Codifying

[DrLoveMonkey]

One of the things I liked about the latest UA was the idea that they were now codifying some things, or boosting the visibility of what was already codified. Things like social influence, or jump distance, can help set expectations.

How far should a DC 20 jump check get you? The most you get out of the current rules is that's a "hard" jump. As a DM, it's awkward because unless I basically homebrew my own rules I have to think a bit each time it comes up, and as a player it's far worse because there's no way of knowing if my DM tonight is going to assume a DC 20 check lets you jump 30 feet or 10.

They could stand to do a little more even. For example animal handling, DC 20 to calm a spooked wild animal, and 10 for a domesticated one? No idea if that's too hard or too easy.

I also feel like something could be done with lore, but I'm not sure what. It's obviously great to learn things like a monster's weakness/immunity to a type of damage, but I really feel like metagaming players stop that from being practical.


Ideas for things that could use some guidelines, what those numbers should be, or any reasons not to do it?

[OldTrees1]

How far should a DC 20 jump check get you? The most you get out of the current rules is that's a "hard" jump. As a DM, it's awkward because unless I basically homebrew my own rules I have to think a bit each time it comes up, and as a player it's far worse because there's no way of knowing if my DM tonight is going to assume a DC 20 check lets you jump 30 feet or 10.

Everyone already knows that you know that in 5.0E you can jump your STR score before a jump check is required (and many know you know the 1D&D UA's jump as an action rules). So you are clearly and unambiguously asking for the jumping distance after a DC 20 check has been called for.


5E Ability checks have too little growth (~+7) compared to the size of the RNG (1 to 20). I cannot give you a static distance. It would depend on the PC level I had in mind when trying to balance the DC:distance.

However maybe the following ruling might work:
If you pass a DC 10/15/20/25/30 athletics check you jump Str Score + proficiency x (2.5/5/7.5/10/12.5) feet

At level 1 they might have a +5 modifier and thus struggle with DC 10, but if they succeed they jump an extra 5ft.
At level 20 they might, or might not, have a +11 modifier and thus struggle with DC 15, but if they succeed they jump an extra 30ft.

The constants in the equation can be adjusted if you want to nerf (or buff) jumpers. For example if you replaced proficiency with expertise, then the scaling factors could be decreased because the ability to hit higher DCs would have increased scaling.

[stoutstien]

One of the things I liked about the latest UA was the idea that they were now codifying some things, or boosting the visibility of what was already codified. Things like social influence, or jump distance, can help set expectations.

How far should a DC 20 jump check get you? The most you get out of the current rules is that's a "hard" jump. As a DM, it's awkward because unless I basically homebrew my own rules I have to think a bit each time it comes up, and as a player it's far worse because there's no way of knowing if my DM tonight is going to assume a DC 20 check lets you jump 30 feet or 10.

They could stand to do a little more even. For example animal handling, DC 20 to calm a spooked wild animal, and 10 for a domesticated one? No idea if that's too hard or too easy.

I also feel like something could be done with lore, but I'm not sure what. It's obviously great to learn things like a monster's weakness/immunity to a type of damage, but I really feel like metagaming players stop that from being practical.


Ideas for things that could use some guidelines, what those numbers should be, or any reasons not to do it?

If you want to play a janky PF2e then sure. Codified DCs do not, and will not, work in the 5e framework.

[Segev]

If you want to play a janky PF2e then sure. Codified DCs do not, and will not, work in the 5e framework.

I mean, that is just not true. We have DCs for certain social interactions. We have DCs for some things like locks, and certain downtime activities.

The failure to give any guidelines whatsoever for how much further a strength (athletics) check can let you jump at various DCs after saying it can extend the distance beyond your strength score is a hole in the rules, not a feature.

[stoutstien]

I mean, that is just not true. We have DCs for certain social interactions. We have DCs for some things like locks, and certain downtime activities.

The failure to give any guidelines whatsoever for how much further a strength (athletics) check can let you jump at various DCs after saying it can extend the distance beyond your strength score is a hole in the rules, not a feature.

No we have example DC. locks, downtime activities, and everything outside specific campaign modules are all subjective to the DM. Codified DCs would do the opposite.(as in introducing fixed DCs.)

Like I said if that is what you want out of a system then there are plenty of them that provided that. 5e doesn't have the structural backbone to add them on without breaking core design principles.

[Segev]

No we have example DC. locks, downtime activities, and everything outside specific campaign modules are all subjective to the DM. Codified DCs would do the opposite.

Like I said if that is what you want out of a system then there are plenty of that provided that. 5e doesn't have the structural backbone to add them on without breaking core design principles.

Examples aren't codification? Okay. All I really want are examples and guidelines. If those aren't codification to you, I can agree that we don't have many codified things. Just so long as we are consistent in our terminology.

[stoutstien]

Examples aren't codification? Okay. All I really want are examples and guidelines. If those aren't codification to you, I can agree that we don't have many codified things. Just so long as we are consistent in our terminology.

Examples are fine. the UA isnt using examples. The hide DC being 15 regardless of npc, the social rules forcing NPCs into 3 categories, and the new jump action aren't examples. They are fixed values that everything else has to shift to fit with.

**Fixed DC are also jarring with the current scale to begin with. 15 being a medium DC is based on having some form of aptitude already so it's starting slightly off centered.**

[Chronos]

Quoth stoutstien:

If you want to play a janky PF2e then sure. Codified DCs do not, and will not, work in the 5e framework.
Which is just a fancy way of saying that the 5e framework doesn't work.

[Segev]

The social rules are no different than they are in the 5.0 DMG, as far as I can tell.

The hide rules are...interesting. They make hiding reliably harder at low level and much easier at mid to high level, and make penetrating a hide check significantly more expensive. I am indifferent to that particular codification; it is the implications on action economy that interest me. Passive perception is no longer a concern wrt stealth. (Incidentally, all opposed checks were always codified in 5.0)

[stoutstien]

Which is just a fancy way of saying that the 5e framework doesn't work.

I like it because that's what it is without trying to be more. A framework that a table can take and modify to fit their style. It works as long as you don't expected to be more than it is. 5e isn't balanced or easy to run but it's extremely customizable without breaking.

I understand from a business perspective it actually wasn't a good move on their part because there's very little reason to heavenly invest in it if that is your style.

[Psyren]

The Hide rules make no sense.

You need to be heavily obscured or behind 3/4 cover or total cover. Relative to who? Do you only gain the Hidden condition with respect to that creature? If so, do you still get to roll Initiative with advantage if you're Hidden to some creatures but not others? Or is it impossible to benefit from being hidden even if only one enemy can see you, regardless of whether they can communicate to their allies or not?

Initiating a Hide is a flat DC 15. Let's put aside that even a 17 Dex PC with Expertise still has a more than 1 in 3 chance of failing to sneak past a commoner. What happens if you fail? Do you make a loud noise? Do you dance a jig in the open? Can you try again? Do you need to change locations before you can try again?

Does the attack roll that ends the condition get advantage? Logically yes, but "ends immediately" could be interpreted both ways. And they still haven't fixed the issue in the Invisible condition where technically, you still get advantage to hit and disadvantage against being hit even against an enemy that has a means of perceiving you.

I went over my issues with Jump previously - now you can have 20 Strength and Athletics proficiency and still fail to jump 15 feet. That's on top of the "Jump Action" nonsense.

[Hurrashane]

I went over my issues with Jump previously - now you can have 20 Strength and Athletics proficiency and still fail to jump 15 feet. That's on top of the "Jump Action" nonsense.

If that rule stays hopefully warriors, or a feat or something, lets you jump strength score feet with no roll and then roll for longer... And let them do it on either a BA or as part of movement.

[Segev]

The Hide rules make no sense.

You need to be heavily obscured or behind 3/4 cover or total cover. Relative to who? Do you only gain the Hidden condition with respect to that creature? If so, do you still get to roll Initiative with advantage if you're Hidden to some creatures but not others? Or is it impossible to benefit from being hidden even if only one enemy can see you, regardless of whether they can communicate to their allies or not?

Initiating a Hide is a flat DC 15. Let's put aside that even a 17 Dex PC with Expertise still has a more than 1 in 3 chance of failing to sneak past a commoner. What happens if you fail? Do you make a loud noise? Do you dance a jig in the open? Can you try again? Do you need to change locations before you can try again?

Does the attack roll that ends the condition get advantage? Logically yes, but "ends immediately" could be interpreted both ways. And they still haven't fixed the issue in the Invisible condition where technically, you still get advantage to hit and disadvantage against being hit even against an enemy that has a means of perceiving you.

I went over my issues with Jump previously - now you can have 20 Strength and Athletics proficiency and still fail to jump 15 feet. That's on top of the "Jump Action" nonsense.

Good points.

The stuff relating to being hidden, to invisibility, to anything regarding whether you can be perceived, has a persistent complicating factor that designers seem to forget: different observers may see different things.

If you're going to have an Invisible condition, that makes a certain amount of sense: it's a statement about what can and cannot be used to perceive you. Sight can't. Blindsight can. True Seeing can. You can be heard and smelled, but not seen with normal or darkvision. Trying to assign specific benefits to Invisible, though, beyond how it impacts others' ability to perceive you, doesn't work, because you wind up assuming NOTHING can see you to assign the benefits. And that's simply not true.

Same with Hidden, which can only exist wrt another creature. You can be hidden from the bugbear, but you cannot be generically hidden. (Except they try to make that the case with the flat DC 15, and they do a decent job of closing that loop at least when they make it so that you stop being hidden when ANY creature spots you - by taking the Search action successfully. It's a little wonky in that it seems to assume that one creature spotting you automatically calls out your location to everyone else, though.)

5.0 is better at the hidden condition, despite this probably being an effort to buff it. Using passive perceptions and having rules regarding how two creatures interact based on who can perceive whom works much more smoothly.

[Kane0]

I like codifying conditions and game terms, ability checks not so much especially since things like moving and thinking apparently take actions now.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like codifying conditions and game terms, ability checks not so much especially since things like moving and thinking apparently take actions now.

I agree, mostly. You can certainly go too far with codifying terms (that way lies the hell that is digging through glossaries that aren't kept fully up to date and ultra nit-picking legalistic readings) and attaching Conditions and Randomly Bolded And Capitalized terms to everything really makes it hard to read. But it's certainly not inherently bad, just possible to do wrong.

The way they're going with ability checks is exactly what I feared would happen if they tried--not only do they not improve things, they actively make life worse. And especially for martials. Because casters have ways of avoiding having to deal with those issues.

[Kane0]

The way they're going with ability checks is exactly what I feared would happen if they tried--not only do they not improve things, they actively make life worse. And especially for martials. Because casters have ways of avoiding having to deal with those issues.

I feel like a decent litmus test would be 'does a tier 2 caster have to deal with this?'
If no, why is it there?

[Goobahfish]

So, I think codifying some things makes sense.

Is persuasion an Action? Is searching an Action? What happens. What kind of check will you make?

