spells to bypass the skills/attributes rolls.

* actually not literally true, there was one DC 13 "because the module wouldn't put a DC on it if you weren't supposed to roll" climb check that first adventure.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-13, 11:17 PM

Will they? All I know is that DMs call for lots of 15+s and no 10-s right now from their reading of the books. Maybe my characters climbing a rope, swimming a moat, all arcana and history and deceive and survival checks might end up with some DC 10s instead of all 15+s from levels 1 to 10 in some of the games I've been in?* I've had too many DMs say something like "can you? I don't know. Uh, roll <stat> DC 15" to agree that the current state of affairs is worth keeping.

And that's what pushes the "casters rule" meme, DMs using the system provided uncertainty resolution mechanics, picking the average DC, and PCs failing lots & lots of rolls unless they cast spells to bypass the skills/attributes rolls.

* actually not literally true, there was one DC 13 "because the module wouldn't put a DC on it if you weren't supposed to roll" climb check that first adventure.

If they're using modules, then those modules already give DCs. And they're across the spectrum.

But if adding anything to the books would help at all[1], adding an instruction to use DC 10 as your default would work just as well or better than tables. Because tables require either
a) the thing you're looking for to be on them (unlikely unless they're obscenely exhaustive)
b) enough introspection to interpolate sanely
AND don't actually constrain the "well, I'll go with the default of 15" issue at all. While taking up lots of space.

I don't disagree that "roll for everything with a default DC of 15" is a bad state of affairs. I just don't think that adding a bunch of tables will have any positive effect on that.

And beyond that, if I were the experienced person at the table and the DM did that, I'd talk to them afterward and discuss how that makes things come out and how it's not so much fun. That's the job of an experienced person, to guide the newbies, because you're friends, right? Whether those newbies are the DM or another player.

All the times I've been a player with a newer DM, they've been very willing to ask for advice from the experienced people; when I was a new DM I did the same thing.

And that footnote--that's exactly the problem with tables, in a nutshell. If you give it a DC, people will expect to have to roll for it. In every case, even when it doesn't make sense (no consequences, no pressure, etc). Which will lead to a crap ton more failures. Less rolling, in general, is better for keeping things in balance. Not no rolling, but constraining the use of the d20 to where any of the possible outcomes make sense in the fictional context. To the section of the probability curve where it is (to a first approximation) linear. Doing that removes all the absurdities and reduces the pressure to have casters just "skip" the check.[2]

[1] It won't, generally, because most of the issue comes from not really reading things through in the first place. Reading comprehension is actually pretty crappy these days. Even among people who think they're good readers. Most of the "RAW" questions I've seen and the "there's no rule for that" questions end up being someone who didn't read or understand what they were reading (or missed something critical).

[2] although, thinking about it, I can't remember the last time someone used a spell (not a class feature) to do so. Sure, they've discussed using a spell as one of several option for doing things, but it's not been because they were afraid of an ability check, but more because it was an alternate path with positive (and negative) features.

Pex

2022-03-14, 12:31 AM

I don't disagree that "roll for everything with a default DC of 15" is a bad state of affairs. I just don't think that adding a bunch of tables will have any positive effect on that.

I think it will because instead of "I don't know. Roll DC 15 I guess." the DM will look at the table to see what's on there most like the situation at hand and use that value. When the DM sees specifically there are examples set at DC 0, DC 5, DC 10 he will learn those are acceptable DC values when he needs to adjudicate things.

And that footnote--that's exactly the problem with tables, in a nutshell. If you give it a DC, people will expect to have to roll for it. In every case, even when it doesn't make sense (no consequences, no pressure, etc). Which will lead to a crap ton more failures. Less rolling, in general, is better for keeping things in balance. Not no rolling, but constraining the use of the d20 to where any of the possible outcomes make sense in the fictional context. To the section of the probability curve where it is (to a first approximation) linear. Doing that removes all the absurdities and reduces the pressure to have casters just "skip" the check.[2]

The 5E DMG does cover this, so given the skill section revamp this could be made more clear. Be explicit. Give a scenario of how a skill use with no roll would work. Not for every table, just one or two in the rules on skill use in general. Bring back Take 10/Take 20 if necessary. It does mean "everything is a roll now", but the effect desired remains. The character can just do it. The character is supposed to know he can just do it.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-14, 06:35 AM

What you want is a computer game. Perfectly repeatable rules that are known in advance or can be figured out and communicated to the community, that are the same for everyone. :smallamused:

That’s not a computer game.

That’s just a game. If you tell me we’re playing monopoly, but suddenly the top hat gets to roll 3 dice, Broadway costs half price for the car and the dog just gets to pick a property whenever they want, we aren’t playing monopoly any more.

Again. You can solve that by a simple "ok guys, use 10 as your default if you really need to roll" statement. 90% of the benefit, 0% of the cost. Adding tables only helps if the things people are trying to do aren't DC 15 or above. I'd actually be fairly confident that people inclined to DC 15 as a baseline will look at it and just pick the things that are DC 15 already. So no effect, but more fixed of a mindset.

Rules teach mindsets. The ACs in the monster manuals adhere with shocking consistency to the guidance provided in the DMG for creating a monster: almost as if they followed it!

Not so much in the published adventures’ DCs and the books definition of “Easy, Moderate and Hard”.

Bad math systems teach bad math habits.

Worse yet, the design philosophy behind proficiencies and expertise is built on an engine we already know struggles under big numbers (3E), so
why were “Big Numbers” the design solve for skill classes?

That just teaches a DM that skill DCs that are too high already should be higher because the skill class keeps hitting where other classes miss, which is not the case in combat, for instance, where every class is hitting with the same accuracy, but with different outcomes.

Same story spell casting: Wizards and Clerics and Bards don’t feel different because of how often they succeed, but because of how they succeed.

If they're using modules, then those modules already give DCs. And they're across the spectrum.

The modules aren’t great for DCs either. Almost as if it’s the fundamental guidance that’s the problem.

But if adding anything to the books would help at all[1], adding an instruction to use DC 10 as your default would work just as well or better than tables. Because tables require either
a) the thing you're looking for to be on them (unlikely unless they're obscenely exhaustive)

Unless you make a context agnostic DC with tier based guidance, and then make outcomes something that modulates (DC <8 fail, 8-12 success with cost, >12 success, for instance). Then ditch “Big Numbers” and have proficiencies and expertise be gates for certain acts, just like in reality, where training enables you to succeed at sophisticated tasks that amateurs can’t ever hope to attempt.

There are multiple solutions to this, just some design effort and philosophy is required.

b) enough introspection to interpolate sanely
AND don't actually constrain the "well, I'll go with the default of 15" issue at all. While taking up lots of space.

500 Spells, 4 monster manuals, more monsters scattered across other books. Space isn’t an issue.

I don't disagree that "roll for everything with a default DC of 15" is a bad state of affairs. I just don't think that adding a bunch of tables will have any positive effect on that.

It coaches players what the math should be. It also coaches players at what baseline outcomes should be. And it coaches players what more complex encounters can look like (see: Dragon Stat Blocks).

Examples teach the game.

And that footnote--that's exactly the problem with tables, in a nutshell. If you give it a DC, people will expect to have to roll for it. In every case, even when it doesn't make sense (no consequences, no pressure, etc). Which will lead to a crap ton more failures. Less rolling, in general, is better for keeping things in balance. Not no rolling, but constraining the use of the d20 to where any of the possible outcomes make sense in the fictional context. To the section of the probability curve where it is (to a first approximation) linear. Doing that removes all the absurdities and reduces the pressure to have casters just "skip" the check.[2]

But it doesn’t fix the problem when you play the “game” part of the game. In principle, skill challenges can (and should) provide a mechanical puzzle that can be as tense and exciting as a combat encounter.

This means it needs the kind of robust math underneath that combat has. Note that the DMG suggests an AC19 as an appropriate target number for CR 20 monsters, and makes the Tarrasque an AC 25. Meanwhile in the skills guidance, DC 25 is presented as “more reasonable” for a 10th level challenge, and DC 30 is presented as the ceiling.

[1] It won't, generally, because most of the issue comes from not really reading things through in the first place. Reading comprehension is actually pretty crappy these days. Even among people who think they're good readers. Most of the "RAW" questions I've seen and the "there's no rule for that" questions end up being someone who didn't read or understand what they were reading (or missed something critical).

Which is why clear tables help things. Right now the example DCs are scattered and presented in ways that people don’t even recognize. One of the Anti-Table crowd even argued Tasha’s doesn’t provide example DCs, despite being full of them.

[2] although, thinking about it, I can't remember the last time someone used a spell (not a class feature) to do so. Sure, they've discussed using a spell as one of several option for doing things, but it's not been because they were afraid of an ability check, but more because it was an alternate path with positive (and negative) features.

Spiderclimb is a ubiquitous problem, especially as it’s being used as a clumsy patch for Barbarians and Dhamphirs. Ditto Misy-Step and Fey Touched and Invisibility and Shadow Touched.

It’s clever enough play, but it’s also the path to homogenous classes with homogenous solutions.

I think it will because instead of "I don't know. Roll DC 15 I guess." the DM will look at the table to see what's on there most like the situation at hand and use that value. When the DM sees specifically there are examples set at DC 0, DC 5, DC 10 he will learn those are acceptable DC values when he needs to adjudicate things.

Spot on. It additionally forces designers to consider the ramifications of their own system.

Psyren

2022-03-14, 12:21 PM

One thing to note is that this is additional work and more cognitive load for the DM to deal with during game. For some of us its fine, no problem. I've had a couple DMs default to everything being the average DC 15 (or hard 20 if it would give the PC an advantage to domething) either because they went "I don't know" during some step of the process, or they just got tired of having to work through the decision process over and over and over. Which is pretty harsh for a bunch of 3rd/4th level characters who are topping out at +7 at their best stuff whenever they want to try anything that isn't an automatic yes.

In before the "but tables will stop me from setting my own DCs!", this isn't about tables that experienced DMs can ignore and bad DMs will ignore, and jerks will be jerks about (like they are with everything else). Its that the process of setting DCs is work, most people don't do stats math in their heads or on the fly, and the effects on play at the table of rolling lots of ability checks isn't obvious. Adding a cognitive load to the DM who is already juggling the scene, NPCs/monsters, remembering rules, and dealing with multiple people who want their attention, will cause more stress to the DM. The expoused system for "doing it right" is not trivial or simple. The system as primarialy presented in the DMG is simple (easy 10 - average 15 - hard 20, binary total success or total failure) but has the "lol-random results" drawback when its used often.

The system is designed for it to be fairly easy to assign a workable DC during the game (DMG 238) but the expectation is still that you're designing challenges - at least the major ones - during your between-session-prep (DMG 5). Assigning a few DCs on the fly is much less of a mental burden than trying to DM by the seat of your pants with all of them. And as a reminder, "assign a DC" is step 3 in the process that should be followed here; providing your players don't abuse it, defaulting to "yes/no" instead of "roll" removes a lot of the stress you're claiming to see, and routinely getting "lol-random results" is a sign that the first two steps are being misapplied. If you don't think it makes sense for someone to fail or succeed, they shouldn't be rolling, nor should they be rolling if a failure or success does nothing of consequence.

And even when those three steps are executed smoothly, step 4 (narrate results) still contains a decision point that's easy for someone who isn't following the DMG guidance to overlook - the possibility of degrees of success/failure. This can also be used to avoid the absurdity that can come with binary pass/fail. If the barbarian is an olympic-class athlete, their consequence for "failing" a particularly difficult climb might be losing a few javelins instead of the fatal fall that the wizard might be faced with.

If the attribute check system didn't hurt game play when a DM defaults to its average DC for lots of checks when they are uncertain, then there would be less stress on novice DMs. As it stands many players prefer to use the magic system to avoid the attribute check system, leading to caster characters having higher success rates at all noncombat activities than noncasters.