This kind of stuff helps bridge the gap between what can you do in combat, what really should cost you your turn instead of "I negotiate with the orc and then perform the Attack Action etc etc"

Making "Jump" an action is a specific design 'failure'. Codifying jumping is a good thing, designing jumping to be onerous is a bad thing.

Codifying outcomes however are a different matter. Saying that rolling a 20 on a Diplomacy check makes a hostile creature friendly leads to Diplomancy which is bad. Players shouldn't have 'strong' control over the environment. There should be suggested DCs in the DMG to help new DMs with how to set a reasonable DC but these should be ignorable at the table. "The jump was easier than it looked", "This guy hates you and now amount of diplomacy is going to change that".

[KorvinStarmast]

Again, Jump is part of movement, not an action. Give them heck during the feedback phase, please! :smallfurious:

[Zhorn]

Again, Jump is part of movement, not an action. Give them heck during the feedback phase, please! :smallfurious:
Intending to; but I'm at least happy it was featured in the UA to indicate they were looking at it and opens up the discussion.
Seems like they are trying to resolve some of the jumping issues
a) codified guidance on bigger jumps than you normally could (which in the current PHB is just 'the DM makes up the check DC and distance')
b) resolving jumping further than allowable movement (current rules being jumps are clipped short, or the common house-ruling on 'hangtime')

The Action cost (which I'm against) looks like it is trying to equate Jumping to Dashing, it isn't consuming your base movement because it'll be treated as extra movement on top of that.
Being unbound by movement means very big jumps will be resolved with the turn they are initiated, so no more distance clipping or hangtime (in theory I don't hate this)
Having the DC based on the distance cleared (albeit way too swingy) does move out of the 'lol, ask the DM' territory into 'here's some set values'

If Jumping is to not cost movement (needed if they want big jumps to resolve within the same turn) they will need some new level of cost otherwise we get into constant bunnyhopping and wavedashing exploits.
On idea that's been thrown around in the past might fit in here; the idea of some actions/movements triggering an Exposed condition, that can prompt Opportunity Attacks, potentially even at range. The idea needs some work though.

The distance should depend more on the character's STR mod/score or Athletics score instead of the dice. The d20 is too swingy and kinda makes a joke of jumping where the 16 STR character can jump up to 23 feet but only 5 feet 30% of the time, while the 10 STR character can still potentially jump 20 with only 5 feet clearance 45% of the time.
STR score as a base jump distance is fine, I don't see any reason to change that or make it chaotically unreliable.

For extra distance, maybe the DC once again is the distance covered, and the +bonus on a success is adding the Athletics modifier? Keeps the values relatively low and mortal for no investment, but can extend into superhuman-esque with sufficient investment.

Or on the Athletics check total, convert that value into a modifier the same way ability scores are. making a check total of 20 nets you +5 ft. , 16 = +3 ft. , 30 = +10 ft.. the math s a little busy, but the formula isn't different to anything already used in game.

[Goobahfish]

The distance should depend more on the character's STR mod/score or Athletics score instead of the dice. The d20 is too swingy and kinda makes a joke of jumping where the 16 STR character can jump up to 23 feet but only 5 feet 30% of the time, while the 10 STR character can still potentially jump 20 with only 5 feet clearance 45% of the time.
STR score as a base jump distance is fine, I don't see any reason to change that or make it chaotically unreliable.

I think this is where things become really messy. The general consensus seems to be that the variation in jumping via check is too high compared to the value of proficiency/stats. This leads to a behaviour change such that 'Agile' characters do not jump much more than 'Clumsy' characters in practice.

WOTC clearly like the D20 = everything.

So I can't see this getting resolved in a nice way. With jumping you almost want to double your stat/proficiency for the purposes of the checks. That way a +8 bonus vs a +0 bonus would become a +16 difference (which is roughly 3 squares) which means you'll be pulling off those 'longer clutch' jumps far more reliably.

The math is something like...
Str 20, Prof +3 vs Str 10 no Prof.
Jump 10, Auto, Auto
Jump 15, Auto, 30%
Jump 20, Auto, 5%
Jump 21, 40%
Jump 25, 20%

Which is super unsatisfying vs:
Str 20, Prof +3 vs Str 10 no Prof.
Jump 10, Auto, Auto
Jump 15, Auto, 30%
Jump 20, Auto, 5%
Jump 21, 75%
Jump 25, 50%

[Kane0]

WOTC clearly like the D20 = everything.


I-

You-

Oh no.

[Ortho]

Nuh-uh-uh. DCs are the domain of the DM; they shouldn't be in a player-facing book at all. They belong in the DMG (and/or DM's screen).

The problem is, if it's listed in the PHB rather than the DMG, then there's a system-wide expectation that that's THE rule. Which means it'll be a lot harder for the DM to be flexible with DCs. Players should not be telling the DM what the DC should be.

[Sneak Dog]

Nuh-uh-uh. DCs are the domain of the DM; they shouldn't be in a player-facing book at all. They belong in the DMG (and/or DM's screen).

The problem is, if it's listed in the PHB rather than the DMG, then there's a system-wide expectation that that's THE rule. Which means it'll be a lot harder for the DM to be flexible with DCs. Players should not be telling the DM what the DC should be.

Ability checks are one of the interfaces the players use to make their characters interact with the world. They are neither exclusively the GM's domain nor the players. The GM determines the world, the circumstances, the challenges. Then the DC can be determined.
Currently the GM just arbitrarily judges what the DC is without clear guidelines. The interface is GM-facing. Which is weird, because it's the players that decide they want to engage with the world. That they want to take actions within it.
Alternatively, if you codify guidelines then the rules can decide based on the aforementioned factors what the DC is. And if the rules are capable of doing that, then the players are capable of figuring out what their bonuses mean, what their characters can do. It makes the interface more player-facing and empowers players to confidently take actions.

On the other hand, codify too strictly and too much and your rules/games become a swamp of finding the right page and guideline/rule. A balance needs to be struck where players know what their +9 athletics does but they do not need to refer to fifty different pages to know what all their ability check bonuses do.

But personally I'm fine with a player telling me I got a DC wrong. They already do so for spells, items, class features, conditions. Or would, if I got them grossly wrong.

[Psyren]

Nuh-uh-uh. DCs are the domain of the DM; they shouldn't be in a player-facing book at all. They belong in the DMG (and/or DM's screen).

The problem is, if it's listed in the PHB rather than the DMG, then there's a system-wide expectation that that's THE rule. Which means it'll be a lot harder for the DM to be flexible with DCs. Players should not be telling the DM what the DC should be.


Ability checks are one of the interfaces the players use to make their characters interact with the world. They are neither exclusively the GM's domain nor the players. The GM determines the world, the circumstances, the challenges. Then the DC can be determined.
Currently the GM just arbitrarily judges what the DC is without clear guidelines. The interface is GM-facing. Which is weird, because it's the players that decide they want to engage with the world. That they want to take actions within it.
Alternatively, if you codify guidelines then the rules can decide based on the aforementioned factors what the DC is. And if the rules are capable of doing that, then the players are capable of figuring out what their bonuses mean, what their characters can do. It makes the interface more player-facing and empowers players to confidently take actions.

On the other hand, codify too strictly and too much and your rules/games become a swamp of finding the right page and guideline/rule. A balance needs to be struck where players know what their +9 athletics does but they do not need to refer to fifty different pages to know what all their ability check bonuses do.

But personally I'm fine with a player telling me I got a DC wrong. They already do so for spells, items, class features, conditions. Or would, if I got them grossly wrong.

I'm not going to fire up the entire "who owns DCs" debate again. What I do want to oppose is the notion that player-facing DCs are the only, or even most appropriate, way for a player to know what their character can do. How can players know what is possible for them before rolling without the DCs being codified? The DM can tell them, just like they have to tell them what challenge they're facing anyway. What the players can unequivocally control is how talented and trained their characters are - maxing ability scores and adding proficiency, expertise, and even external assistance through magical buffs and rerolls - and in real life, that's all you can really do for most challenges, prepare as much as you're able. You can never guarantee that all your preparation means you will overcome any obstacle you face.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not going to fire up the entire "who owns DCs" debate again.
Good, because that is a strawman anyways. The GM owns DCs but some GMs want the players to have foreknowledge about what their characters can do.


What I do want to oppose is the notion that player-facing DCs are the only, or even most appropriate, way for a player to know what their character can do. How can players know what is possible for them before rolling without the DCs being codified? The DM can tell them, just like they have to tell them what challenge they're facing anyway.
IF we apply this "solution" to providing the players with foreknowledge about what their players can do, then you are putting a repetitive undue burden on the GM. The group is facing a new challenge? Now it is time to repeat the oral tradition of giving plenty of example actions and some baseline guidance for how likely those actions are. That takes a lot more time than the GMing having the option to take a section of the DMG, tune it as appropriate, and them make it player facing.

The DCs are not set in stone, but some GMs find it valuable when the players have access to a plethora of baseline guidance so they, the players, can have reasonable and extensive foreknowledge about the capabilities of their characters. As a GM and a consumer, I would find it valuable if D&D provided a rough draft that I could tune rather.

GM playtesting Psyren "solution" takes in a deep breath and:
The 8ft wooden (reminder breaking through wood is typically a medium Str check) door swings on its iron hinges (reminder tearing the typical door off its hinges is usually Medium Str check) (reminder throwing a door as a discus is often an easy Str check past 20ft and throwing it upright is a medium Str check past 20ft) opens to reveal a 30ft by 30ft by 20ft stone room (reminder climbing these stone walls is probably an easy Str(athletics) check (or automatic in a corner) based on previous rooms) (reminder perching in the corner is often a medium Str(athletics) check) topped by an additional 30ft by 30ft by 15ft dome (reminder climbing a ceiling similar to this was a hard Str(Athletics) check previously). The room contains several gaps in the floor (reminder about typical jump DCs being automatic for your STR in feet and an athletics check of 4 per additional foot) that seem to have slick walls lead down to something glowing (reminder climbing a 5ft chimney is usually automatic even if greased but often this makes corner climbs a medium check and straight climbs a hard check). The room contains a series of increasing platforms (reminder about jumping vs climbing DC and speed for 5ft and 10ft vertical jumps). The lighting in the room is ...

That is a lot of wasted time Psyren. How is that better for my group than me, the GM, taking a useful section in the DMG, tuning it to my campaign, and providing that as GM controlled but player facing baseline for the players to have some foreknowledge of their character's capabilities?


The main thing is D&D providing support for Psyren playing without the Players knowing anything about DCs and providing support for me playing with the Players knowing a lot about DCs.

[Psyren]

IF we apply this "solution" to providing the players with foreknowledge about what their players can do, then you are putting a repetitive undue burden on the GM.

What "burden?" The DM is already deciding how wide gaps are, how sturdy doors are etc.

And no, "typical wooden doors/iron hinges/etc ad nauseam" are irrelevant. What matters is the specific challenge the group is about to face. "How thick is that vault door?" "Thick enough that his wizard can't break it down and even your Barbarian will probably need to Rage." Done.