As stated above, the martial "success rate" becomes a lot higher when you take into account all the checks where they don't have to roll at all, whether due to the challenge being impossible to fail or nothing preventing them from retrying until they succeed. It also becomes higher if you account for checks where a "failure" for them is a success with a minor inconvenience instead of inability to make progress at all. Utilizing those three techniques is an easy way to give martials nice things without redesigning the system from the ground up.

Here's my (quite solidified over the years of fighting this same battle with the same people) opinion:

I can't see how "add example tables" solves any of the stated concerns except as a stalking horse for full lock-down standardization and "if you deviate, you're cheating."

I've heard twothree(...I'll come in again) basic concerns:

Concern: DMs making bad calls.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Because DMs making bad calls do so, generally, for one or more of a few reasons:
1. They didn't read the existing guidance.
2. They decided not to follow the existing guidance (whether out of hubris or out of mistake or out of malice or out of honest disagreement).
3. They don't think that they're making bad calls.
4. They're not actually making bad calls, it's just the players don't like the calls that they do make. There is a difference here--there are players who get angry at failing or being told no. Even if that's the right thing both by the rules and for the health of the game.

Tables don't affect #1 (because they won't read that guidance) or #2 (because they've consciously decided to go other directions). #4 won't change, because they're already making good calls (and the only issue here is perception, which can't be solved by pointing to the books, since any call that ends up telling them no will receive the same reaction). So #3 is the only place it could change things...and changing anything requires the tables to be the unambiguously right call. In every circumstance. Which they, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature, can't be. In fact, the table DC will be wrong more often than it's right. Or at least imperfect. And also require that the tables actually address what's going on. Which they can't, again, by their fixed and non-exhaustive nature. Unless we railroad everything so it has to come from those tables.

There's also the very possible (nay overwhelmingly likely) possibility that the tables will have garbage in them. Creating a good set of tables that cover all the possibilities requires massive amounts of man-power, editing, play-testing, and a very firm grasp on numerics. None of which are things that WotC has shown any substantial aptitude for. They've got garbage in every other part, letting things that are both overpowered and just plain bad (and loony and nonsense) through the gates. So my expectation is that any such tables would contain just as much garbage. And would probably increase the proportion of garbage, because they'd stretch resources even thinner. So I don't see (personal judgement) adding tables as providing any value to this concern--the frequency of bad calls won't substantially change, and now those few that happen to line up with books will just have more fuel for argument on either/both sides. Net negative value provided.

Concern: I have to re-learn how to play at every table because the DCs change.
How will tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Not unless every DM must use those tables and only those tables. And the tables are exhaustive. Because this can't be meaningfully addressed (as a global matter) without full standardization and a culture that says departure is bad. And, furthermore, that won't happen. Because some people won't read them or decide to do it differently. There will always be variance. Variance is inevitable. 5e embraces that variance and accepts it. A hypothetical system that achieves low variance will also require killing most of the things I enjoy about D&D and TTRPGs in general.

Concern: The DMG's guidance is poor and people don't learn how to DM.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. In fact, they make it worse. Tables are bad scaffolding for learning. Speaking as a (former) teacher, tables act like a cheat sheet. Great for "getting the right answer" (if the answer is on the sheet), horrible and counterproductive for actually learning.

Note: This does not mean that the DMG's guidance is great or can't be improved. I absolutely think it can. Having worked, explained examples of doing Psyren's 4-step method would be a massive improvement IMO. But a set of bare tables? Worse than useless for teaching.

-----

So from my perspective, tables don't actually address the stated concerns unless there's full mandatory standardization. And carry strong intrinsic costs[1]. Which makes me highly loath to support the developers[2] spending any time on this.

[1] Time spent editing, writing, and play-testing those tables (and they'd need tons of it) detracts from time spent doing actually useful things for the rest of the game. And adding 50+ pages (ie a 30% increase in the size of the DMG) means they'd have to cut out other stuff, since there are binding page limits. Those are all costs.
[2] If a table or group of tables wants to do this--feel free. You don't have to standardize the whole game to standardize your own tables. All it takes is discussion with the DMs and a willingness to not play at some tables.[3]
[3] Which leads to another point. If standardization has so many benefits, show your (generic) work. Do the leg work to do a proof of concept at a smaller group of tables. Then report on that. Persuade, don't compel. Heck, as a starting point for the tables you could take the PF version and cut all the DCs in half, plus rename the skills as appropriate.

All of this but especially the second concern.

But again, what is Easy and what is Hard is whatever the DM feels like that day so it tells the player nothing. That's an important missing element to the probabilities. Is that wall Easy to climb? The player doesn't know. The DM makes it up, so the DM determines whether he can or not. The PC wants to climb the wall, not the DM. The PC should know if he can by his own ability.

Whether the wall is Easy, Medium or Hard, there are still two steps that come before that roll. If it's possible but not trivial and failing the attempt has no consequence, eventually your character will make it up the wall, so the DM should just skip to that part. If it is possible but not trivial AND failing the attempt has a meaningful consequence, then the player not knowing immediately whether they will succeed at their attempt is the whole point, the encounter has been designed with that uncertainty in mind.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-14, 12:49 PM

Concern: DMs making bad calls.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. Because DMs making bad calls do so, generally, for one or more of a few reasons:
1. They didn't read the existing guidance.
A major point of contention is that the guidance is insufficient, so this point doesn't hold. The point of the sample DCs is to provide better guidance.

2. They decided not to follow the existing guidance (whether out of hubris or out of mistake or out of malice or out of honest disagreement).
This assumes that following the existing guidance will result in good calls, and not following it, even in honest disagreement, will result in bad calls.

This seems much less "freeing" for the DM than has been argued before. It suggests, again, a "correct" way to run the game. Which begs the question... why not spell that out?

3. They don't think that they're making bad calls.
Very likely, yes.

4. They're not actually making bad calls, it's just the players don't like the calls that they do make. There is a difference here--there are players who get angry at failing or being told no. Even if that's the right thing both by the rules and for the health of the game.
Yikes. So far we have malicious, arrogant, or mistaken DMs that don't want to read, or players throwing tantrums because they don't like failing.

To uphold the sanctity of the DMG, we must strike down any and all that might suggest sample DCs can assist DMs.

Tables don't affect #1 (because they won't read that guidance) or #2 (because they've consciously decided to go other directions).
But what if they do read the guidance?

#4 won't change, because they're already making good calls (and the only issue here is perception, which can't be solved by pointing to the books, since any call that ends up telling them no will receive the same reaction).
This is a people problem. Nothing will solve this.

So #3 is the only place it could change things...and changing anything requires the tables to be the unambiguously right call. In every circumstance.
So what is a "bad call"? How can bad calls exist? How can you judge all the DMs and players you are judging right now to be "doing it wrong" if there is no "right call" to make? We're supposed to follow the guidance and the guidance is "the DM gets to make the call". What knowledge do you have that lets you be the arbiter of good and bad calls?

Concern: The DMG's guidance is poor and people don't learn how to DM.
How do tables help: They don'tI don't see them helping much if at all. In fact, they make it worse. Tables are bad scaffolding for learning. Speaking as a (former) teacher, tables act like a cheat sheet. Great for "getting the right answer" (if the answer is on the sheet), horrible and counterproductive for actually learning.

It's a game, and cheat sheets can help move the game along. There is nothing wrong with them. Remember, it's suggesting a starting point for the DM to work off. They can still add/subtract modifiers, etc as they deem fit. It's not a big deal; this seems like more of a hang-up on your part (for lack of a better term).

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-14, 01:04 PM

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-14, 02:05 PM

We have people in this thread, and the one before, claiming that the guidance is pretty clear and that if people just read it they will be fine. That it's not that difficult to come up with the DCs.

So if we look at stuck doors and locked doors in dungeons, it sounds like you and others wouldn't have a hard time assigning DCs.

It sounds like maybe a stuck door requires some talent (strength) but not necessarily training, so DC 10. But picking a lock may require talent and training, so let's say DC 15.

Is the variance between dungeon doors going to run such a wide spectrum that a small table with sample Dungeoneering DCs is going to lead everyone astray? Is PheonixPhyre going to come up with wildly different DCs for forcing open a wooden door than what Psyren does?

If the DCs are not wildly different, is a table doing that much harm?

If the DCs are wildly different, is one of these a bad call and the other abiding by the guidance?

Telok

2022-03-14, 02:46 PM

A bad call is one the group finds to destroy fun. And those are possible in a whole host of various ways. Is the present guidance perfect? No. Will it always lead to good calls? No. Will printed tables help? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. And will likely cause more bad calls. Because printed tables are inflexible, and once you're in the habit of using them, leave you less suited to adapting to the group's needs.

Actually I and the DMs I've talked to who went from AD&D to 3.0 found the skill tables helpful at that time because they told us what the expected number ranges for different activities were in the new system. Considering it had been "just make something up" and modules using everything from d20 under, 3d6 under, percentile, saves, roll 5+ on a d6, etc, for that in AD&D the tables gave me a starting point to gauge what the system baseline should be.

Frogreaver

2022-03-14, 02:56 PM

We have people in this thread, and the one before, claiming that the guidance is pretty clear and that if people just read it they will be fine. That it's not that difficult to come up with the DCs.

So if we look at stuck doors and locked doors in dungeons, it sounds like you and others wouldn't have a hard time assigning DCs.

It sounds like maybe a stuck door requires some talent (strength) but not necessarily training, so DC 10. But picking a lock may require talent and training, so let's say DC 15.

Is the variance between dungeon doors going to run such a wide spectrum that a small table with sample Dungeoneering DCs is going to lead everyone astray? Is PheonixPhyre going to come up with wildly different DCs for forcing open a wooden door than what Psyren does?

If the DCs are not wildly different, is a table doing that much harm?

If the DCs are wildly different, is one of these a bad call and the other abiding by the guidance?

Setting the DC is not just about the door though. There’s a bit of ‘bad simulationism’ in the thinking here. The DC considers the circumstances, the consequence and their relationships toward each other.

An example: door is stuck. You decide there’s uncertainty not around whether they will open the door but whether doing so will cause too much noise for the patrols to hear. Strength check here determines the ease you open the door and the easier you open the door the less noise it makes.

What should the DC be here? There would not be an entry on a table for it, because the check wasn’t called for to see if you could open the door but to see if you made too much noise in doing so. And that dc would also factor in the frequency of patrols, their awareness, etc.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-14, 03:05 PM

The system is designed for it to be fairly easy to assign a workable DC during the game (DMG 238)

And those DCs produce bad results, both due to poorly worded language, bad mechanical assumptions and the lack of granularity between steps (25% is a bigger swing than proficiency increases cover over 20 levels)

but the expectation is still that you're designing challenges - at least the major ones - during your between-session-prep (DMG 5). Assigning a few DCs on the fly is much less of a mental burden than trying to DM by the seat of your pants with all of them. And as a reminder, "assign a DC" is step 3 in the process that should be followed here; providing your players don't abuse it, defaulting to "yes/no" instead of "roll" removes a lot of the stress you're claiming to see, and routinely getting "lol-random results" is a sign that the first two steps are being misapplied. If you don't think it makes sense for someone to fail or succeed, they shouldn't be rolling, nor should they be rolling if a failure or success does nothing of consequence.

Definitely. This is where clearly laid out tables that are legible and straightforward are so helpful. Quick reference and easy adjudication.

And even when those three steps are executed smoothly, step 4 (narrate results) still contains a decision point that's easy for someone who isn't following the DMG guidance to overlook - the possibility of degrees of success/failure. This can also be used to avoid the absurdity that can come with binary pass/fail. If the barbarian is an olympic-class athlete, their consequence for "failing" a particularly difficult climb might be losing a few javelins instead of the fatal fall that the wizard might be faced with.