[DrLoveMonkey]

So imagine we had the spells Misty Step, Dimension Door and Teleport, and their descriptions were:

Teleport a close distance.

Teleport you and one other creature a far distance.

Teleport you and up to six other creatures a very far distance.



One DM might easily interpret that to be 10ft. then 100, then 1000. After all ten feet is pretty close, and how many maps have you played on that 1000 feet wouldn’t get you clear across the whole battle map?

Or maybe you think that a mile is pretty close, you can walk that in a half hour easy. Fifty miles though, that’s far, that’s easily the next big town over, and then teleport is very far, like across the world.


It’s sort of the same in 5.0e now. You can jump your strength score and an athletics check can push you further. How much further? Does a barbarian who made a DC20 check get to hulk jump 50 feet? Or does it let him push that last 4 feet from his strength score of 16 to get 4 squares? Now, of course, you can just say it’s however far you think a barbarian should be able to jump, but I don’t really know what that’s supposed to be, and my idea might be different from my players. Whereas see above with dimension door we can both agree it’s 500 feet, that’s how powerful the ability is supposed to be and we don’t have to think about it.

With the 5.5e method we can say that the numbers are too low or too high, but as it stands there’s no ambiguity, a barbarian isn’t jumping 50 feet without magical assistance. If you make a barbarian you shouldn’t expect to be able to do that, and as a GM I don’t have to wonder if I should.

Alternatively if the numbers get changed to jump distance equals (final check) x (prof. Bonus) then at level 20 you absolutely will be jumping 50 feet. You don’t have to argue that you should be able to.

[Segev]

As a player building a character, I like to know what my rough target numbers are for some ballpark tasks. If I want to make somebody good at jumping, what numbers do I need to be "good enough?" Is it possible to be "good enough," or is what I conceived for this character outside the bounds of PC capabilities? Without such guidelines, I min/max to heck and back for the things I want to be "good" at, because I have no idea if even maxing it out will be "enough" to do what I want to do.

With guidelines, I can aim for "I can make that at least [satisfying for this concept]% of the time." Or I can realize that what is satisfying to me isn't possible, or is too much investment, and tweak my concept to either lower my expectations or remove that capability. It lets me not go all-in on something the DM might have preferred I take a more moderate approach to, because I know what "moderate" is.


As a DM running a game, I appreciate guidelines because I dislike the fact that, as we've discussed before, I have to just throw a random number at a DC for something I know I am a bad example for, but have no other context to measure against. e.g. pull-ups or climbing ropes.

[OldTrees1]

What "burden?" The DM is already deciding how wide gaps are, how sturdy doors are etc.
Did you not see the list of reminders the GM had to insert into the description of the room? Why are you opposed to them having support for optionally having a GM controlled player facing document? Did you notice I got tired of writing the example and didn't even finish the lighting or enemies.


And no, "typical wooden doors/iron hinges/etc ad nauseam" are irrelevant. What matters is the specific challenge the group is about to face. "How thick is that vault door?" "Thick enough that his wizard can't break it down and even your Barbarian will probably need to Rage." Done.
1) False it is not "irrelevant". The value this GM (me for example) is seeking is the player having some amount of foreknowledge. Examples help provide foreknowledge while reinforcing specifics might vary. Maybe this wooden door's iron hinges are a bit more reinforced if tested (It was DC 17 perhaps). I want the players to know doors like that will generally be roughly DC 15, however there can and will be variance. The goal of providing a baseline of player foreknowledge was satisfied. Likewise if they try to perch in a corner, they might find it had groves carved there to make it easier on the Ghoul that ambushed them from the corner.

2) How is answering 1 question in advance comparable to providing foreknowledge on a substantial length of questions? Your vault door example is insufficient for my goal of providing the players with foreknowledge of their players capabilities.

Edit: Also I am unsure if you are answering in advance, or if the player had to prompt you with a question. The latter definately does not satisfy my goal for the players to have foreknowledge while they ideate.


You have different goals when providing information. Yet you are trying to disabuse me (and other GMs that value this player foreknowledge) of the notion that me providing player-facing DCs is a good solution for my goals of providing information.


Take the room as an example. I want the players in my campaign to have access to all that foreknowledge without the undue burden of repeating it every time one of those examples could be theoretically relevant. It is much easier to have a document. Furthermore my example is extensive because there are many things the players could do and I want them to have foreknowledge on many of them so they can extrapolate foreknowledge on others. That is a lot of work for me to create, but much less work if all I need is to tune existing sections in the DMG. Likewise I am stressing these are only player facing after the GM chooses to have them be player facing. You can continue to have nothing be player facing.

[Psyren]

1) False. The value this GM (me for example) is seeking is the player having some amount of foreknowledge. Examples help provide foreknowledge while reinforcing specifics might vary. Maybe this wooden door's iron hinges are a bit more reinforced if tested (It was DC 17 perhaps). I want the players to know doors like that will generally be roughly DC 15, however there can and will be variance. The goal of providing a baseline of player foreknowledge was satisfied. Likewise if they try to perch in a corner, they might find it had groves carved there to make it easier on the Ghoul that ambushed them from the corner.

If you want to decide that wooden doors in your world are typically DC 15 and iron ones are typically DC 20, or whatever else, go nuts. I don't want your world to define mine. The fewer such examples are codified, the better.

[Segev]

If you want to decide that wooden doors in your world are typically DC 15 and iron ones are typically DC 20, or whatever else, go nuts. I don't want your world to define mine. The fewer such examples are codified, the better.

What if I don't know any better and decide wooden doors are DC 30 and iron ones are impossible?

You've held up "but Segev, you KNOW it's ridiculous to set it that high, or you wouldn't be using it as an example!" before, but...why do I know it's ridiculous? HOW do you know it's ridiculous? Are we both sure it IS ridiculous? By what standard? Wooden doors aren't nearly as easy to break as fiction portrays them, and nobody outside of superman or the hulk regularly breaks down iron doors, do they? Certainly, we don't see Hawkeye doing it, and Dr. Strange has to use spells. Is it intended that PCs be able to use raw strength to break down iron doors? The book doesn't say! Not unless it gives...guidelines. (Or codified tables, but I don't really care for those.)

[OldTrees1]

If you want to decide that wooden doors in your world are typically DC 15 and iron ones are typically DC 20, or whatever else, go nuts. I don't want your world to define mine. The fewer such examples are codified, the better.

Psyren that is a strawman. Your world is not in jeopardy.

If WotC elaborated (including optional examples) in the DMG, and then I (a GM not in your playgroup) tuned those optional examples and then decided to provide them as player facing to my group, then HOW the **** did it "define" your world?

How is it such a big deal for your world that you need to try to gaslight me about the effort it takes me to create this player foreknowledge from scratch (instead of tuning based off of support from WotC) or for you to campaign for only you being supported instead of both of us being supported?

Back up your claim. If you want to claim supporting both damages you, then prove it.

[Ortho]

Currently the GM just arbitrarily judges what the DC is without clear guidelines.


What if I don't know any better and decide wooden doors are DC 30 and iron ones are impossible?

You've held up "but Segev, you KNOW it's ridiculous to set it that high, or you wouldn't be using it as an example!" before, but...why do I know it's ridiculous? HOW do you know it's ridiculous? Are we both sure it IS ridiculous? By what standard? Wooden doors aren't nearly as easy to break as fiction portrays them, and nobody outside of superman or the hulk regularly breaks down iron doors, do they? Certainly, we don't see Hawkeye doing it, and Dr. Strange has to use spells. Is it intended that PCs be able to use raw strength to break down iron doors? The book doesn't say! Not unless it gives...guidelines. (Or codified tables, but I don't really care for those.)

The guidelines are DC 5 = very easy, DC 10 = easy, DC 30 = nearly impossible, etc. These are listed in both the PHB (pg 174) and the DMG (pg 238) for both the players and the DM to know, so don't tell me they're not clear.

[OldTrees1]

The guidelines are DC 5 = very easy, DC 10 = easy, DC 30 = nearly impossible, etc. These are listed in both the PHB (pg 174) and the DMG (pg 238) for both the players and the DM to know, so don't tell me they're not clear.

I waffled about breaking a wooden door being DC 10 vs DC 15. I decided DC 15 eventually but it could have been either.

If I waffled between those 2, I could see my players being uncertain as well.

If I want to have the players have some foreknowledge about the difficulty of breaking a wooden door, one way is to make my decision about the typical wooden door be player facing. That would allow the players to be less uncertain since they have the context that it would typically be DC 15 with variance from there.

I am an experienced GM. While GMs do have lots of variance on their DC rulings between GMs, the variance within a single GM tends to decrease as they get more comfortable. I could see my inexperienced self varying from DC 5 to DC 25 with only the 5E guidance. The problem I addressed in paragraph 2&3 would be more pronounced for newer GMs/Players as a result. That relates to Segev's comment although I personally am more focused on more experienced groups.

I think 5E's lack of player-facing guidance works for some groups. Hence why I support optional additional guidance be in the DMG with the GM choosing IF to use it, how to tune it, and how to use it.

[Psyren]

Psyren that is a strawman. Your world is not in jeopardy.

Sure, no one's world is truly "in jeopardy." But they still need to decide whether to codify in the rulebooks or not, you literally cannot both codify and not codify. So I still have my preference where they spend their design time, and I don't expect it to align with yours.


What if I don't know any better and decide wooden doors are DC 30 and iron ones are impossible?

Then your players will probably not have fun in your world and you'll need to make adjustments. Failure is part of learning.

[OldTrees1]

Sure, no one's world is truly "in jeopardy." But they still need to decide whether to codify in the rulebooks or not, you literally cannot both codify and not codify. So I still have my preference where they spend their design time, and I don't expect it to align with yours.

You literally can have optional content in the DMG.
You literally can have some GMs choose to use that optional content and others choose not to use that optional content.
You literally can have some of the GMs that chose to use that optional content also choose to make it player-facing and others that chose to use that optional content choose not to make it player facing.

So yes, I can both "codify" and "not codify". And you know it.

If you want to insist that model can't exist, then prove your claim.

[Psyren]

You literally can have optional content in the DMG.
You literally can have some GMs choose to use that optional content and others choose not to use that optional content.
You literally can have some of the GMs that chose to use that optional content also choose to make it player-facing and others that chose to use that optional content choose not to make it player facing.

So yes, I can both "codify" and "not codify". And you know it.

You and I both know that you can slather "OPTIONAL" all over sample DCs all you want, they will still be weaponized in arguments both at tables and online. No thanks.

[OldTrees1]

You and I both know that you can slather "OPTIONAL" all over sample DCs all you want, they will still be weaponized in arguments both at tables and online. No thanks.

Define "weaponize". You use that as a weasel word.


Edit:
For example, is it problematic behavior of players (including the GM) attacking each other? Then don't do that. Don't be a problem player. It is not a problem with samples DCs existing/not existing in the DMG.