Unfortunately the rules are woefully underdeveloped in this regard, suggesting:

Granting a hit on a hobgoblin in exchange for something later defined as an attack action, which implies that the cost of missing an attack roll by 1 means a hobgoblin might be entitled to a free attack, no reaction, in exchange for a hit being allowed.

Giving fireballs the ability to know people prone.

Causing other characters to fail or risk death for allowing that character to succeed.

On the whole, not great advice.

Degrees of failure provide slightly better advice, though both examples assume binary checks, and suggests throwing a character in a dungeon as the consequence for one failed check.

Littered throughout here are clear examples of why the binary mechanic is a bad one, and the multiple check advice being silent on the concept of multiple successes and failures.

As stated above, the martial "success rate" becomes a lot higher when you take into account all the checks where they don't have to roll at all, whether due to the challenge being impossible to fail or nothing preventing them from retrying until they succeed. It also becomes higher if you account for checks where a "failure" for them is a success with a minor inconvenience instead of inability to make progress at all. Utilizing those three techniques is an easy way to give martials nice things without redesigning the system from the ground up.

Why does this apply only to Martials? Are you suggesting that class should play a role in determining whether a character needs to roll or not?

Like, does a rogue with thieves tools prof get to open a lock for free, but the Wizard with thieves tools does not?

Or is this simple a benefit for all classes, and Casters get a jar of cherries on top?

Whether the wall is Easy, Medium or Hard, there are still two steps that come before that roll. If it's possible but not trivial and failing the attempt has no consequence, eventually your character will make it up the wall, so the DM should just skip to that part. If it is possible but not trivial AND failing the attempt has a meaningful consequence, then the player not knowing immediately whether they will succeed at their attempt is the whole point, the encounter has been designed with that uncertainty in mind.

The degree of uncertainty is the issue with the mechanics of course. Peter and Petra arrive at a wildly different set of DCs following your and the DMGs guidance.

And to be clear, your 4 steps aren’t the problem. It’s the DMG’s guidance that are.

A major point of contention is that the guidance is insufficient, so this point doesn't hold. The point of the sample DCs is to provide better guidance.

Precisely. And to help calibrate the expectations of the system. Statements like “a DC 25 task is very hard for low-level adventurers to accomplish, but it becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so” clang hard with the fact that a 10th level adventurer should expect to have a +4 or +5 in their best ability score and a +4 prof bonus.

That means a 20-25% chance of success, improving from the 5% chance at level 1. A 15% improvement is more reasonable?

It gets worse if that’s not their prime stat: a fighter with +2 Charisma is likely only getting a +6, or a 10% chance of success.

This isn’t even the peak of DCs either.

This assumes that following the existing guidance will result in good calls, and not following it, even in honest disagreement, will result in bad calls.

Which, by the Petra/Peter problem, we’ve proven false. Following the existing guidance can result in a 65-110% swing in success rates based on judging something to be “Easy” for someone with talent and training or simply “Hard”. And that’s not including the edge cases of Very Easy and Nearly Impossible, which produce an even worse swing.

This seems much less "freeing" for the DM than has been argued before. It suggests, again, a "correct" way to run the game. Which begs the question... why not spell that out?

Indeed

Yikes. So far we have malicious, arrogant, or mistaken DMs that don't want to read, or players throwing tantrums because they don't like failing.

Yeah. Peter and Petra must either be definitively shown to be violating the advice, or we must assume they are good DMs.

Assuming player or DM malice or incompetence is a poor defense for demonstrably bad design.

To uphold the sanctity of the DMG, we must strike down any and all that might suggest sample DCs can assist DMs.

Despite the DMG being full of said examples, poorly laid out. It’s an absurd position.

But what if they do read the guidance?

Then they’ll produce results with a 65-110% variance, with average characters still failing 30-50% of the time at best.

It's a game, and cheat sheets can help move the game along. There is nothing wrong with them. Remember, it's suggesting a starting point for the DM to work off. They can still add/subtract modifiers, etc as they deem fit. It's not a big deal; this seems like more of a hang-up on your part (for lack of a better term).

Precisely. Homebrew is usually better with a framework. Goblins with Tarrasque ACs are usually bad homebrew, and the examples can demonstrate this.

A bad call is one the group finds to destroy fun. And those are possible in a whole host of various ways. Is the present guidance perfect? No. Will it always lead to good calls? No. Will printed tables help? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. And will likely cause more bad calls. Because printed tables are inflexible, and once you're in the habit of using them, leave you less suited to adapting to the group's needs.

500+ Spells and Over a thousand pages of monsters says otherwise.

Somehow with all these printed examples, the game actually runs better than if Goblin, Dragon and Troll are left undefined for DMs to homebrew.

If you can’t adapt a DC15 tree to suit your need for a DC 20 tree, I’m not sure what you’re doing.

Psyren

2022-03-14, 03:40 PM

We have people in this thread, and the one before, claiming that the guidance is pretty clear and that if people just read it they will be fine. That it's not that difficult to come up with the DCs.

I think it's important to be clear about what "they will be fine" means. It doesn't mean the DM is immune from mistakes or bad calls forever. It also doesn't mean the DM isn't allowed to change their mind on a task's difficulty or parameters. DMs are still human.

What it does mean is that we believe the benefits gained by embracing uncertainty and open-ended resolution outweigh these drawbacks. The order of operations for resolution are more likely to occur in the right sequence, i.e. determining if a roll even makes sense - which is good news for martials since absent a spell effect they're more likely to get a "yes" here than a caster will. The DM also isn't handcuffed to or need to keep track of a table when they're designing their own challenges, they can do so simply by thinking through the challenge itself. And lastly, both the page space and playtesting can be better utilized for other things.

So if we look at stuck doors and locked doors in dungeons, it sounds like you and others wouldn't have a hard time assigning DCs.

It sounds like maybe a stuck door requires some talent (strength) but not necessarily training, so DC 10. But picking a lock may require talent and training, so let's say DC 15.

Is the variance between dungeon doors going to run such a wide spectrum that a small table with sample Dungeoneering DCs is going to lead everyone astray? Is PheonixPhyre going to come up with wildly different DCs for forcing open a wooden door than what Psyren does?

If the DCs are not wildly different, is a table doing that much harm?

If the DCs are wildly different, is one of these a bad call and the other abiding by the guidance?

This is a good example of what I mean. The DM has to think through the challenge. Should this stuck door be easier to get through with finesse than strength? Harder? The same? If you had "unjam door, DC 20 Strength, DC 15 Thieves' Tools" then not only are you declaring all doors in the world to be stuck in exactly the same way, you're also once again encouraging any DM who sees your table to skip the vital first two steps that might have just let the Barbarian break it down or the Rogue spring it without a roll at all.

As for the DCs being wildly different, again if you're going above 20 you're saying "magic is probably required to succeed here." Which for a mundane stuck door probably isn't the case, so if that's the DC you're getting either the DM is misapplying the guidance or there is more to that door than meets the eye.

Setting the DC is not just about the door though. There’s a bit of ‘bad simulationism’ in the thinking here. The DC considers the circumstances, the consequence and their relationships toward each other.

An example: door is stuck. You decide there’s uncertainty not around whether they will open the door but whether doing so will cause too much noise for the patrols to hear. Strength check here determines the ease you open the door and the easier you open the door the less noise it makes.

What should the DC be here? There would not be an entry on a table for it, because the check wasn’t called for to see if you could open the door but to see if you made too much noise in doing so. And that dc would also factor in the frequency of patrols, their awareness, etc.

This as well, step two. A listed DC tells you nothing about the consequences save the obvious ones (your attempt fails) which is not meaningful in and of itself, it's just a waste of precious time at the table rolling dice for no real reason. A table with "unjam door" on it encourages this kind of time-wasting and makes it more likely that martials can simply fail at routine tasks, especially thanks to the bounded accuracy the system is built on.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-14, 04:01 PM

Psyren

2022-03-14, 04:14 PM

There is absolutely no reason why language could not be added to preserve the "First determine if a roll is needed... If a roll is needed, there are tables with sample DCs in them...". So there is no skipping of vital steps. You are saying that happens, but it doesn't necessarily happen. You are worried about human failings, so you leave the system wide open to human failings.

With regards to Frogweaver's comment, language can be included to highlight that as well. I don't understand why people think the current guidance is being read, but the inclusion of tables will mean that suddenly DMs stop reading the other guidance. It doesn't make sense and/or I don't know why we don't just dismiss those DMs as bad DMs as well and recognize that tables can assist good DMs.

Sure they can try that but come on. How many times in 3.5 have people gravitated to the table and overlooked the text, only to be told in various forum arguments that they're wrong because text trumps table? Or even with this one table in the DMG we have now, how many people have exclaimed "But what does Moderate mean?? What does Hard mean??" when the text immediately surrounding that table actually answers that very question?

So when we say we're skeptical about "more tables" even helping at all, much less doing so more than their drawbacks and costs, we have reason to be.

Finally, with regards to wildly varying DCs, the DMG itself says "if you stick to Easy, Moderate, Hard your game will be just peachy keen". So we're talking about assigning examples with 1 of 3 different numbers...

The game says it runs fine without magic items too. That advice is aimed more at newer DMs who probably won't reach high levels, or at least by the time they do they'll be experienced enough to have a much better sense for when a DC 25 or 30 check is warranted.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-14, 04:15 PM

"Text trumps table" was definitely a mantra at the time (probably still is), so it's a good point.

Frogreaver

2022-03-14, 04:22 PM

With regards to Frogweaver's comment, language can be included to highlight that as well. I don't understand why people think the current guidance is being read, but the inclusion of tables will mean that suddenly DMs stop reading the other guidance. It doesn't make sense and/or I don't know why we don't just dismiss those DMs as bad DMs as well and recognize that tables can assist good DMs..

I think you are missing my point. 5e skill checks regarding opening a door need not be around how hard it is to pick the lock or bust it down with failure being you donÂ’t get through the door. 5e skill checks arent that kind of simulation. (Or at least need not be.

5e skill checks related to opening doors are often going to be related to something involving the totality of the scene. Like, Does opening this door make noise that alerts guards? Does slamming the axe into the door till it breaks also break the axe? Did picking the lock to get through end up cause some subtle signs of tampering that someone with a trained eye could notice? Do you open the door fast enough before the room finishes filling with poison gas.

The questions being answered here by Skill checks arenÂ’t the kinds of things that can be codified into a table. By and large the table isnÂ’t going to be able to cover as a baseline a meaningful amount of examples. And this is just for doors!

I don’t question whether people will read and follow the table and advice, I question whether the table is even going to be capable of containing all the kinds of example DCs we need to run 5e effectively.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-14, 04:48 PM

What it does mean is that we believe the benefits gained by embracing uncertainty and open-ended resolution outweigh these drawbacks. The order of operations for resolution are more likely to occur in the right sequence, i.e. determining if a roll even makes sense - which is good news for martials since absent a spell effect they're more likely to get a "yes" here than a caster will.

Wait, what?

Why? Why is a caster less likely to get a yes?

This isn’t supported either by the DMG or PHB.

If yeses are more likely, the. Casters benefit as much as Martials. More so, because they will have more spell slots for when the answer is no.

The DM also isn't handcuffed to or need to keep track of a table when they're designing their own challenges, they can do so simply by thinking through the challenge itself. And lastly, both the page space and playtesting can be better utilized for other things.

Tables don’t handcuff anyone. It is far less work to implement a predesigned challenge from a stat block than to self design one.

Forcing them to homebrew is the handcuff.

As far as page space and play testing: what praytell needs more attention than 66% of the game? Combat is pretty fine tuned.

As for the DCs being wildly different, again if you're going above 20 you're saying "magic is probably required to succeed here." Which for a mundane stuck door probably isn't the case, so if that's the DC you're getting either the DM is misapplying the guidance or there is more to that door than meets the eye.

That contradicts the text of the DMG, which states a DC 25 should be considered “more reasonable for a 10th level character”. Nowhere is magic even invoked regarding even the “nearly impossible”

And even with 20 as the normal cieling, the Peter/Petra problem looms: Petra’s DC10 with proficiency is Peter’s DC20 without. 60-110% swings are not good design nor guidance, nor are 3 degrees of 25% jumps and assuming a 20% rate of failure for talented and trained professionals performing easy tasks

10% granularity is a far better starting point, and assuming talented and trained professionals should only fail 10% or less at Easy tasks is a far superior baseline.

This as well, step two. A listed DC tells you nothing about the consequences save the obvious ones (your attempt fails) which is not meaningful in and of itself, it's just a waste of precious time at the table rolling dice for no real reason. A table with "unjam door" on it encourages this kind of time-wasting and makes it more likely that martials can simply fail at routine tasks, especially thanks to the bounded accuracy the system is built on.

Which is why consequences are something that should be designed. There’s a reason modern games are eschewing Meat Points for things like Stress or DM or PC facing Clocks.

You can abstract failure and let the players narrate the abstraction, allowing a bad series of social checks or a frustrating series of survival checks to initiate an anxiety attack that compels a character to retire, or worse.

That’s ANOTHER mechanical problem with 5Es ability checks: while combat assumes HP as the resource typically risked when you fail your checks, skills make no such assumptions. Peter might not assign any penalty beyond not achieving your stated intent, while Petra might decide the exhaustion mechanics make for great consequences for failure, forgetting they cost a 5th level spell to remove (Well done JC and MM!)

Radical outcomes from what should be consistent rules.

There is absolutely no reason why language could not be added to preserve the "First determine if a roll is needed... If a roll is needed, there are tables with sample DCs in them...". So there is no skipping of vital steps. You are saying that happens, but it doesn't necessarily happen. You are worried about human failings, so you leave the system wide open to human failings.

Concurred. Peter and Petra are running very different games of Blackmoor, because they have to invent systems with the incomplete mechanics they are offered, with the panacea being: don’t call for ability checks.

If the solution is “ignore the system” then why do I even have a system

With regards to Frogweaver's comment, language can be included to highlight that as well. I don't understand why people think the current guidance is being read, but the inclusion of tables will mean that suddenly DMs stop reading the other guidance. It doesn't make sense and/or I don't know why we don't just dismiss those DMs as bad DMs as well and recognize that tables can assist good DMs.

Precisely. If anything, the tables will prompt people to read the guidance for context, rather than people glossing the guidance in the rush of running a game and missing key details.

Finally, with regards to wildly varying DCs, the DMG itself says "if you stick to Easy, Moderate, Hard your game will be just peachy keen". So we're talking about assigning examples with 1 of 3 different numbers...

Plus DC Yes and DC No

That produces a 50% swing, exacerbated by the loose application of proficiencies and expertise (another 10-60% swing) and once a DM decides something is harder than hard, then it’s DC No.

When that dry and rough cave wall was DC20 to climb, feels bad for the rogue with expertise when they try to climb the icy glacier.

Telok

2022-03-14, 04:49 PM

I question whether the table is even going to be capable of containing all the kinds of example DCs we need to run 5e effectively.

The heck is your table doing? All the 5e checks I've seen are the same stuff D&D characters have been doing since 1985. Jump, climb, swim, kick in doors, tie knots, lift heavy stuff, lasso, calm horses, train griffons, drive wagons, pick locks, decipher magic runes, remember history, lie to villans, chat up bar maids, identify herbs, put dragons in chokeholds (ok, that last one is just an autofail in this ed). This isn't some amazing new paradigm of gaming, its the same stuff with barely different numbers than low level 3e/4e.

Psyren

2022-03-14, 04:56 PM

The heck is your table doing? All the 5e checks I've seen are the same stuff D&D characters have been doing since 1985. Jump, climb, swim, kick in doors, tie knots, lift heavy stuff, lasso, calm horses, train griffons, drive wagons, pick locks, decipher magic runes, remember history, lie to villans, chat up bar maids, identify herbs, put dragons in chokeholds (ok, that last one is just an autofail in this ed). This isn't some amazing new paradigm of gaming, its the same stuff with barely different numbers than low level 3e/4e.

Appeal to Tradition aside, the whole point is to improve on 1985 design. For example - depending on the martial in question, a bunch of this stuff probably doesn't need a roll at all, and will only have bizarre results when combined with a bounded accuracy system that limits how far above any meaningful DC even a maestro, guru, virtuoso or ace can go mathematically. This leads to experts failing and novices succeeding incongruously when they shouldn't be.

And why can't you put a dragon in a chokehold in 5e?

Pex

2022-03-14, 05:00 PM

Whether the wall is Easy, Medium or Hard, there are still two steps that come before that roll. If it's possible but not trivial and failing the attempt has no consequence, eventually your character will make it up the wall, so the DM should just skip to that part. If it is possible but not trivial AND failing the attempt has a meaningful consequence, then the player not knowing immediately whether they will succeed at their attempt is the whole point, the encounter has been designed with that uncertainty in mind.

The issue is the DM being convinced no roll is needed in the first place. The rules advise the DM not to have a roll when something is trivial, but once the DM thinks climbing a wall or tree is not trivial there will be a roll and no yelling by you he's doing it wrong will make him wrong because the DMG tells him he's allowed to do that. The game needs to be more explicit. Show him what things adventurers can do that are trivial. DC 0 entries on tables is one way to do it. Another way is to let everything be a roll but use Take 10/Take 20 rules so that's used in place of the roll to achieve the same effect. The character is good enough he can just do it, and the DM need not worry about it at all.

Setting the DC is not just about the door though. There’s a bit of ‘bad simulationism’ in the thinking here. The DC considers the circumstances, the consequence and their relationships toward each other.

An example: door is stuck. You decide there’s uncertainty not around whether they will open the door but whether doing so will cause too much noise for the patrols to hear. Strength check here determines the ease you open the door and the easier you open the door the less noise it makes.

What should the DC be here? There would not be an entry on a table for it, because the check wasn’t called for to see if you could open the door but to see if you made too much noise in doing so. And that dc would also factor in the frequency of patrols, their awareness, etc.

Since the issue is not opening the door but how much noise it makes that's a Stealth check not an Open Doors check. The DM can adjudicate to say it's a Stealth (ST) check as opposed to Stealth (DX) check. The DC is the Passive Perception of someone or some monster who happens to be nearby who may hear it. The skill rules should be clear on how to do opposed rolls.

Psyren

2022-03-14, 05:09 PM

The issue is the DM being convinced no roll is needed in the first place. The rules advise the DM not to have a roll when something is trivial, but once the DM thinks climbing a wall or tree is not trivial there will be a roll and no yelling by you he's doing it wrong will make him wrong because the DMG tells him he's allowed to do that.

You skipped a step, he's also required to have a meaningful consequence for failure. Lack of triviality+impossibility alone are not enough. Otherwise, the player saying "I want to try again until I succeed" needs a narrative justification for why that wouldn't work. And if they've come up with that, then congratulations, there's a reason the failure is meaningful and therefore nothing to complain about unless the DC is well out of whack.

The game needs to be more explicit. Show him what things adventurers can do that are trivial. DC 0 entries on tables is one way to do it.

No, because whether something is trivial may have no relation to DC at all. Something that was hard for you initially, like identifying a very obscure herb, likely doesn't require a roll anymore once you know what it is. You can't then edit the table to say "it was DC 20, now it's DC 0."

Another way is to let everything be a roll but use Take 10/Take 20 rules so that's used in place of the roll to achieve the same effect. The character is good enough he can just do it, and the DM need not worry about it at all.

"Let everything be a roll" is still putting the cart before the horse/starting from step 3. Exactly the kind of behavior a bunch of DC tables would encourage.

The last sentence is fine, but you don't need a bunch of example tables to get there (and in fact, they're more likely to get in the way.)

Pex

2022-03-14, 05:32 PM

You skipped a step, he's also required to have a meaningful consequence for failure. Lack of triviality+impossibility alone are not enough. Otherwise, the player saying "I want to try again until I succeed" needs a narrative justification for why that wouldn't work. And if they've come up with that, then congratulations, there's a reason the failure is meaningful and therefore nothing to complain about unless the DC is well out of whack.

No, because whether something is trivial may have no relation to DC at all. Something that was hard for you initially, like identifying a very obscure herb, likely doesn't require a roll anymore once you know what it is. You can't then edit the table to say "it was DC 20, now it's DC 0."

"Let everything be a roll" is still putting the cart before the horse/starting from step 3. Exactly the kind of behavior a bunch of DC tables would encourage.

The last sentence is fine, but you don't need a bunch of example tables to get there (and in fact, they're more likely to get in the way.)

Or the DM thinks once you try something and fail you can't try again because you just can't do it unless the situation changes. Like the manacles example in the prequel thread. Once the barbarian tried and failed to break the manacles he can't try again because it's determined he can't break them. Something needs to change - he got a buff, the manacles get damaged - to justify in the DM's mind he can try again.

If you're that concerned for a knowledge check that once a PC rolls and determines he knows something the DM will make him roll again the next time he need to know that same thing you have that explained to the DM before or after the knowledge tables a PC doesn't need to roll again. Be explicit.

Psyren

2022-03-14, 05:38 PM

Once the barbarian tried and failed to break the manacles he can't try again because it's determined he can't break them.

"Can't break them" means it was impossible and he shouldn't have been asked to roll in the first place. Step 1.

MoiMagnus

2022-03-14, 05:53 PM

"Can't break them" means it was impossible and he shouldn't have been asked to roll in the first place. Step 1.

I think Pex is referring to the method of GMing where the result of a roll determine what reality was in the first place.

Need to climb a wall, put some average DC like 10 and if the PC roll low, then that means that the wall was unpractical to climb. Maybe not enough handles, maybe the kind of material is inappropriate, maybe it's still slippy from a recent rain. At the contrary, if the PC roll high, maybe there was some luckily placed handle like a brick slightly misaligned.

Need to remember some information, the roll of the die might indicate whether or not the character's teacher knew about this information and taught it to the PC.

Or back at the manacle, the roll of the die might indicate the quality of the metal used. And a bad roll might mean that breaking this manacle was impossible in the first place while a good roll mean that it was doable.

This approach is not compatible with a character rolling multiple times for the same task (and a little difficult to adapt when multiple different characters try the same task), but the advantage is that it helps to justify the high variance of a d20: so many occasion to be lucky or unlucky. It's not just the character being particularly skillfull, as the skillfullness is mostly represented by the constant skill bonus.

Frogreaver

2022-03-14, 07:36 PM

I think Pex is referring to the method of GMing where the result of a roll determine what reality was in the first place.

Need to climb a wall, put some average DC like 10 and if the PC roll low, then that means that the wall was unpractical to climb. Maybe not enough handles, maybe the kind of material is inappropriate, maybe it's still slippy from a recent rain. At the contrary, if the PC roll high, maybe there was some luckily placed handle like a brick slightly misaligned.

Need to remember some information, the roll of the die might indicate whether or not the character's teacher knew about this information and taught it to the PC.

Or back at the manacle, the roll of the die might indicate the quality of the metal used. And a bad roll might mean that breaking this manacle was impossible in the first place while a good roll mean that it was doable.

This approach is not compatible with a character rolling multiple times for the same task (and a little difficult to adapt when multiple different characters try the same task), but the advantage is that it helps to justify the high variance of a d20: so many occasion to be lucky or unlucky. It's not just the character being particularly skillfull, as the skillfullness is mostly represented by the constant skill bonus.

Another great example of skills functioning in a way that makes a table format impractical.