[DrLoveMonkey]

The guidelines are DC 5 = very easy, DC 10 = easy, DC 30 = nearly impossible, etc. These are listed in both the PHB (pg 174) and the DMG (pg 238) for both the players and the DM to know, so don't tell me they're not clear.

So just as an example, I have a barbarian player with 16 strength and the party is confronted with a 30 foot gap that they need to get across to pull a lever, and then get back. The wizard has Misty Step, he can do it, but he doesn’t want to waste the spell slots.

The barbarian wants to chance jumping it. So their base long jump is 16 feet, and they’re looking to get an extra 14 out of it, almost doubling it. How hard is that to do? The real world long jump record is about 30 feet, and this guy is a hulking Sumerian fantasy hero! What does that mean? Is it impossible because jumping double what you can comfortably jump is insane, or is it just kind of challenging because of the aforementioned epic fantasy hero status?

[Psyren]

Define "weaponize". You use that as a weasel word.


Edit:
For example, is it problematic behavior of players (including the GM) attacking each other? Then don't do that. Don't be a problem player. It is not a problem with samples DCs existing/not existing in the DMG.

So the game designers have no responsibility to mitigate or prevent problematic behavior where they can? Especially when doing so is literally less work than trying to codify a bunch of DCs centrally?


So just as an example, I have a barbarian player with 16 strength and the party is confronted with a 30 foot gap that they need to get across to pull a lever, and then get back. The wizard has Misty Step, he can do it, but he doesn’t want to waste the spell slots.

The barbarian wants to chance jumping it. So their base long jump is 16 feet, and they’re looking to get an extra 14 out of it, almost doubling it. How hard is that to do? The real world long jump record is about 30 feet, and this guy is a hulking Sumerian fantasy hero! What does that mean? Is it impossible because jumping double what you can comfortably jump is insane, or is it just kind of challenging because of the aforementioned epic fantasy hero status?

What's funny is that under the proposed rules, even with a +10 modifier he'll need a natural 20 and a running start to clear that gap, whereas under the old rules the DM could have more easily set it at 20 or 25 instead.

[DrLoveMonkey]

You and I both know that you can slather "OPTIONAL" all over sample DCs all you want, they will still be weaponized in arguments both at tables and online. No thanks.

That’s kind of a good thing though, right?

Like if someone online is saying that reliable talent plus expertise on rogues is completely overpowered because it lets them use athletics and acrobatics to leap over buildings and crawl on ceilings like Spider-Man, you can point to the rules and say that actually it doesn’t really let them do that.

Or alternatively someone upset because their level 20 Barbarian with 24 strength couldn’t pry open the iron bars in his cell window because the DM, completely reasonably, pointed out that an inch of solid iron rod is basically impervious to human muscle power. When actually a level 20 Barbarian is supposed to be the kind of epic character that can snap an inch thick iron rod without a second thought.

[OldTrees1]

So the game designers have no responsibility to mitigate or prevent problematic behavior where they can? Especially when doing so is literally less work than trying to codify a bunch of DCs centrally?

You have failed to define "weaponize". You use it as a weasel word, as such I need to actually tell me what you mean before I can address your concern.



Psyren, people can be problematic about anything they want. It is no reason to remove the 1d20 from the game for fear some might "weaponize" it. Seriously you are blowing this "weaponize" out of proportion and misattributing the fault. Optional rules have merit. They are valued. It is trivial to avoid an optional rule you are/are not using from being a problem at your table.


Edit: Unless you elaborate, all I am hearing is your group has personal problems and would become problematic if my group did not have an undue burden. Oh, I am so moved and welcome this undue burden inflicted on me to save poor Psyren from their nasty playgroup. Nah, if your group would "weaponize" an option rule you are not using, they will do so regardless of whether the optional rule is the one my group would benefit from.

[Segev]

The guidelines are DC 5 = very easy, DC 10 = easy, DC 30 = nearly impossible, etc. These are listed in both the PHB (pg 174) and the DMG (pg 238) for both the players and the DM to know, so don't tell me they're not clear.

Where does it give me any guidance as to what is a "hard" task for strength? An "easy" one? Is breaking down a wooden door supposed to be "easy?" "Nigh impossible?" "Very easy?" What about an iron one? Heck, give me ONE of those, and I can probably at least extrapolate that iron is harder to break down than wood, and adamantine harder than both. But with no guidelines...I just kind-of guess.

And maybe you're fine with that. As a DM, I am not.

Some things, I might have a good idea what is "easy" and what is "hard." Many things, I don't. Especially trying to fit it to the game's expectations rather than "the guy at the gym" or, worse, "me at the gym."

If a DM feels that the guidelines are way off, he is free to change the DCs as he sees fit. He can talk to his players about it if he needs to. If a DM doesn't have a clue, though, without guidelines, he can't...make them up. He can make up numbers, but that's as valid as saying "you fail every check, because I don't know how hard things are, and I'd rather err on the side of too hard than too easy."

No, the guidelines you list are not clear. They are as useless as saying, "Some Wisdom tasks include knowing whether to include tomatoes in fruit salad, reading people's intentions from their expressions, and calming a dangerous animal," when it comes to setting the DCs. I could just as easily say that, because "calming a dangerous animal" is a guideline for what Wisdom can do, it is clear how to run a Wisdom check.

Without knowing that "calming a dangerous animal" is a "very easy" task, I have no idea what DC to assign it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I like codifying conditions and game terms, ability checks not so much especially since things like moving and thinking apparently take actions now. That's what got me to grimace.
Nuh-uh-uh. DCs are the domain of the DM; they shouldn't be in a player-facing book at all. They belong in the DMG (and/or DM's screen). In general, I agree.

Players should not be telling the DM what the DC should be. This.

If you want to decide that wooden doors in your world are typically DC 15 and iron ones are typically DC 20, or whatever else, go nuts. I don't want your world to define mine. The fewer such examples are codified, the better. I am on board with this.
The guidelines are DC 5 = very easy, DC 10 = easy, DC 30 = nearly impossible, etc. These are listed in both the PHB (pg 174) and the DMG (pg 238) for both the players and the DM to know, so don't tell me they're not clear. Indeed.


I waffled about breaking a wooden door being DC 10 vs DC 15. I decided DC 15 eventually but it could have been either. You could have chosen 12, or 13, if you were waffling. We are not constrained to multiples of 5. Look at the published adventures. Values like 12 are not uncommon.

If I waffled between those 2, I could see my players being uncertain as well. I find "pick a number and play on" to be the best practice.

I think 5E's lack of player-facing guidance works for some groups. Hence why I support optional additional guidance be in the DMG with the GM choosing IF to use it, how to tune it, and how to use it. That was the 5e approach for ability checks, and I am not pleased that they seem to be coming off of that.

[DrLoveMonkey]

What's funny is that under the proposed rules, even with a +10 modifier he'll need a natural 20 and a running start to clear that gap, whereas under the old rules the DM could have more easily set it at 20 or 25 instead.

Well that being the case maybe the numbers are too low, or maybe not. You want to jump 30 feet, you need magic, which is maybe unfair, or maybe completely fair that you don’t get to do magic things without magic.

But NOW we can actually say that. Barbarians are definitely not superhuman compared to real world people. They’re not supposed to be, and if you make one you shouldn’t expect to be doing that kind of thing, and as a DM if I have a Barbarian in my group I shouldn’t let them roll for things I know no human can do.

Or alternatively if the rules get firmed as something else, with different numbers, both me and my Barbarian player know that he’s supposed to be able to do things no real human could, and we even know how much. Like he can barrel through an iron shod oak door, but not punch through a 12 foot fortress wall.

It’s a good thing to bring up in the survey before 5.5 rules get firmed.

[Psyren]

That’s kind of a good thing though, right?

Like if someone online is saying that reliable talent plus expertise on rogues is completely overpowered because it lets them use athletics and acrobatics to leap over buildings and crawl on ceilings like Spider-Man, you can point to the rules and say that actually it doesn’t really let them do that.

I would rather the tables that want it to mean you can jump over buildings (and keep in mind "building" is a pretty undefined range - an outhouse is a building) and the tables that don't want it to mean that be able to choose the kind of game they want to play. I certainly wouldn't mind being able to leap onto a giant's back for instance.


You have failed to define "weaponize". You use it as a weasel word, as such I need to actually tell me what you mean before I can address your concern.

1) Using "designer intent," however misaligned that might be with an individual DM's worldbuilding, to undermine a DM's decisionmaking or force them to painstakingly design every challenge and map instead of being able to abstract anything.

2) Anchoring DM imagination to specific calculations (e.g. 1 point in an athletics roll = 1 horizontal foot) instead of encouraging more creative results of success and failure.


Psyren, people can be problematic about anything they want. It is no reason to remove the 1d20 from the game for fear some might "weaponize" it.

Strawman - I said nothing about "removing the 1d20 from the game."



Edit: Unless you elaborate, all I am hearing is your group has personal problems and would become problematic if my group did not have an undue burden. Oh, I am so moved and welcome this undue burden inflicted on me to save poor Psyren from their nasty playgroup. Nah, if your group would "weaponize" an option rule you are not using, they will do so regardless of whether the optional rule is the one my group would benefit from.

If this is the level of discourse you consider meaningful, I'll see you in the survey.

[OldTrees1]

You could have chosen 12, or 13, if you were waffling. We are not constrained to multiples of 5. Look at the published adventures. Values like 12 are not uncommon.

Clarification: By waffling between, I meant an inclusive range, not a binary.


I find "pick a number and play on" to be the best practice.

This seems less relevant to my comment. I was noticing my uncertainty (resolved when I pick a number and play on) and suspecting the players had a similar or greater uncertainty (maybe they were thinking 7-18 given unknown unknowns). Since I want some degree of player foreknowledge (and prefer it less than that) I might see that as an area of improvement.

So "pick a number and play on" does not address the player foreknowledge topic I was talking. (So good advice, different topic)

[OldTrees1]

1) Using "designer intent," however misaligned that might be with an individual DM's worldbuilding, to undermine a DM's decisionmaking or force them to painstakingly design every challenge and map instead of being able to abstract anything.
Okay, so a problem player being a problem player. They can do that with the 1d20 too.


2) Anchoring DM imagination to specific calculations (e.g. 1 point in an athletics roll = 1 horizontal foot) instead of encouraging more creative results of success and failure.
It is optional to use it or not. It will not anchor your imagination if you don't use it.


Strawman - I said nothing about "removing the 1d20 from the game."
No, but people can "weaponize" the 1d20 too. Your are misattributing a different issue onto an optional rule. It is not the rule at fault for you having a player that thinks it is okay to use "designer intent" as a weapon to undermine your ability to run the game. Nor is it the fault of the optional rule if one of your players thinks they can force you to painstakingly design every challenge and map instead of being able to abstract anything.


If this is the level of discourse you consider meaningful, I'll see you in the survey.
While you hid behind a weasel word there was not much I could infer other than you wanted me to shoulder the burden of your problem player.

Now that you have elaborated, I think you are misattributing the fault. Your concern about "weaponizing" reads as problematic players being problematic. I don't see that as the fault for an optional rule considering problem players will weaponize something else.

Your problem player is problematically demanding ("weaponize") with optional rules and you are weaponizing them against GMs that would benefit from optional rules. Thanks a lot.

[Ortho]

You and I both know that you can slather "OPTIONAL" all over sample DCs all you want, they will still be weaponized in arguments both at tables and online. No thanks.

I think that's more a matter of presentation than anything. For example, the social interaction sample DCs in the DMG have always been completely ignored before now.

By being in the DMG, it's explicitly DM opt-in to use. By being in the PHB, it's the de facto default. When's the last time you played a game without feats or multiclassing?


So just as an example, I have a barbarian player with 16 strength and the party is confronted with a 30 foot gap that they need to get across to pull a lever, and then get back. The wizard has Misty Step, he can do it, but he doesn’t want to waste the spell slots.

The barbarian wants to chance jumping it. So their base long jump is 16 feet, and they’re looking to get an extra 14 out of it, almost doubling it. How hard is that to do? The real world long jump record is about 30 feet, and this guy is a hulking Sumerian fantasy hero! What does that mean? Is it impossible because jumping double what you can comfortably jump is insane, or is it just kind of challenging because of the aforementioned epic fantasy hero status?

You could compromise; the barbarian chucks the wizard across and the wizard teleports back :smalltongue:.

I'd rule it's impossible because jumping double what you can comfortably jump is insane. That amount of variance would render the original rule kinda pointless.

[OldTrees1]

I think that's more a matter of presentation than anything. For example, the social interaction sample DCs in the DMG have always been completely ignored before now.

By being in the DMG, it's explicitly DM opt-in to use. By being in the PHB, it's the de facto default. When's the last time you played a game without feats or multiclassing?

I find 5E labeling multiclassing as an optional rule in the PHB makes players assume it is an opt-out rule. They still respected the GM decides if it is enabled, but they assume it is enabled. For that reason I agree with the suggestion to have most optional rules be in the DMG to help present it as an opt-in. Let the GM choose IF it is enabled, and then IF it will be player facing. Opt-in is good.


I also suspect popular optional rules will be more likely to be assumed to be opt-out than opt-in because they are more frequently enabled. Putting a popular optional rule in the DMG can help reinforce that the rule can be disabled and is opt-in. For example magic items as a system are an opt-in system that people assume is enabled by default. However they are open to the idea of no magic item campaigns.

[Psyren]

No, but people can "weaponize" the 1d20 too.

How so? The DM chooses when to call for 1d20 rolls. That's not the same as a player-facing DC saying "a wooden door will always be this difficult and your DM is being unfair if they choose a higher number." They're not remotely comparable.



Your concern about "weaponizing" reads as problematic players being problematic. I don't see that as the fault for an optional rule considering problem players will weaponize something else.

Which brings us back to my earlier question: "So the game designers have no responsibility to mitigate or prevent problematic behavior where they can? Especially when doing so is literally less work than trying to codify a bunch of DCs centrally?"

No, I don't expect the designers to wave a magic wand and eliminate all problem players from D&D and D&D forums. But I do expect the books to not make things worse than they have to be. I further expect the designers development time to be spent on things I don't need them to do for me. I can figure out a door's DC on my own easily, using the guidelines they already provided.


I think that's more a matter of presentation than anything. For example, the social interaction sample DCs in the DMG have always been completely ignored before now.

I've never ignored them, I just consider them redundant. You can come to the exact same conclusions just by applying the standard difficulty guidelines. Should they be coming up with tables like that for every other challenge too? Where does it end?

[OldTrees1]

How so? The DM chooses when to call for 1d20 rolls. That's not the same as a player-facing DC saying "a wooden door will always be this difficult and your DM is being unfair if they choose a higher number." They're not remotely comparable.
How so? The GM chooses when to use an optional rule. I am surprised your local problem player (the one you fear demanding DCs) is not demanding rolls.

PS you do realize an example DC in the DMG, in a section that a GM can opt-in to, and can also opt-in to having be player-facing is not saying "a wooden door will always be this difficult and your DM is being unfair if they choose a higher number." That extra baggage is from your problem player.


Which brings us back to my earlier question: "So the game designers have no responsibility to mitigate or prevent problematic behavior where they can? Especially when doing so is literally less work than trying to codify a bunch of DCs centrally?"

No, I don't expect the designers to wave a magic wand and eliminate all problem players from D&D and D&D forums. But I do expect the books to not make things worse than they have to be. I further expect the designers development time to be spent on things I don't need them to do for me. I can figure out a door's DC on my own easily, using the guidelines they already provided.

This concern about weaponizing DC, from an optional variant, buried in the DMG, does not seem a big concern. It boils down to you being worried a problem player will choose to weaponize this topic instead of a different topic. The total amount of weaponizing is unlikely to change much.

So how much responsibility does the game designer have in this area? Minimal because they can't force you to behave like adults and there is already plenty of ammo for anyone wanting to "weaponize". And the other half of the question is the value added by supporting both GMs. Like it or not, one of 5Es biggest critiques is this lack of support, so clearly there is value there.

So do they help Psyren manage a problem player by a negligible amount, or do they greatly improve the value of their product? Why not do both? Add a section helping GMs deal with problem players and also provide support for both GMs.

[Psyren]

How so? The GM chooses when to use an optional rule. I am surprised your local problem player (the one you fear demanding DCs) is not demanding rolls.

PS you do realize an example DC in the DMG, in a section that a GM can opt-in to, and can also opt-in to having be player-facing is not saying "a wooden door will always be this difficult and your DM is being unfair if they choose a higher number." That extra baggage is from your problem player.



This concern about weaponizing DC, from an optional variant, buried in the DMG, does not seem a big concern. It boils down to you being worried a problem player will choose to weaponize this topic instead of a different topic. The total amount of weaponizing is unlikely to change much.

So how much responsibility does the game designer have in this area? Minimal because they can't force you to behave like adults and there is already plenty of ammo for anyone wanting to "weaponize". And the other half of the question is the value added by supporting both GMs. Like it or not, one of 5Es biggest critiques is this lack of support, so clearly there is value there.

So do they help Psyren manage a problem player by a negligible amount, or do they greatly improve the value of their product? Why not do both? Add a section helping GMs deal with problem players and also provide support for both GMs.

I never said I have a problem player, nor even that weaponizing is an issue I personally have to deal with. I'm capable of having empathy for DMs who are not specifically myself.

The DC setting rules are not optional so I have no idea which optional rule you keep going on about.

[OldTrees1]

I never said I have a problem player, nor even that weaponizing is an issue I personally have to deal with. I'm capable of having empathy for DMs who are not specifically myself.

Okay, for a while I was concerned about you personally suffering and that was being taken into account.

So you are not talking about a problem player you are dealing with. You are talking about a hypothetical problem player that will only ever be problematic if GMs that want the option to opt-in to player-facing example DCs get support. Obviously we should ignore all the other problem players that are weaponizing any of the other available ammo. This leaves a very very infrequent case.

On the other hand, how adept are you at empathizing with GMs that see the 5E ability check system as a pain point? How adept are you at seeing the undue burden they deal with? It is a much more common issue that your edge case problem player.

So, I see it as obvious. Add a section that helps deal with problem players weaponizing D&D (including those that are already active) and add this optional section to the DMG. Why not support both! It does not have to be a Psyren or bust debate, it can be a best for everyone discussion.



The DC setting rules are not optional so I have no idea which optional rule you keep going on about.You wanted to oppose the notion that player-facing DCs are the only, or even most appropriate, way for a player to know what their character can do. I am one of the GMs that wants to provide player-facing DCs as a means of improving player foreknowledge. I evaluated your solution and explained its downsides. The argument continued from there.

As shared context we have used the example of a section in the DMG that is off by default (opt-in) that would elaborate on baselines (including some sample DCs) and a GM that wanted to could opt-in to that section and make a further decision to opt-in to having it be player-facing by telling the players they could treat those pages (with any tuning the GM chose to do) as player-facing. That is the optional rule I keep going on about.

Sidenote: Likewise from that shared context, you know I have some critiques about 1D&D not leaving the DCs in the DMG under an opt-in framework. In hindsight the 5E jump your Str score should also have been in the DMG

[Psyren]

So you are not talking about a problem player you are dealing with. You are talking about a hypothetical problem player that will only ever be problematic if GMs that want the option to opt-in to player-facing example DCs get support. Obviously we should ignore all the other problem players that are weaponizing any of the other available ammo. This leaves a very very infrequent case.

What "other available ammo?"


On the other hand, how adept are you at empathizing with GMs that see the 5E ability check system as a pain point? How adept are you at seeing the undue burden they deal with? It is a much more common issue that your edge case problem player.

If the so-called "undue burden" you speak of hasn't provoked any kind of codification in 8+ years of 5e games, I question its existence.

At best, they appear to be experimenting with a "here's how far you can jump and what kind of action it takes" codification. Nothing about doors or ceilings or chimneys or all the other things in your earlier convoluted example.



So, I see it as obvious. Add a section that helps deal with problem players weaponizing D&D (including those that are already active) and add this optional section to the DMG. Why not support both! It does not have to be a Psyren or bust debate, it can be a best for everyone discussion.

I don't know what a "Psyren or bust debate" even is.

What if I think the current version is already "best for everyone?"



You wanted to oppose the notion that player-facing DCs are the only, or even most appropriate, way for a player to know what their character can do. I am one of the GMs that wants to provide player-facing DCs as a means of improving player foreknowledge. I evaluated your solution and explained its downsides. The argument continued from there.

As shared context we have used the example of a section in the DMG that is off by default (opt-in) that would elaborate on baselines (including some sample DCs) and a GM that wanted to could opt-in to that section and make a further decision to opt-in to having it be player-facing by telling the players they could treat those pages (with any tuning the GM chose to do) as player-facing. That is the optional rule I keep going on about.

Oh, I thought you meant something that currently exists. I'd need to see an example of what you're talking about then to evaluate it.

[DrLoveMonkey]

I would rather the tables that want it to mean you can jump over buildings (and keep in mind "building" is a pretty undefined range - an outhouse is a building) and the tables that don't want it to mean that be able to choose the kind of game they want to play. I certainly wouldn't mind being able to leap onto a giant's back for instance.

For what it's worth I also think you should be able to jump on a giant's back, and I further think that the book should be reasonably explicit that in the game where wizards whisper the words "I wish..." and tear open holes in reality to march legions of spirits through, that you should not be limiting your fighter to a 3 foot vertical jump because it's not realistic.



However you could de-codifiy a lot of existing stuff as well if you wanted to. You could dial it back way far from where it's at right now.

Like right now a fighter with 20 strength can carry 100 pounds of gear without suffering encumbrance and still leap 20 feet with a 10 foot run-up. Olympians get 30' carrying the weight of a pair of super light trousers and shoes, using a 100 foot runup to build speed.