Since the issue is not opening the door but how much noise it makes that's a Stealth check not an Open Doors check. The DM can adjudicate to say it's a Stealth (ST) check as opposed to Stealth (DX) check. The DC is the Passive Perception of someone or some monster who happens to be nearby who may hear it. The skill rules should be clear on how to do opposed rolls.

It depends on how you frame it. In my game the check is about whether you have the strength to open the door without it making too much noise to alert the guards. That's a strength check. No dex, stealth or passive perception involved.

You could frame the scenario different but similar such that the check is about whether the nearby guards are alerted by the noise the heavy door is making. In this case I'd have it be stealth (str).

This just further highlights the problems of standardized dc tables though. Which framing is 'correct'?

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-14, 08:43 PM

Another great example of skills functioning in a way that makes a table format impractical.

What? Table generated emergent game play loves tables like this to give them an answer to the question they were asking.

Whether you’re rolling to determine curated outcomes, or rolling to inspire your improvised description of the resolution, having a table with a universal value you can quickly riff off of is super valuable.

Tables engender this type of play.

It depends on how you frame it. In my game the check is about whether you have the strength to open the door without it making too much noise to alert the guards. That's a strength check. No dex, stealth or passive perception involved.

What’s the DC?

You could frame the scenario different but similar such that the check is about whether the nearby guards are alerted by the noise the heavy door is making. In this case I'd have it be stealth (str).

And in both these instances, those two contrasting examples would function greatly with a static DC system, where you simply modulate the roll and the player knows what the malus is beforehand, allowing them to judge with their characters interior knowledge of the world.

This just further highlights the problems of standardized dc tables though. Which framing is 'correct'?

The one that creates the best play experience. If you already know how to frame things, or if you have one style that suits you, you don’t need them and can ignore them at your leisure. For those who are learning, or those of us who don’t always want to play the mode, those tables give the frame that either makes the load lighter for the amateur to carry or the experienced DM to carry with one hand while they juggle with the other.

There’s a certain joy of playing Casino D&D as well, and those tables really support it too.

I think Pex is referring to the method of GMing where the result of a roll determine what reality was in the first place.

And that’s a great mode of play: resolve the mechanics first, then tell me how you’re gonna do this.

The mechanics are the prompt for the improvisational narrative, rather then the improvisational narrative being the prompt for the mechanics, which can be jarring if they don’t align. While it’s funny the first time the Paladin describes their mighty swinging axe crashing down on the orcs shield before they roll a 1, the fifth time gets tired

Often more interesting to describe the aftermath of a success than tell the setup to a punchline of a bad roll.

This approach is not compatible with a character rolling multiple times for the same task (and a little difficult to adapt when multiple different characters try the same task), but the advantage is that it helps to justify the high variance of a d20: so many occasion to be lucky or unlucky. It's not just the character being particularly skillfull, as the skillfullness is mostly represented by the constant skill bonus.

It can be though. You simply have to narrate consequences of failure that permit a retry. On the third try, after slipping on the wet rocks and cutting both knees (2d4 points of damage), you find the two handholds you couldn’t catch before, one hand slipping before the other could take purchase, allowing you to pull yourself up to the ledge and up the cliff.

Meanwhile Borko the gnome yes ands, having rolled better, revealing that their lighter weight allowed for them to grab handholds you could not on a single try, while Forko the Dwarf, who rolled a fail and then a pass, was going to make it but you dragged them down on your second fall.

Sometimes the consequences of failure might be DC No, but usually for pacing reason.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-14, 09:11 PM

I think you are missing my point. 5e skill checks regarding opening a door need not be around how hard it is to pick the lock or bust it down with failure being you donÂ’t get through the door. 5e skill checks arent that kind of simulation. (Or at least need not be.)
This is fair, but skill checks are still checks that require DCs and the guidance around setting those DCs is what we're arguing about.

5e skill checks related to opening doors are often going to be related to something involving the totality of the scene. Like, Does opening this door make noise that alerts guards? Does slamming the axe into the door till it breaks also break the axe? Did picking the lock to get through end up cause some subtle signs of tampering that someone with a trained eye could notice? Do you open the door fast enough before the room finishes filling with poison gas.
I'm not sure how these are related to the DCs to do those things.

Are these examples of failing-but-succeeding?

The questions being answered here by Skill checks arenÂ’t the kinds of things that can be codified into a table. By and large the table isnÂ’t going to be able to cover as a baseline a meaningful amount of examples. And this is just for doors!
Well, I don't think we're asking for that. The consequences of the action seem separate to the DC to succeed at the action.

That said, the game does provide stuff like this for a Chase sequences, as an example, providing obstacles that might get in your way and what happens if you pass/fail the DC to avoid them.

I don’t question whether people will read and follow the table and advice, I question whether the table is even going to be capable of containing all the kinds of example DCs we need to run 5e effectively.
It just seems like they can do it because there's so many other things already codified.

Or even with this one table in the DMG we have now, how many people have exclaimed "But what does Moderate mean?? What does Hard mean??" when the text immediately surrounding that table actually answers that very question?
To clarify, the question isn't "Does moderate mean training with talent, oh look it's right in the next paragraph!!" The question is how do DMs know what is required for various skills that:

1. Medieval people do.
2. Medieval Adventurers, a breed of their own, do.
3. Medieval Adventurers do when they are in combat or the walls are closing in or the room is filling with poison gas, etc.
4. Medieval Adventurers do when they are matching wits with an immortal being of energy that is smarter than the smartest genius and has had eons to contemplate their plans, etc.

Saying "Moderate means talent+training" is not exactly a roadmap on how to handle things that are purely fiction. On the one hand, there are mechanical aspects to each character and the things in the world so they can be adjudicated in a gaming way that is fun and consistent. On the other hand, the rules are like "just figure it out".

Pex

2022-03-14, 09:15 PM

"Can't break them" means it was impossible and he shouldn't have been asked to roll in the first place. Step 1.

No. It was Schrodinger's Bracelet until the check. It was unknown until the barbarian tried. There was a chance he could break them and a chance he couldn't. It's a DM tool to let the dice decide outcomes to avoid his own biases railroading the PCs into results of situations even if by accident.

Another great example of skills functioning in a way that makes a table format impractical.

It depends on how you frame it. In my game the check is about whether you have the strength to open the door without it making too much noise to alert the guards. That's a strength check. No dex, stealth or passive perception involved.

You could frame the scenario different but similar such that the check is about whether the nearby guards are alerted by the noise the heavy door is making. In this case I'd have it be stealth (str).

This just further highlights the problems of standardized dc tables though. Which framing is 'correct'?

How you frame it to choose what skill is called for is all about DM experience and learning how to DM. It's not about DCs or the skills themselves. It's learning how to be a DM to understand the situations and know what needs to be resolved. The check is wanting to open the door without being heard. That is Stealth because avoiding detection by another is what that skill is for, in this case as a matter of hearing. If a spellcaster casts Silence there's no check needed since no one would hear it, and you as DM wouldn't care how the question was framed. (Magic trumps skills again!) Since you yourself said it's about brute strength opening the door that's why it makes sense it's a Stealth (ST) check. It's the same reasoning why a barbarian would want an Intimidation (ST) check instead of the normal Intimidation (CH) check when he breaks a table during questioning of an NPC or cracks his knuckles or some other way to threaten demonstrating brute strength. You made the scenario. The door will open no matter what, so there's no check to open the door. It was only a question of whether someone else would hear it because it was being opened by brute strength. It mattered the door was being opened which is why there's a check.

Psyren

2022-03-14, 09:47 PM

No. It was Schrodinger's Bracelet until the check.

Yuck. Pass.

To clarify, the question isn't "Does moderate mean training with talent, oh look it's right in the next paragraph!!" The question is how do DMs know what is required for various skills that:

1. Medieval people do.
2. Medieval Adventurers, a breed of their own, do.
3. Medieval Adventurers do when they are in combat or the walls are closing in or the room is filling with poison gas, etc.
4. Medieval Adventurers do when they are matching wits with an immortal being of energy that is smarter than the smartest genius and has had eons to contemplate their plans, etc.

Saying "Moderate means talent+training" is not exactly a roadmap on how to handle things that are purely fiction. On the one hand, there are mechanical aspects to each character and the things in the world so they can be adjudicated in a gaming way that is fun and consistent. On the other hand, the rules are like "just figure it out".

That guidance is not a substitute for tailoring encounters to your players' abilities, especially lethal or otherwise story-ending ones. If you want to do something like "room filling with poison gas" or "crushing walls" or "match wits with immortal energy being" then presumably you're not picking a DC they are guaranteed to fail unless a TPK is your actual goal.

Pex

2022-03-15, 12:03 PM

Yuck. Pass.

You don't have to like that style, but that is what some DMs do. Since DMs are supposed to be able to run the game their way they're not doing it wrong.

Psyren

2022-03-15, 12:24 PM

You don't have to like that style, but that is what some DMs do. Since DMs are supposed to be able to run the game their way they're not doing it wrong.

I have no problem with you running Schrodinger's D&D if that's what you want to do. I do have a problem with my books being altered to support Schrodinger's D&D. Determining possibility of a task before a roll is called for is the current process and it should stay that way. Determining possibility through rolls can stay as your bespoke version offline somewhere else.

MoiMagnus

2022-03-15, 01:05 PM

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-15, 01:21 PM

I have no problem with you running Schrodinger's D&D if that's what you want to do. I do have a problem with my books being altered to support Schrodinger's D&D. Determining possibility of a task before a roll is called for is the current process and it should stay that way. Determining possibility through rolls can stay as your bespoke version offline somewhere else.

They aren’t your books and they already support it.

Nothing in the rules makes that mode of play homebrew.

Once again you’re confusing your opinion with fact, and you’re yucking someone’s yum along the way.

Psyren

2022-03-15, 01:31 PM

They aren’t your books and they already support it.

I don't want them further altered to support it even more. You and him are free to do so on your own.

And you’re yucking someone’s yum along the way.

When two preferences are mutually exclusive, somebody is going to end up disappointed. Wanting that to not be me is rational.

Tanarii

2022-03-15, 02:59 PM

You don't have to like that style, but that is what some DMs do. Since DMs are supposed to be able to run the game their way they're not doing it wrong.
What's interesting here is that doing so makes the style of tables you want far less workable. Because state-of-the-character checks and state-of-the-world checks are even more variable DC depending on the exigencies of the character and the world, or even the DMs desire to have this particularly check have a X% chance of success because that's what the challenge/encounter/narrative/scene requires purposes.

Telok

2022-03-15, 03:27 PM

What's interesting here is that doing so makes the style of tables you want far less workable. Because...

I think Pex is saying that some people play the game in those manners, not that they are the right or preferred methods. And in truth some things like "can you pick this lock" or "what does my character know about Chult" do lend themselves to that interpretation.

More generally, in comparing some past edition module stuff to 5e I noticed that this edition's characters have bonuses similar to 3e characters of levels 1 to 3. While there are reasonable critiques of the 3e skills system they didn't affect play at those levels of bonus. Indeed, I do not recall there being regular occurrances of threads across mulitple forums for years about the 3e skills system being broken and/or causing DMs to quit at low levels.

So what, other than fear of players having expectations of how good their characters are at stuff, is the actual problem with using examples to set baseline DCs to serve as a default for DMs to use if they want to? Because currently its things like 15 being the default "average" DC for stuff like swimming (and some DMs saying 'no' to any swimming in medium+ armor or with a pack) that makes players turn to using magic to solve all their problems that aren't killing something with hp damage.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-15, 04:02 PM

I don't want them further altered to support it even more. You and him are free to do so on your own.

That’s nice, but without a rational argument against theirs, you’re just contributing negativity.

Dice can produce emergent realities, and there is a long tradition of it in the game, from Wandering Monsters to Random Wilderness encounters.

Indeed, the DMG is full of examples of that model of play.

You’re welcome to not use those tables or to play a game much more on the rails, but that’s irrelevant to a discussion about that mode of play and how tables can support it.

Your style is not impacted by the existence of examples. The over 24 DCs you missed in the Parleying with Monsters Section of Tasha’s is a good example of you ignoring them anyhow.

When two preferences are mutually exclusive, somebody is going to end up disappointed. Wanting that to not be me is rational.

If you can’t respectfully rebut his argument, telling him “yuck” is not a rational nor appropriate response.

What's interesting here is that doing so makes the style of tables you want far less workable. Because state-of-the-character checks and state-of-the-world checks are even more variable DC depending on the exigencies of the character and the world, or even the DMs desire to have this particularly check have a X% chance of success because that's what the challenge/encounter/narrative/scene requires purposes.

I disagree. Sometimes that roll is just to answer a question. Having a readily available DC tells you what the dice have told you, no labour on the DMs part.

The chance of % should be based off of the game mechanics: the designers should have reasonably set what the baseline is for a character of an appropriate level.

This means you, as a DM, can have an easily read table that you can pull a typical DC off of, knowing the math is already sound, then you can calibrate to the circumstance.

The universal door is DC 15 to smash, but in the Castle Greyhawk, they’re reinforced, so it’s a 17. Or in Castle Ravenloft, they’re decrepit, so they’re 13, or whatever.

And the players coming from Greyhawk will take note that Ravenlofts doors are weaker and that will be meaningful information.

Psyren

2022-03-15, 05:02 PM

That’s nice, but without a rational argument against theirs, you’re just contributing negativity.

You're quite free to ignore my "negativity."

Dice can produce emergent realities, and there is a long tradition of it in the game, from Wandering Monsters to Random Wilderness encounters.

There's a marked difference between the DM rolling to choose an encounter vs. the player rolling to decide the DM's world state because they couldn't be bothered to come up with one.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-15, 05:16 PM

There's a marked difference between the DM rolling to choose an encounter vs. the player rolling to decide the DM's world state because they couldn't be bothered to come up with one..

Certainly. One is a railroad, the other collaborative story telling.

Not everyone enjoys having their character bossed around and compelled to act in a homebrewed picaresque that denies them agency.

And not every DM desires to be the author of the story. They’d rather focus on more important prep work.

Pex

2022-03-15, 05:52 PM

What's interesting here is that doing so makes the style of tables you want far less workable. Because state-of-the-character checks and state-of-the-world checks are even more variable DC depending on the exigencies of the character and the world, or even the DMs desire to have this particularly check have a X% chance of success because that's what the challenge/encounter/narrative/scene requires purposes.

Or the failure to achieve the task means the DM can describe a narrative reason why it didn't work. A PC fails to climb a tree. DM: "Looks to you like this particular tree didn't grow limbs low enough than you expected to grab onto. They're out of your reach." Cleric casts Guidance and character tries again against the same DC because a circumstance was changed. New roll is a success. DM: "The blessing gave you a spring in your step. It was as if you walked up an extra step on the trunk to reach the limb and climbed." Some DMs let the players narrate how they failed or succeeded on a task. Roll, then roleplay the roll.

Tanarii

2022-03-15, 05:55 PM

Or the failure to achieve the task means the DM can describe a narrative reason why it didn't work. A PC fails to climb a tree. DM: "Looks to you like this particular tree didn't grow limbs low enough than you expected to grab onto. They're out of your reach." Cleric casts Guidance and character tries again against the same DC because a circumstance was changed. New roll is a success. DM: "The blessing gave you a spring in your step. It was as if you walked up an extra step on the trunk to reach the limb and climbed." Some DMs let the players narrate how they failed or succeeded on a task. Roll, then roleplay the roll.
Ah, I get you. Yes, it could work as a disassociated mechanic*. Climb a tree very much could be DC 10 for all trees in that case, with the actual tree's state in-universe being determined after the fact by success or failure.

Also, description/narration isn't roleplaying, that's just description or narration. Making the decision to climb or not climb is the roleplaying. /petpeeve

*As in nothing the character can see before attempting to climb the tree relates to the chance of success.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-15, 06:16 PM

Also, description/narration isn't roleplaying, that's just description or narration. Making the decision to climb or not climb is the roleplaying. /petpeeve

How so?

They are playing the role of their character, describing how “THEY” would do it.

The dice are the prompt for the scene.

And there are decisions made: the tree has been narrated , you make decisions based on that narration , the dice resolve whether you succee or not, you narrate success/failure/other states between failure and success.

Your later narration should not negate the initial narration, it should be based on what came before.

It becomes a game of narrative justification specific to your character in those circumstances, based on the decisions and experiences of that character.

That’s absolutely roleplaying.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-15, 07:02 PM

I shouldn't even effing do this but, sorry. Deciding the DC of a check before the check is made is not railroading. That's beyond hyperbole, it's inflammatory.

First: deciding a DC beforehand is not railroading, it happens before the check in all forms of play.

Second: Railroading is a useful and often necessary tool.

Understanding it’s utility as an option is a valuable skill.

Sometimes the players make a choice and the rails are set: the combat set piece, the elaborate puzzle, the expository monologue. These are moments where they lose a degree of agency, and they can make the game amazing.

But to suggest that’s the only proper mode of play?

Hardly.

Psyren

2022-03-16, 08:16 AM

Or the failure to achieve the task means the DM can describe a narrative reason why it didn't work. A PC fails to climb a tree. DM: "Looks to you like this particular tree didn't grow limbs low enough than you expected to grab onto. They're out of your reach."

So the PC is apparently blind and didn't notice the lack of reachable branches before making their attempt. Or maybe Schrodinger's Tree retracted them within its trunk as the PC was reaching upward. I guess this tree is located on Limbo.

Certainly. One is a railroad, the other collaborative story telling.
...
First: deciding a DC beforehand is not railroading, it happens before the check in all forms of play.

Second: Railroading is a useful and often necessary tool.

Deciding that an action is impossible or trivial and therefore doesn't need a roll isn't "railroading" either. Unless you think letting a PC walk across the room without rolling is railroading.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-16, 08:52 AM

So the PC is apparently blind and didn't notice the lack of reachable branches before making their attempt. Or maybe Schrodinger's Tree retracted them within its trunk as the PC was reaching upward. I guess this tree is located on Limbo. I’m

I mean, that’s one way to justify it. Of the thousands of possible justifications.

Just using a badly improvised example doesn’t discount the method.

The PC may have failed to notice the depression caused by the roots of the tree that made the branches farther from the ground than they expected. Perhaps a reachable branch snapped because of unnoticed rot. Perhaps they simply misjudged the height.

Or maybe the tree DID grow because you ARE in Limbo. That’s actually a great way to flavour a failure using the established environment.

The d20 results are an abstraction of exactly these kinds of environmental variances that cannot be perfectly modelled, either by narration or mechanics.

Even the most pristine and detail model railroad requires a degree of abstraction.

Deciding that an action is impossible or trivial and therefore doesn't need a roll isn't "railroading" either. Unless you think letting a PC walk across the room without rolling is railroading.

Half right. D&D is a game where “anything is possible”

Deciding a roll isn’t necessary isn’t railroading, unless you deny the player the choice of failure (likely a foreign concept to you, but some players will choose to fail for narrative reasons). Anything is already possible, so your permission doesn’t change anything.

But denying the possibility of something? No, that’s definitionally railroading if you’ve decided beforehand. That DC no is a rail that is either laid down by the rules, or by the DM. If it’s the DM, the DM is railroading.

If that term triggers you as a perjorative, then we can call it something else to respect your sensibilities.

But railroading is the act of restricting player agency by the DM to advance the agenda of the DM. And pretailoring scenarios the possible is exactly that.

If every action is pre-plotted, the game easily crashes. You need technology to compensate for this, which is why you need things like mechanics to resolve the unexpected, and you need those mechanics well designed.

The guidance in the SRD and DMG is poorly designed, as it can produce extreme results of up to 210% swings, and median swings of 60-110% in expected outcomes. Bad math.

For those content to railroad, this variance isn’t likely an issue: DC No is the answer.

But for those who don’t think railroading is the only answer, improving those mechanics is a valuable discussion.

If that discussion is “Yuck”y to you, you’re welcome to ignore it.

CapnWildefyr

2022-03-16, 08:53 AM

Have you heard this one?
Three mountain dwarves leave their mines to go first-time adventuring above ground, a rogue, a cleric, and a barbarian. After some time on the surface world, they come up to a long, long cliff or escarpment, extending for miles in each direction. They have to climb the escarpment. But there is a tree near it, and if they can climb the tree, they can go across its branches to get to the top. What is each dwarf's DC for climbing the tree or the cliff?

0. They chop down the tree and make a ladder.

It's better to be taught when you need to come up with a DC, and then how to come up a DC, than to provide tables, or let dice decide how tough something really was. It's just advice, not right/wrong.

Darth Credence

2022-03-16, 08:57 AM

Or the failure to achieve the task means the DM can describe a narrative reason why it didn't work. A PC fails to climb a tree. DM: "Looks to you like this particular tree didn't grow limbs low enough than you expected to grab onto. They're out of your reach." Cleric casts Guidance and character tries again against the same DC because a circumstance was changed. New roll is a success. DM: "The blessing gave you a spring in your step. It was as if you walked up an extra step on the trunk to reach the limb and climbed." Some DMs let the players narrate how they failed or succeeded on a task. Roll, then roleplay the roll.

If the tree didn't have branches low enough to reach, wouldn't that have been part of the description of the tree? What happens when the DM describes the area and there is a convenient tree there that would be good to climb, and the player asks, "What does the tree look like? Does it look easy to climb, with low branches?" Should the DM respond that they can't tell until they roll a climbing check?

Psyren

2022-03-16, 08:58 AM

But denying the possibility of something? No, that’s definitionally railroading if you’ve decided beforehand. That DC no is a rail that is either laid down by the rules, or by the DM. If it’s the DM, the DM is railroading.

So deciding a player can't shoot the moon with an arrow, lift up a castle or balance on a cloud is railroading? If so, your definition of the term is so broad as to have no meaning and can thus be dismissed.

It's better to be taught when you need to come up with a DC, and then how to come up a DC, than to provide tables, or let dice decide how tough something really was. It's just advice, not right/wrong.

Indeed.

If the tree didn't have branches low enough to reach, wouldn't that have been part of the description of the tree? What happens when the DM describes the area and there is a convenient tree there that would be good to climb, and the player asks, "What does the tree look like? Does it look easy to climb, with low branches?" Should the DM respond that they can't tell until they roll a climbing check?

Exactly, it makes no sense.
And if you want to procedurally generate the tree, just flip a coin or something to determine whether it has reachable branches or not.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-16, 09:04 AM

It's better to be taught when you need to come up with a DC, and then how to come up a DC, than to provide tables, or let dice decide how tough something really was. It's just advice, not right/wrong.
When the book tells you "use 10, 15, or 20, you'll be fine", I think the concern over DMs "learning the system" is overstated.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-16, 09:40 AM

So deciding a player can't shoot the moon with an arrow, lift up a castle or balance on a cloud is railroading? If so, your definition of the term is so broad as to have no meaning and can thus be dismissed.

Well, the range of a longbow is in the rules. As is the limits of what weights you can lift. So the DM doesn’t decide, the rules do. The players understand what longbows can do and how heavy things are.

As to the cloud, by saying No, you are railroading, yes.

The term has a precise meaning and your dismissal is simply you rejecting something you don’t like, which is par for the course. “Yuck”, right?

Exactly, it makes no sense.

Incorrect.

And if you want to procedurally generate the tree, just flip a coin or something to determine whether it has reachable branches or not.