It's very silly from a realistic point of view that a fighter would be able to do that, but right now a player can pull up the rules and say that without even rolling for it, they get to jump 20 feet, which only leaves the DM to veto it if he wants to.

Going back to Misty Step, its range is 30 feet. There's no amount of extra effort or strain you can take to try and roll for it being 70 feet, or for it to take you to the feywyld instead, but it might be cool if you could.

The wizard could also only prepare a certain number of spells per day, but who's to say some tables wouldn't prefer it if a wizard could cast all their spells from their spellbook directly?


There are RPG systems that operate like that, and they absolutely work, but they tend to be a lot more narrative focused. Like nobody playing a wizard in those systems is assumed to have any particular limitations on what their magic can do at any given time, and likewise a fighter's equipment doesn't really matter because all you need to do is justify picking up an improvised weapon to roll your (Daring + Fighting Spirit) against whatever enemy showed up.

I do like playing those systems sometimes, but I also enjoy that there are things like DnD where I can be a little more certain of what my character can do, and think more tactically or inventively.

[OldTrees1]

Oh, I thought you meant something that currently exists. I'd need to see an example of what you're talking about then to evaluate it.
What it would look like would vary on the topic. The social section in the 5E DMG is very good for areas like the social skills. Movement like climb/jump/swim would probably focus more on example DCs, example modifiers (is climbing easier with corners or chimneys? here is an example of maybe how much), talk about the GM still being in control to set the DC, and discuss the movement paradigm the examples create vs ways you might vary it for alternative movement paradigms (Wuxia monks for example).

The goal is to have a very flexible ability check system (see 5E although maybe different math) and then have DMG opt-in sections where there is elaboration, examples, advice, and depth.


What "other available ammo?"
Basically anything. From what you communicated to me as the meaning of "weaponize" it is about player intent and behavior. They can do it with anything. Even a 1d20 roll.


If the so-called "undue burden" you speak of hasn't provoked any kind of codification in 8+ years of 5e games, I question its existence.
It has been attempted as you know. It is just a lot of work for each GM or even groups online. With that much work and most of it repeated across groups, it really is no surprised it is not as successful as if it had support.


What if I think the current version is already "best for everyone?"
I would recommend listening to the critiques of 5E.

[Ortho]

Where does it give me any guidance as to what is a "hard" task for strength? An "easy" one? Is breaking down a wooden door supposed to be "easy?" "Nigh impossible?" "Very easy?" What about an iron one? Heck, give me ONE of those, and I can probably at least extrapolate that iron is harder to break down than wood, and adamantine harder than both. But with no guidelines...I just kind-of guess.

Incidentally, the DMG (pg 246/247) also provides ACs and HP for various materials and object sizes. As does the DM screen.

For all that the DMG gets ragged on these forums, I find that the game goes a lot smoother if you actually use it as a resource.


And maybe you're fine with that. As a DM, I am not.

Also speaking as a DM, I like the current guidelines because they allow me to set DCs without needing to look up tables. I want to minimize the amount of time I spend pausing the game to look something up.


Without knowing that "calming a dangerous animal" is a "very easy" task, I have no idea what DC to assign it.

We can walk through this using the provided guidelines. You have six options to choose from: Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible. If none of those jump out at you as 'correct', you can use process of elimination and common sense to whittle down the options. And if you still can't decide, split the difference and plop the DC somewhere in the middle.

Note that I'm approaching this from the perspective of someone who want to keep the game moving, so I'm willing to sacrifice some accuracy for the sake of smoothness.

[Zhorn]

Or on the Athletics check total, convert that value into a modifier the same way ability scores are. making a check total of 20 nets you +5 ft. , 16 = +3 ft. , 30 = +10 ft.. the math s a little busy, but the formula isn't different to anything already used in game.
Now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, and reading the other posts here, I'm thinking this would be the most reasonable.


Distance is still based primarily off your STR score.
The 'swing factor' of a dice roll is somewhat bounded around what is reasonable for your investment

- if a high invested build still manages under a 'DC 10'* roll, it's likely only loosing 1-2 ft. from their baseline jump distance, not knocking it all the way down to 5 ft.
- a high roll of 20 is +5 ft. further than what you could normally do, a 30 is +10 ft. further, meaning what is an easy/difficult jump is relative to what you can already do.
Doesn't require a new table (it could use one, but the math is identical to the results of 'Ability Scores and Modifiers' on PHB p13)
Players can reasonably assess on they own what they can/cannot achieve, and is codified so individual assessments should arrive at the same result.
* I say DC just as an example term, but this setup doesn't need to be defined as DCs with a binary pass/fail

[Goobahfish]

Hmmm...

This all sounds a bit familiar. Which side was I on again?

That's right.

Ok, so here are a few things I have gleaned:

#1: Hard is a relative term. If the guidance is merely 'hard' there will be a fair bit of uncertainty in the player's mind because different tables, different DMs, hell, even different sessions might have some big variation.

This is pretty problematic. When I'm 'combating', while there is some variation, the AC of my targets is probably going to be fairly 'bound accuracy-like'. Probably between 10 and 20 most of the time. Probably pretty easy to deduce from the 'what is it wearing' observation. I know my attack bonus and DCs, I can probably makes some pretty decent guestimations of what outcomes will emerge from my actions.

There is a runed door. If I make an Arcana check... well... the DC could be 5 or 30... who knows. If I'm not in combat, this isn't a huge concern to me. If it is 30 the DM is basically saying, you need a key, manual or other thing to pass this way. If the DC is 10. This is a minor obstacle we could probably knock down with a spell or key or magic or whatever.

Now lets merge the two. I am in combat (ranger-type character). There is this lovely broken bridge with some stairs leading to it. If I run up the stairs and leap across the gap, the zombies chasing me aren't going to be able to get at me and I have simplified combat for myself. If I fall though... that could be pretty risky (falling in amongst zombies). Do I do it? Well, narratively, yes of course. It is a daring, clever thing to do. It fits in theme. From a game perspective... well, the jump is more than 14 ft (my Strength). I have athletics/acrobatics proficiency though. Err...

Oh well, I just keep shooting arrows and now the 'interesting terrain' isn't interesting any more.

#2: If guidelines are in the book, the become de-facto concrete rules.

Situation 1: The player asks if he can barge through the locked door while Zombies are chasing him. Ah crap... I wasn't expecting that. Ok... so DMG... wooden door... how thick? So like +1 for every 2" of door... is the wood rotten... metal hinges. Ah crap, my players aren't paying attention... um Roll! Yeah... a 15 is fail. What do you mean that a wooden door that is 6" thick should only be DC 13. Yes I know I said it was rotten... I'm the DM, I get to decide these things... it says so in the DMG... that rule is optional. Can you just drop it? You don't get through the door. Oh no, I'm never going to play D&D again... everyone hates me...

While this is obviously an exaggeration (at least I hope it is), there are some issues here. Looking for precise DCs is time consuming and boring for ad-hoc challenges. Concrete DCs lead to player expectations.

----

I think Oldtrees has it mostly right. When I said I was glad of some codification (i.e. action costs) I am not a big fan of Diplomancy-style outcomes codification. I think having DC guidelines is probably a good thing, as long as it isn't exhaustive, just indicative. Like... breaking down a wooden door should probably be somewhere in the Medium to Hard difficulty but with enough wriggle-room for DMs to make quick (i.e. "wrong") DC decisions without being sanctioned by annoying players.

That said, the current codification for Jump, Influence and Study are just bad (IMO).

[Kane0]

That said, the current codification for Jump, Influence and Study are just bad (IMO).

Hear hear!

[Psyren]

What it would look like would vary on the topic. The social section in the 5E DMG is very good for areas like the social skills. Movement like climb/jump/swim would probably focus more on example DCs, example modifiers (is climbing easier with corners or chimneys? here is an example of maybe how much), talk about the GM still being in control to set the DC, and discuss the movement paradigm the examples create vs ways you might vary it for alternative movement paradigms (Wuxia monks for example).

The goal is to have a very flexible ability check system (see 5E although maybe different math) and then have DMG opt-in sections where there is elaboration, examples, advice, and depth.

I don't see a point in codifying any of that. Using your chimney example:

Some DMs will say climbing a chimney at the corners gives advantage, others will say climbing that way lowers the DC, and others might say it doesn't help at all or was already factored in by making the check possible in the first place. None of these DMs are wrong, because the design of the chimney is ultimately up to them. And even if they intended the chimney to be #3 but their description better fits #1, the player pointing that out to them just means they can say "oh, then in that case I meant {chimney design that leads to #3}. No advantage. Roll."

It just slows the game down for no reason, to say nothing of the burden of the DM needing to think through all these potential contention points during preparation etc.



Basically anything. From what you communicated to me as the meaning of "weaponize" it is about player intent and behavior. They can do it with anything. Even a 1d20 roll.

In 5e, rolls don't occur until the GM asks for them. No chance of abuse there. I want the same protection/expectation for DCs.

Worse still, codified DCs signal to both DMs and players that they should be asking for/attempting a roll, even in situations where a roll is unnecessary at best or actively detrimental at worst. It circumvents the process that should be followed before the dice come out.


It has been attempted as you know.

By WotC? Where?

If you mean it was attempted by rando DMs online or elsewhere - I don't see that as representative of any meaningful market demand or trend. DMs attempt all kinds of things I don't agree with and that WotC won't go for, like cutting bard casting in half and whatnot.


I would recommend listening to the critiques of 5E.

The "cure" can be worse than the "disease."

[Psyren]

That said, the current codification for Jump, Influence and Study are just bad (IMO).

I don't mind Influence being an action. Trying to talk someone down during a fight shouldn't be free, and it also helps determine how much effort it should be to try and scare people off etc.

Jump and Study however have no business being actions. The first just hoses martials who want to clear an obstacle and then attack (which casters can still do via multiple means.) And Study should be at most a reaction or bonus action, it represents quickly seeing if you know something.

[Sneak Dog]

A bonus is meaningless without a target. If you start a new game, deal 534 damage with an attack, is that a lot? It depends on the hit points of the target. Is a +11 athletics a lot? It depends on the DCs. If there are no DCs for the players to know, then their +11 athletics is as meaningless as 534 damage.
Would you rather have a +11 to athletics or a spell that says your base jumping distance is tripled? A +11 to history, or a spell that gives you historical knowledge about important objects, people and locations? It cannot be answered without knowing DCs, but the game asks anyway.

And no, I do not consider 'easy/medium/hard' to be good guidance. The ability check system is too integral to the system to let GMs just muck about. Far too easy for new GMs to mess up, and to new GMs the rules should cater. Experienced GMs can adjust things how they want using optional rules, houserules and homebrew. New GMs can mess up and drop the game for being bad. And they'd be right.

Besides, I love players weaponising DCs against me. Means they had a plan, considered the challenges, measured their abilities against them, calculated the risks, weighed where to invest more resources and now want to execute it. But they cannot plan without knowing their characters' capabilities. Why not empower players to take the initiative when they want to? Or rather, why not empower them to do so with ability checks like with spells?