That’s indeed a mechanic. A simple and unrefined one. There’s better technology, and suggesting such a bad mechanic reeks of straw:

It's better to be taught when you need to come up with a DC, and then how to come up a DC, than to provide tables, or let dice decide how tough something really was. It's just advice, not right/wrong.

How are you teaching how to come up with a DC without providing examples of said DCs?

I mean, what’s the design goal? What success rate, what rate of incidence, what is an acceptable variance of expectation, what are an acceptable range of outcomes, etc.

How does the GM learn that DC10, or DC5 or whatever, is the golden baseline for the mechanics as presented?

Tables of examples, right? Examples designed to reflect the mechanics? Like the tables in the DMG for designing Monsters or Spells, yeah?

No one has argued that the referee calling for a roll isn’t a skill that should be taught.

But what the chance of success of the roll needs to reflect the design goals of the mechanic.

If the tree didn't have branches low enough to reach, wouldn't that have been part of the description of the tree? What happens when the DM describes the area and there is a convenient tree there that would be good to climb, and the player asks, "What does the tree look like? Does it look easy to climb, with low branches?" Should the DM respond that they can't tell until they roll a climbing check?

Yes, justification of the failure is part of the game: explain why did you fail, based on the existing fiction.

The DM narrates the tree, the player narrated what they do to climb it, you resolve that action statement mechanically, you then narrate the mechanical resolution, based on the previous narration

Of course it clangs if you don’t consider what’s come before, you’re rejecting the offers made.

And if we’re being strict to the DM narrating the resolution, rather than allowing the PC to narrate: Why are you, the DM, destroying your own reality intentionally? You called for the roll, meaning you must have some concept of what failure can and should be, neh?

If you haven’t, this is where a table with DCs and consequences you can riff off of can help.

Psyren

2022-03-16, 09:46 AM

As to the cloud, by saying No, you are railroading, yes.

Got it. We're done here.

Darth Credence

2022-03-16, 10:45 AM

Yes, justification of the failure is part of the game: explain why did you fail, based on the existing fiction.

The DM narrates the tree, the player narrated what they do to climb it, you resolve that action statement mechanically, you then narrate the mechanical resolution, based on the previous narration

Of course it clangs if you don’t consider what’s come before, you’re rejecting the offers made.

And if we’re being strict to the DM narrating the resolution, rather than allowing the PC to narrate: Why are you, the DM, destroying your own reality intentionally? You called for the roll, meaning you must have some concept of what failure can and should be, neh?

If you haven’t, this is where a table with DCs and consequences you can riff off of can help.

Would you like to answer the actual question, because I can't see how your post has anything to do with the question I posed? When the player asks before attempting to climb the tree whether the tree looks like it can be climbed, what does the DM who wants the roll to determine that say?

If it's me, as the DM, I know what the tree is like, and I can make the DC appropriate to the tree. Is it an oak tree with low branches that anyone could climb? No roll. Is it a floss silk tree, with large thorns meant to dissuade climbing? Then a DC of 15 to avoid being damaged - the tree can be climbed. Is it an enchanted sequoia, with no branches, an enormous trunk, and smooth as glass bark? No roll, because it's impossible without special equipment.

I would allow the player to narrate if they want, but if they roll high on the floss silk tree, they don't get to rewrite the tree into an easily climbed oak. They get to narrate how they ran and leaped to the lowest branch, bypassing the thorny trunk entirely; or how they carefully grasped the thorns with gloved hands, using the natural defenses to their advantage; or whatever other story they want to tell that doesn't change what the tree is.

And I have to agree with Psyren, here - if you think not allowing someone to balance on a cloud is railroading them, then I don't think your definition of railroad has any meaning.

Telok

2022-03-16, 10:59 AM

Its funny. I don't think I've ever rolled vs DC 10. The lowest was a DC 13 climb "because its in the module and falling causes damage". At this point I've internalized that rolling 10- on the die is almost certain failure no matter what I'm rolling. The exception being of course AC & save DCs, those often go under 15s.

Huh. This has made me realize that minimum 500+ hours play into this edition and out of combat I've always basically been flipping a coin at best. Guess thats why I only play casters now.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-16, 11:18 AM

Got it. We're done here.

Absolutely. You won’t accept alternatives to your preferred play style, so what do you have to offer the conversation regarding those alternatives? “Yuck”

“Yuck” isn’t valuable feedback.

The people you’re disagreeing with have validated the railroad as a mode of play.

But we’re not discussing that mode of play, so why are you interjecting just to tell us you aren’t interested?

Great, understood. Enjoy your preferred play style.

Moving on to those interested in the conversation:

When playing in an emergent mode, where the environment is only loosely defined (forest, cave, tunnel) and the players queries and either improvised or procedurally generated answers are defining it further, the players can take query into action:

You’re in a cave, there’s a rock wall that leads to a cliff, there’s a tunnel you can see above.

Player: how high is the cliff?

A tabled challenge could look like this:

Cave Cliff: CR3. 50 (2D4 x 10)ft high. DC 10 to climb as an action, 3 failures allowed or cliff is unclimbable for your character without Help or a climb speed. Success: move half your movement up the cliff. Succeed by 5 or more: move your full movement up the cliff. Cost of Failure: 2D6 bludgeoning or piercing damage. Fail by 5 or more: suffer the cost of failure and fall a distance equal to your progress, suffering any additional consequences of such a fall. A player with expertise can suffer the cost of failure to succeed without rolling.

Clear DC, calibrated to the expected results of the mechanics (an level 3 talented expert succeeds 80% of the time, a talented and proficient character 60% of the time, an unskilled but talented 60% of the time and an unskilled and untalented 50% of the time. The average result expects 3-4 successes, etc etc.

And this is just spitballing. Professional designers are capable of producing something like this that are much more tuned into their systems.

Much like the universal Bugbear, this can be modulated to suit your needs, gives you a easy to read stat block and enables quick adjudication.

Frogreaver

2022-03-16, 11:28 AM

Absolutely. You won’t accept alternatives to your preferred play style, so what do you have to offer the conversation regarding those alternatives? “Yuck”

“Yuck” isn’t valuable feedback.

The people you’re disagreeing with have validated the railroad as a mode of play.

But we’re not discussing that mode of play, so why are you interjecting just to tell us you aren’t interested?

Great, understood. Enjoy your preferred play style.

Moving on to those interested in the conversation:

When playing in an emergent mode, where the environment is only loosely defined (forest, cave, tunnel) and the players queries and either improvised or procedurally generated answers are defining it further, the players can take query into action:

You’re in a cave, there’s a rock wall that leads to a cliff, there’s a tunnel you can see above.

Player: how high is the cliff?

A tabled challenge could look like this:

Cave Cliff: CR3. 50 (2D4 x 10)ft high. DC 10 to climb as an action, 3 failures allowed or cliff is unclimbable for your character without Help or a climb speed. Success: move half your movement up the cliff. Succeed by 5 or more: move your full movement up the cliff. Cost of Failure: 2D6 bludgeoning or piercing damage. Fail by 5 or more: suffer the cost of failure and fall a distance equal to your progress, suffering any additional consequences of such a fall. A player with expertise can suffer the cost of failure to succeed without rolling.

Clear DC, calibrated to the expected results of the mechanics (an level 3 talented expert succeeds 80% of the time, a talented and proficient character 60% of the time, an unskilled but talented 60% of the time and an unskilled and untalented 50% of the time. The average result expects 3-4 successes, etc etc.

And this is just spitballing. Professional designers are capable of producing something like this that are much more tuned into their systems.

Much like the universal Bugbear, this can be modulated to suit your needs, gives you a easy to read stat block and enables quick adjudication.

I’d be more accepting of a dc table if it was helping define undefined parts of the world. Of course my character abilities probably shouldn’t be impactful to that. Which always makes overuse of such mechanics feel weird.

Psyren

2022-03-16, 11:38 AM

“Yuck” isn’t valuable feedback.

It's shorthand for "under no circumstances do I want the designers further codifying this style of play."

Procedural generation doesn't need a lot of page space devoted to it, the dice (or coinflips, cards, whatever) make your world for you. Design with thought and intent behind it is much harder, so I would rather them focus their limited resources on enhancing guidance supporting that. If they find a way to improve both, fine whatever - but if it's one or the other, my stake in the ground is pretty clear.

Its funny. I don't think I've ever rolled vs DC 10. The lowest was a DC 13 climb "because its in the module and falling causes damage". At this point I've internalized that rolling 10- on the die is almost certain failure no matter what I'm rolling. The exception being of course AC & save DCs, those often go under 15s.

That's a consequence of bounded accuracy at low levels, where your PB is 2 and your KAM is probably 3. It's why embracing the idea of skipping a roll entirely (for trivial or impossible things) should be encouraged in order to prevent absurd or dissatisfying results.

Dr.Samurai

2022-03-16, 11:52 AM

Pex

2022-03-16, 11:59 AM

So the PC is apparently blind and didn't notice the lack of reachable branches before making their attempt. Or maybe Schrodinger's Tree retracted them within its trunk as the PC was reaching upward. I guess this tree is located on Limbo.

Han Solo failed a stealth check. What's the narrative reason? He stepped on presumably a twig on the ground that snapped. Failed first. Reason after. The d20 is rolled for the random factor. The DM is to be a neutral arbiter. He doesn't make the players win nor make the players lose. In this style the DM doesn't presume success or failure. He can do the same thing in combat. When a monster is equally likely to attack any party member or perhaps a choice of two the DM arbitrarily assigns numbers to the PCs, rolls a die, and the monster attacks the PC assigned to that number. The DM is taking his own biases out of the equation. It's considered fair to leave it up to luck.

You don't have to like it. I don't have to make you like it. But the DM is not playing the game wrong. You're just not caring for the style.

If the tree didn't have branches low enough to reach, wouldn't that have been part of the description of the tree? What happens when the DM describes the area and there is a convenient tree there that would be good to climb, and the player asks, "What does the tree look like? Does it look easy to climb, with low branches?" Should the DM respond that they can't tell until they roll a climbing check?

The description of the tree wasn't relevant. It was just a tree. Climb failed, then a reason was determined. It's a style. Failure didn't have to be the limbs were too high. It could be the bark was too tough to get a footing. A limb broke. DM arbitrarily decided now there is a poisonous substance on it that caused an unexpected pain of irritation but no damage nor poison condition. It's simply a reason to justify why the player could not just keep trying, for the purposes of this particular DMing style where you can't just keep trying until you succeed.

Psyren

2022-03-16, 12:14 PM

Han Solo failed a stealth check. What's the narrative reason? He stepped on presumably a twig on the ground that snapped. Failed first. Reason after. The d20 is rolled for the random factor. The DM is to be a neutral arbiter. He doesn't make the players win nor make the players lose. In this style the DM doesn't presume success or failure. He can do the same thing in combat. When a monster is equally likely to attack any party member or perhaps a choice of two the DM arbitrarily assigns numbers to the PCs, rolls a die, and the monster attacks the PC assigned to that number. The DM is taking his own biases out of the equation. It's considered fair to leave it up to luck.

You don't have to like it. I don't have to make you like it. But the DM is not playing the game wrong. You're just not caring for the style.

Except this example is nothing like Schrodinger's Manacles and Trees. Han Solo sneaking past some watchful stormtroopers is neither impossible nor trivial, and there is a meaningful consequence for failure (getting noticed.) A roll is absolutely appropriate here, especially if any of them are being actively watchful (opposed check), and narrating a failure of that roll as him stepping on something that makes a loud noise makes perfect sense.

Compare that to Darth Credence's reasonable question for you earlier - "does the tree have low branches?" What I disagree with is a response like yours which says "lol who knows, roll to design my world for me."

Dr. Murgunstrum

2022-03-16, 01:18 PM

Would you like to answer the actual question, because I can't see how your post has anything to do with the question I posed? When the player asks before attempting to climb the tree whether the tree looks like it can be climbed, what does the DM who wants the roll to determine that say?

They say yes, because anything is possible in D&D. Then they set a DC to determine what the odds of it being possible are, because dice can help determine if the possibility can be realized.

That DC should be based on the narration of the tree and the answers provided by the queries about the tree prior to climbing the tree.

If it's me, as the DM, I know what the tree is like, and I can make the DC appropriate to the tree. Is it an oak tree with low branches that anyone could climb? No roll. Is it a floss silk tree, with large thorns meant to dissuade climbing? Then a DC of 15 to avoid being damaged - the tree can be climbed. Is it an enchanted sequoia, with no branches, an enormous trunk, and smooth as glass bark? No roll, because it's impossible without special equipment.

Yeah, same story here: the DC is reflecting the reality of the tree, as an abstraction. The low oak is DC 10, the high floss silk is DC 15, etc.

I would allow the player to narrate if they want, but if they roll high on the floss silk tree, they don't get to rewrite the tree into an easily climbed oak. They get to narrate how they ran and leaped to the lowest branch, bypassing the thorny trunk entirely; or how they carefully grasped the thorns with gloved hands, using the natural defenses to their advantage; or whatever other story they want to tell that doesn't change what the tree is.

No one is advocating for erasing established narration. Your solutions are good examples of using the described narrative to justify the mechanical outcome.

And I have to agree with Psyren, here - if you think not allowing someone to balance on a cloud is railroading them, then I don't think your definition of railroad has any meaning.

Why? Is it because balancing on a cloud should be impossible in the D&D game?

This circles back to “Martials can’t have nice things”.

A DM decides something is DC: No. That is railroading, plain and simple.

I want to re-emphasize, railroading is a legitimate term, not a simple pejorative. Whenever you, by DM Fiat or Rule 0, make something impossible, that is railroading.

That is not always a bad thing. At level 1, balancing on a cloud reasonably should be DC No (though I’d argue there should be a mechanical reason to support that) at level 20 with a bunch of monk abilities and expertise in acrobatics, DC No feels a lot less reasonable.

Either way, it’s railroading. One is just good railroading, because 1st level characters probably shouldn’t be jumping on clouds, the other bad, because 20th level characters definitely should be.

Its funny. I don't think I've ever rolled vs DC 10. The lowest was a DC 13 climb "because its in the module and falling causes damage". At this point I've internalized that rolling 10- on the die is almost certain failure no matter what I'm rolling. The exception being of course AC & save DCs, those often go under 15s.

Huh. This has made me realize that minimum 500+ hours play into this edition and out of combat I've always basically been flipping a coin at best. Guess thats why I only play casters now.

Or Dhamphirs, Fairies, Aaracokras or the other species with DC YES! Features, or subclasses like beast Barb that do the same.

Of course, when spells are the answer to everything, either it’s 4E again, or you have haves and have nots with different levels of access and agency.

I’d be more accepting of a dc table if it was helping define undefined parts of the world. Of course my character abilities probably shouldn’t be impactful to that. Which always makes overuse of such mechanics feel weird.

I think player abilities to ignore penalties and modify the mechanics of the challenges

It's shorthand for "under no circumstances do I want the designers further codifying this style of play."

Still not valuable feedback for a discussion about codifying this style of play.

We get it, not your style. Codifying it further doesn’t impact your style in the slightest.

You were capable of saying that, instead you chose “Yuck”.

Last night I sat down to DM our game and I unfolded my DM screen. I was horrified to find sample DCs all throughout the inside of it. Every panel I turned to struck me with hard numbers assigned to various tasks. There was no escaping the screen's oppressive stranglehold on me and my game so long as it remained open. I shut it immediately and cast it from the table, before it could stupify me into an unthinking brute, or make me vulnerable to the predations of my malicious players.

Staring at it's flat, rigid form, now lying on the floor, I wondered how any game could survive this unrelenting structure, rubbing at my wrists all the while as the sensation of being hand-cuffed lingered in my mind...

The Monster Manual must give you such fits and starts!

Han Solo failed a stealth check. What's the narrative reason? He stepped on presumably a twig on the ground that snapped. Failed first. Reason after. The d20 is rolled for the random factor. The DM is to be a neutral arbiter. He doesn't make the players win nor make the players lose. In this style the DM doesn't presume success or failure. He can do the same thing in combat. When a monster is equally likely to attack any party member or perhaps a choice of two the DM arbitrarily assigns numbers to the PCs, rolls a die, and the monster attacks the PC assigned to that number. The DM is taking his own biases out of the equation. It's considered fair to leave it up to luck.

Exactly, just like the manacles, the flaw in their forging wasn’t described beforehand, the dice revealed information that allowed for them to break the same way you found a weak spot in the dragon’s hide when you scored a critical hit, you found out the oak had a rotten branch or the wall had hand holes that were larger than you first thought.

Your character discovers things in the act of doing that add to the narration of the environment.

The description of the tree wasn't relevant. It was just a tree. Climb failed, then a reason was determined. It's a style. Failure didn't have to be the limbs were too high. It could be the bark was too tough to get a footing. A limb broke. DM arbitrarily decided now there is a poisonous substance on it that caused an unexpected pain of irritation but no damage nor poison condition. It's simply a reason to justify why the player could just keep trying, for the purposes of this particular DMing style where you can't just keep trying until you succeed.

It can be relevant too: you can build off your previous description. If it was a minor one, as the tree was an afterthought, a spontaneous eruption of painting a scene extempore, or the module you are running leaves it vage, then the details are vague anyways and the eager player declaring they climb it hasn’t asked for information anyhow, beyond “do I need to roll to climb it?”

Once you say yes, because you or the module think there’s a warranted reason for it, (this smug canard needs to stop being raised as a concern.), then you determine what happens and narrate the how.

It doesn’t have to be a narration of the what.

Tanarii

2022-03-16, 01:52 PM

Last night I sat down to DM our game and I unfolded my DM screen. I was horrified to find sample DCs all throughout the inside of it. Every panel I turned to struck me with hard numbers assigned to various tasks. There was no escaping the screen's oppressive stranglehold on me and my game so long as it remained open. I shut it immediately and cast it from the table, before it could stupify me into an unthinking brute, or make me vulnerable to the predations of my malicious players.

Staring at it's flat, rigid form, now lying on the floor, I wondered how any game could survive this unrelenting structure, rubbing at my wrists all the while as the sensation of being hand-cuffed lingered in my mind...Thanks for making my day that much better. 😂

You don't have to like it. I don't have to make you like it. But the DM is not playing the game wrong. You're just not caring for the style.Agreed. I don't like the style either. But it is a style.

Also I took away that you're not (strongly) advocating for the style. More like explaining how it works. I really appreciate that because I hadn't seen how it could work with an example table, which it clearly can, for the right kind of table.

IIRC you are a fan of the subset of this style as it applies to characters, in the form of Knowledge Checks specifically? As in determining what a character has previously learned or not learned via a check.

Psyren

2022-03-16, 02:13 PM

Still not valuable feedback for a discussion about codifying this style of play.

We get it, not your style. Codifying it further doesn’t impact your style in the slightest.

You were capable of saying that, instead you chose “Yuck”.

"Yuck" fits my revulsion for that playstyle (not any posters), yes. And more specifically, the prospect of the books being cluttered further in 5.5e by expanding on it at the expense of intentional challenge design.

I want to re-emphasize, railroading is a legitimate term, not a simple pejorative. Whenever you, by DM Fiat or Rule 0, make something impossible, that is railroading.

Funnily enough, the DMG itself defines railroading on page 71 - "when the players are set on a course that only has one destination, no matter how hard they try to change it."

I don't view individual challenges as the destination. "You can't balance on a cloud" does not mean there is no way to reach the BBEG's airship for instance.

Telok

2022-03-16, 02:20 PM

That's a consequence of bounded accuracy at low levels, where your PB is 2 and your KAM is probably 3. It's why embracing the idea of skipping a roll entirely (for trivial or impossible things) should be encouraged in order to prevent absurd or dissatisfying results.

What the heck is a "kam"?

Making checks be lol-random is why people value magic that doesn't randomly invalidate their character choices & roleplaying. I can rely on Polymorph to turn into a giant ape so I can auto-climb the Cliffs of Insanity while carrying the whole party, or turn into a shark for swimming, or a griffon for flying. I can rely on Invisibility to 'nope' opposing vision checks. I can rely on spells because they say what they say they do. I can't rely on the checks because +8 deceive is meaningless if the DM never calls for a roll, goes with DC 20 because we're "high level", makes all the checks opposed, or just defaults to DC "roll high" because they're tired of coming up with ad hoc DCs after 4 hours.

Damn shame I've never had two DMs agree about that DC stuff. Then there is: all climbing is non-trivial because you can take damage, all swimming in non-trivial because of drowning or impossible in armor, all strength checks are non-trivial because of possible fatigue or damage, all dex checks are non-trivial because of slipping or stumbling, all intellegence checks are non-trivial because you're trying to remember something you need, all wisdom checks are non-trivial because you'll miss out on loot or get ambushed, all charisma checks are non-trivial because you could offend people and start a fight.

Its not enough to say "don't roll for the trivial & impossible" to people who may not know what is trivial or impossible. All game systems are built on certain assumptions & expectations. If those assumptions & expectations aren't communicated clearly & explicitly you'll have people voilating them and thinking the system is broken, bad, or too hard to use. If one of the assumptions is "DMs don't use the dice mechanic we gave them too much" then it needs to bloody well say that and tell you what they mean by "too much". Plus I think having a dice mechanic to resolve uncertainty that screws up part of the game if the DM is often uncertain & uses it... thats just stupid design.

Psyren

2022-03-16, 03:14 PM

What the heck is a "kam"?

Key ability modifier, sorry.

Making checks be lol-random is why people value magic that doesn't randomly invalidate their character choices & roleplaying. I can rely on Polymorph to turn into a giant ape so I can auto-climb the Cliffs of Insanity while carrying the whole party, or turn into a shark for swimming, or a griffon for flying. I can rely on Invisibility to 'nope' opposing vision checks. I can rely on spells because they say what they say they do. I can't rely on the checks because +8 deceive is meaningless if the DM never calls for a roll, goes with DC 20 because we're "high level", makes all the checks opposed, or just defaults to DC "roll high" because they're tired of coming up with ad hoc DCs after 4 hours.

Damn shame I've never had two DMs agree about that DC stuff. Then there is: all climbing is non-trivial because you can take damage, all swimming in non-trivial because of drowning or impossible in armor, all strength checks are non-trivial because of possible fatigue or damage, all dex checks are non-trivial because of slipping or stumbling, all intellegence checks are non-trivial because you're trying to remember something you need, all wisdom checks are non-trivial because you'll miss out on loot or get ambushed, all charisma checks are non-trivial because you could offend people and start a fight.

Its not enough to say "don't roll for the trivial & impossible" to people who may not know what is trivial or impossible. All game systems are built on certain assumptions & expectations. If those assumptions & expectations aren't communicated clearly & explicitly you'll have people voilating them and thinking the system is broken, bad, or too hard to use. If one of the assumptions is "DMs don't use the dice mechanic we gave them too much" then it needs to bloody well say that and tell you what they mean by "too much". Plus I think having a dice mechanic to resolve uncertainty that screws up part of the game if the DM is often uncertain & uses it... thats just stupid design.

1) If your DM's checks are truly "lol-random" then I can only view that as a failure to follow the guidance provided.

2) The reliability of spells you tout comes from their specificity, and that specificity has drawbacks as well. Like your giant ape climbing the Cliffs of Insanity had better hope they have another instance of the spell if they want to climb down an hour later, or that another encounter such as combat doesn't occur where that form (or your need to concentrate on it) would be a detriment etc. The spell is of course useful - magic should be - but it's not a silver bullet that universally and completely invalidates any and all other methods of approaching such problems.