And again it bears repeating. Guidelines more concrete than easy/medium/hard are plenty. Several samples for each skill is plenty. Too much codification slows the game down. Too little makes ability check bonuses meaningless.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Psyren that is a strawman. Your world is not in jeopardy.

If WotC elaborated (including optional examples) in the DMG, and then I (a GM not in your playgroup) tuned those optional examples and then decided to provide them as player facing to my group, then HOW the **** did it "define" your world?

How is it such a big deal for your world that you need to try to gaslight me about the effort it takes me to create this player foreknowledge from scratch (instead of tuning based off of support from WotC) or for you to campaign for only you being supported instead of both of us being supported?

Back up your claim. If you want to claim supporting both damages you, then prove it.

Strawman? Gaslighting?
Might as well throw in a ‘Disingenuous’ for maximum Mod Review power🃏

As to the contention that players need guidance on typical DCs, there is this free bit of rules from D&D Beyond:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#AbilityChecks

To my mind, DCs help tell a story. If one is in the middle of a Ability contest to find the sneaking Demi-God of Mischief, a DC 25 check informs the player that their target is fairly adept, regardless of whatever description a DM states.

A static Stealth DC, removes a narrative element.
It reminds me of Tumble checks in 3e…and that is just regressing.

[Psyren]

A bonus is meaningless without a target. If you start a new game, deal 534 damage with an attack, is that a lot? It depends on the hit points of the target. Is a +11 athletics a lot? It depends on the DCs. If there are no DCs for the players to know, then their +11 athletics is as meaningless as 534 damage.

Would you rather have a +11 to athletics or a spell that says your base jumping distance is tripled? A +11 to history, or a spell that gives you historical knowledge about important objects, people and locations? It cannot be answered without knowing DCs, but the game asks anyway.

Typical Difficulty Classes are right in the Player's Handbook, this is a non-issue. Bounded Accuracy is well-known at this point, in concept if not in name.



And no, I do not consider 'easy/medium/hard' to be good guidance. The ability check system is too integral to the system to let GMs just muck about. Far too easy for new GMs to mess up, and to new GMs the rules should cater. Experienced GMs can adjust things how they want using optional rules, houserules and homebrew. New GMs can mess up and drop the game for being bad. And they'd be right.

Besides, I love players weaponising DCs against me. Means they had a plan, considered the challenges, measured their abilities against them, calculated the risks, weighed where to invest more resources and now want to execute it. But they cannot plan without knowing their characters' capabilities. Why not empower players to take the initiative when they want to? Or rather, why not empower them to do so with ability checks like with spells?

"I know I'm guaranteed to be able to break into the noble's manor undetected because the DC to scale a stone wall is 10, his bedroom window lock can't be higher than a 15, any guards he might have inside won't have a passive perception higher than 12, I can take 20 on the vault door and I'll recognize the real crown jewels from the fake ones with an appraise investigation of 15" goes beyond having a plan though, it's the player dictating the world to the DM instead of the other way around. It means that any changes the DM might make to this setup are likely to result in whining and complaining.

"What do you mean his bedroom window has an ornate lock and I have to go through the kitchen past the cleaning staff now? Oh, he hired elite guards with mastiffs, those aren't in the book, that's BS. Wait, I can't roll to get through the vault door with thieves' tools *at all*, there's a *puzzle* I have to solve using the paintings outside?? Why are you homebrewing all the challenges instead of following this table in the book?!"

Would every player react this way, no, but I'd much rather the books not play a part in planting these kinds of expectations that the DM will then have to waste time uprooting. I'll tell you what the DC is (and which challenges have no DC at all); you'll know what your character is good at because you know their ability scores and proficiencies.


A static Stealth DC, removes a narrative element.
It reminds me of Tumble checks in 3e…and that is just regressing.

Indeed. And 3.5 is a fine game that hasn't gone anywhere.

[Goobahfish]

I don't mind Influence being an action. Trying to talk someone down during a fight shouldn't be free, and it also helps determine how much effort it should be to try and scare people off etc.

Jump and Study however have no business being actions. The first just hoses martials who want to clear an obstacle and then attack (which casters can still do via multiple means.) And Study should be at most a reaction or bonus action, it represents quickly seeing if you know something.

I think I generally agree, but I am a bit sad for the 'witty banter' part of a duel for example where one player is trying to talk the other out of doing something. Wasting a whole action is a huge price for something you could probably do while taking the Dodge action/Dash action etc etc. There are ways to accommodate it of course, but it does feel somewhat restrictive to me.


"I know I'm guaranteed to be able to break into the noble's manor undetected because the DC to scale a stone wall is 10, his bedroom window lock can't be higher than a 15, any guards he might have inside won't have a passive perception higher than 12, I can take 20 on the vault door and I'll recognize the real crown jewels from the fake ones with an appraise investigation of 15" goes beyond having a plan though, it's the player dictating the world to the DM instead of the other way around. It means that any changes the DM might make to this setup are likely to result in whining and complaining.

"What do you mean his bedroom window has an ornate lock and I have to go through the kitchen past the cleaning staff now? Oh, he hired elite guards with mastiffs, those aren't in the book, that's BS. Wait, I can't roll to get through the vault door with thieves' tools *at all*, there's a *puzzle* I have to solve using the paintings outside?? Why are you homebrewing all the challenges instead of following this table in the book?!"

I feel like you need a slightly better example here. Like, if the player discovers that their 'plan goes wrong' and has a 'tanty', then I think that is the player issue. The first part actually seems quite a reasonable part of the game. I know this info about a manor, so I can do this, this, this, this. Perhaps doing a stealth mission is viable. With 'whim' DCs, such an approach might seem needlessly risky, especially with a 'but I prepared all this stuff so it will happen anyway DM'.

Honestly, I think there needs to be a part of the Study action where you can guestimate the DC of an action (you can still be wrong).

[Thunderous Mojo]

I’m curious if there is a Generational/D&D component to this debate.

The fact that the 5e Ruleset is a stable framework, that one can modify from campaign to campaign is a large selling point for me.

I started DM-ing in Original AD&D, and skills weren’t even in the game.
Players were expected to describe what their character was doing, not roll a Perception check and then have all objects that can be interacted with be limned in Red.

I’m also going to note this to prevent any Edition Wars…I loved 3e….but at this stage Rules-Lite is a better fit for my gaming group of Middle Aged Parents with careers, whom frankly don’t read the books.

[Psyren]

I know this info about a manor, so I can do this, this, this, this.

That's exactly my point though. Your character can absolutely know that info about a manor, by doing reconnaissance on the manor. Not by the player opening up Stronghold Builder's Guide or whatever from 3.5 and checking the "Manor DCs" table on page 155.

[Kane0]

That's exactly my point though. Your character can absolutely know that info about a manor, by doing reconnaissance on the manor. Not by the player opening up Stronghold Builder's Guide or whatever from 3.5 and checking the "Manor DCs" table on page 155.

Might need an Arcane Eye or something to help though.

[Psyren]

Might need an Arcane Eye or something to help though.

Divinations would certainly help but honestly, climbing the building next door with a spyglass can tell you a lot too. As can bribing the noble's resentful and abused housekeepers. Or knocking out the masons remodeling his foyer and posing as them. Or having your rat familiar roam the halls for a bit to learn the layout. Literally anything more creative than flipping to a table in the book and getting out your calculator.

[Kane0]

Total aside, I remember 4e having the Knock spell let you use an Arcana check in place of a Thievery check to unlock a lock. I really liked that and wish it stayed around instead of the 'cast spell, always works' we have now.

[Sneak Dog]

Typical Difficulty Classes are right in the Player's Handbook, this is a non-issue. Bounded Accuracy is well-known at this point, in concept if not in name.
Ok. Those are DC numbers. But not tasks. A DC 5 strength test might be to push over a pile of rocks or to push over a small boulder. And from your posts, you like the ambiguity for the freedom it gives you to change the difficulty of the same task between different campaigns and GMs.


"I know I'm guaranteed to be able to break into the noble's manor undetected because the DC to scale a stone wall is 10, his bedroom window lock can't be higher than a 15, any guards he might have inside won't have a passive perception higher than 12, I can take 20 on the vault door and I'll recognize the real crown jewels from the fake ones with an appraise investigation of 15" goes beyond having a plan though, it's the player dictating the world to the DM instead of the other way around. It means that any changes the DM might make to this setup are likely to result in whining and complaining.

"What do you mean his bedroom window has an ornate lock and I have to go through the kitchen past the cleaning staff now? Oh, he hired elite guards with mastiffs, those aren't in the book, that's BS. Wait, I can't roll to get through the vault door with thieves' tools *at all*, there's a *puzzle* I have to solve using the paintings outside?? Why are you homebrewing all the challenges instead of following this table in the book?!"

Every problem you're pointing out here isn't with codified DCs. These problems are with the player not knowing the challenges ahead and their plan failing based on assumptions that turn out to be wrong. Besides, I'm vouching for guidelines. Elite guards with mastiffs is fair game. Locks of higher quality are fair game.

But if the players walk past a generic stone wall, the guidelines for which are DC 10 and then after half an hour of planning the time comes and the GM calls for DC 15? Nah. Let the players call the GM out on the dissonance between the DC and the challenge as described according to the guidelines so they can perform their plan. Adjust the DC down to 10. Mistakes happen.



Would every player react this way, no, but I'd much rather the books not play a part in planting these kinds of expectations that the DM will then have to waste time uprooting. I'll tell you what the DC is (and which challenges have no DC at all); you'll know what your character is good at because you know their ability scores and proficiencies.


You know you're slightly better at it than others investing into the same ability check. How much? What lets this difference let you achieve? And most importantly, are you better than someone with a spell that does something similar?
That last one is very important, because classes are balanced around this. Some get better ability checks, some get spells. These two are both class features. And how would a designer balance these even roughly if they don't even know what they're balancing?

[Psyren]

Ok. Those are DC numbers. But not tasks. A DC 5 strength test might be to push over a pile of rocks or to push over a small boulder. And from your posts, you like the ambiguity for the freedom it gives you to change the difficulty of the same task between different campaigns and GMs.

No, I like the ambiguity because "a pile of rocks" is not a set, static thing. To me there is no point in codifying one DC for something that variable/nebulous. How big is the pile? What kind of rocks? What does it mean to "push it over?" etc.

Moreover, if it's really DC 5 to push over, you should not be calling for that roll at all unless circumstances are extraordinary/unusual in some way (DMG 238.)


Every problem you're pointing out here isn't with codified DCs. These problems are with the player not knowing the challenges ahead and their plan failing based on assumptions that turn out to be wrong.

But you're literally advocating for printed DCs because they help players plan ahead of time. In fact, your exact words were:

"Besides, I love players weaponising DCs against me. Means they had a plan, considered the challenges, measured their abilities against them, calculated the risks, weighed where to invest more resources and now want to execute it. But they cannot plan without knowing their characters' capabilities. Why not empower players to take the initiative when they want to? Or rather, why not empower them to do so with ability checks like with spells?"

I am all for players "considering the challenges and measuring their abilities against them" when making plans. But their characters should be doing those things in-game, not by opening up a metatextual table full of categories/terms/definitions that different DMs are not only allowed but expected to interpret very differently from one another, like "push over a pile of rocks." And they should accept that sometimes, the best preparation you can do is to be be as good at {thing} as you can and hope for the best because you won't always have perfect knowledge of what's going on behind enemy lines.



But if the players walk past a generic stone wall, the guidelines for which are DC 10 and then after half an hour of planning the time comes and the GM calls for DC 15? Nah. Let the players call the GM out on the dissonance between the DC and the challenge as described according to the guidelines so they can perform their plan. Adjust the DC down to 10. Mistakes happen.

If it's a "generic stone wall" it probably doesn't need a roll in the first place. If it does need a roll, it's because I calibrated the challenge to whatever DC I set it at. You telling me "the book says generic walls are DC 10!" is completely irrelevant, the challenge I made for your party was never generic. If such a DC existed on the page, I'd be far more likely to say "well this wall is jutting out slightly at the top making it a harder climb than that. DC is still 15, roll." than I would be to say "whoopsie, I meant this wall to be generic, guess this challenge is a speed bump for your group."



You know you're slightly better at it than others investing into the same ability check. How much? What lets this difference let you achieve? And most importantly, are you better than someone with a spell that does something similar?
That last one is very important, because classes are balanced around this. Some get better ability checks, some get spells. These two are both class features. And how would a designer balance these even roughly if they don't even know what they're balancing?

I disagree with "slightly better." In bounded accuracy, even a +1 or +2 difference can be a big deal. More importantly, if you're investing in proficiency and the associated ability score, most things that are possible at all will be possible for you, and some may even be trivial. Which things specifically? Engage with the world and find out, but your odds are pretty good.

[Thunderous Mojo]

But if the players walk past a generic stone wall, the guidelines for which are DC 10 and then after half an hour of planning the time comes and the GM calls for DC 15? Nah. Let the players call the GM out on the dissonance between the DC and the challenge as described according to the guidelines so they can perform their plan. Adjust the DC down to 10. Mistakes happen.

This strikes me as a very limited view.
What is a “Generic Wall”, when a D&D world could be a Wheel of Time, Age of Legends campaign with Flying Air-Cars, and buildings that are magically sung into reality, or a primeval, Dinosaur inhabited world with no advanced civilizations.

Fantasy Roleplaying is a broad enough category, that I would posit the idea of a ‘generic wall’ isn’t that useful. There is no ‘generic wall’…there is just the particular wall in front of you.

Disadvantage translates to a Static increase of a DC by 5.
Perhaps a particular wall, is a DC 10 check to climb when it was dry.
Yet when the players were formulating their plan, and took an hour to plan, instead of the 20 minutes that was allotted…it rained..applying Disadvantage.

Rather than, have the Players roll the D20 twice, a DM is perfectly within bounds to instead increase the static DC.

[Segev]

Typical Difficulty Classes are right in the Player's Handbook, this is a non-issue. Bounded Accuracy is well-known at this point, in concept if not in name.No, they're not. Not in a useful sense. We've been over this; repeating that "easy is DC 5" is "right in the Player's Handbook" while claiming it is answering complaints such as mine doesn't make it so. I have explained the lacking gap. You don't LIKE the notion of there being a closure to that gap, but that doesn't make the gap not there.


"I know I'm guaranteed to be able to break into the noble's manor undetected because the DC to scale a stone wall is 10, his bedroom window lock can't be higher than a 15, any guards he might have inside won't have a passive perception higher than 12, I can take 20 on the vault door and I'll recognize the real crown jewels from the fake ones with an appraise investigation of 15" goes beyond having a plan though, it's the player dictating the world to the DM instead of the other way around. It means that any changes the DM might make to this setup are likely to result in whining and complaining.

"What do you mean his bedroom window has an ornate lock and I have to go through the kitchen past the cleaning staff now? Oh, he hired elite guards with mastiffs, those aren't in the book, that's BS. Wait, I can't roll to get through the vault door with thieves' tools *at all*, there's a *puzzle* I have to solve using the paintings outside?? Why are you homebrewing all the challenges instead of following this table in the book?!"

Would every player react this way, no, but I'd much rather the books not play a part in planting these kinds of expectations that the DM will then have to waste time uprooting. I'll tell you what the DC is (and which challenges have no DC at all); you'll know what your character is good at because you know their ability scores and proficiencies.



Indeed. And 3.5 is a fine game that hasn't gone anywhere.Thing is, the player who would react this way will also whine and complain without the guidelines for what is easy/hard that I am asking for. They will be this problem player even as things are now. "Well, you just are setting the DCs to prevent me from succeeding! If you didn't want me to break into the noble's mansion like this, just say so. Toot toot goes the railway! What's the right rail for me to be on!?"

The problems you're describing aren't problems with having guidelines. They're problems with a particular subset of an adversarial player. And it may or may not be symptomatic of larger problems with the DM's style, depending on what the player's overall responding to. But regardless, it independent of whether or not guidelines that say, "a mortared stone wall would typically be a hard task to climb."

Or, as Sneak Dog puts it:

Every problem you're pointing out here isn't with codified DCs. These problems are with the player not knowing the challenges ahead and their plan failing based on assumptions that turn out to be wrong. Besides, I'm vouching for guidelines. Elite guards with mastiffs is fair game. Locks of higher quality are fair game.

But if the players walk past a generic stone wall, the guidelines for which are DC 10 and then after half an hour of planning the time comes and the GM calls for DC 15? Nah. Let the players call the GM out on the dissonance between the DC and the challenge as described according to the guidelines so they can perform their plan. Adjust the DC down to 10. Mistakes happen.The players are almost certainly making their plans in view of the DM. If they repeatedly talk about how they can make DC 10 to climb a wall, it's reasonable for the DM to ask them what wall they're talking about, if he was thinking DC 15 for the one in question. It's not like the PCs can't see the wall.

And if they're guidelines, the DM is free to extrapolate and interpolate from them, or disregard them entirely. If he is going to disregard them, he should warn the players that he thinks the guidelines are bupkis and will be using different scales. If he is going to extrapolate from them, he should make it clear to the players what their PCs would notice. Perhaps this particular stone wall is extra-smooth, or is all of one piece with no mortar, or has complicating things like overhangs that require angling away from the wall to climb around. These things should, again, be noted to the players, since their PCs would see them.


Ok. Those are DC numbers. But not tasks. A DC 5 strength test might be to push over a pile of rocks or to push over a small boulder. And from your posts, you like the ambiguity for the freedom it gives you to change the difficulty of the same task between different campaigns and GMs.This. This is the problem. Is it easy or hard to push over a pile of rocks? A small boulder? I don't know! I have no guidance!

[Thunderous Mojo]

This. This is the problem. Is it easy or hard to push over a pile of rocks? A small boulder? I don't know! I have no guidance!

You have never pushed anything in real life, that can serve as a guide?

Also, a DM needs to ask: “What is my intent with this obstacle?”.
Secondly, a DM needs to have a rough idea of what the PCs numbers are.

If a wall is meant to stymie most of the party, but also allow an Expert to be able scale the wall and drop a rope with a median roll of a d20, then knowing the Player Character’s rough ability ranges should allow DM to design for this.

If a DM is creating something on the fly, the 5e DMG advice is a good starting place…DCs 10-15, are an appropriate range.

[Kane0]

Set every ability check DC to 13 for a few sessions, its quite an experience.

[Segev]

You have never pushed anything in real life, that can serve as a guide?And we're back to climbing a rope being a DC 30 check. :smalltongue:


Also, a DM needs to ask: “What is my intent with this obstacle?”.
Secondly, a DM needs to have a rough idea of what the PCs numbers are.

If a wall is meant to stymie most of the party, but also allow an Expert to be able scale the wall and drop a rope with a median roll of a d20, then knowing the Player Character’s rough ability ranges should allow DM to design for this.Except... that's not what designing a task DC should be, at all. Sure, you may want to design an encounter to be that, but you again need to know what those numbers translate to in fiction-layer terms to do that well.

If you want DC 25s at some point, and you just decide that the same "wooden wall" you'd been describing all along is DC 25 here because the players should have a lower chance of success or need to work together or whathaveyou, then you're making the statement that wooden walls are not the same even when they're...the same.

If you say, "Well, of course the harder task wouldn't be a wooden wall," then, fine... but why is it that whatever your players come to first - wood, stone, iron, gold, paper - is DC 15?

If all you're ever doing is determining difficulty based on how hard you WANT it to be, with no thought as to what kind of task actually merits that kind of difficulty, you ruin all verisimilitude.

And if you do not know how hard various tasks should be, you cannot design tasks that are of the difficulties you want them to be.

If I want my players to need to roll a DC 20 Charisma(Perform) check to impress a judge enough to get to the next stage of Faerun's Top Harper, do I need to have the judge be the kind of performer who gets free nights at any inn he visits, makes a few gp in tips every hour he plays, or able to walk into any music hall or opera he wants and command a hundred gold pieces for them to have the privilege of him joining their performance that evening?

If I want my players to need to roll a DC 10 Intelligence(History) check to know of a noble's family curse, is that a curse that is known to everyone in town? To everyone in the kingdom? To only those who are interested in the history of the local nobility, but not every shopkeep and farmer in the fief? Just how obscure IS a piece of information that is an "easy" Intelligence check to know?

If I want my players to need to roll a DC 15 Wisdom(Perception) check to notice a clue, should that clue be described as being in plain sight but maybe overlook-able? As being barely visible as a bit of color poking out from behind a tapestry that is flush with the wall? As being visible only because a minor bit of dust has been moved aside to allow it to be stuffed into a hard-to-notice crack between two pieces of furniture? As laying on a display table that just happened to be behind the door when the door opened? What kinds of things ARE "moderately easy" to perceive?


If a DM is creating something on the fly, the 5e DMG advice is a good starting place…DCs 10-15, are an appropriate range.
Okay, but what should those tasks look like? Sure, it's appropriate to give DC 10-15 tasks to player characters. What kinds of tasks are those?

[Psyren]

No, they're not. Not in a useful sense. We've been over this; repeating that "easy is DC 5" is "right in the Player's Handbook" while claiming it is answering complaints such as mine doesn't make it so. I have explained the lacking gap. You don't LIKE the notion of there being a closure to that gap, but that doesn't make the gap not there.

1) I do like the notion of closing the gap. That's the DM's job, not the book's.
2) I still find it weird when people like you say it's "not useful" when countless tables have been using it for nearly a decade at this point. I can certainly accept it's not useful to you, but not that it's not useful to anyone.



Thing is, the player who would react this way will also whine and complain without the guidelines for what is easy/hard that I am asking for. They will be this problem player even as things are now. "Well, you just are setting the DCs to prevent me from succeeding! If you didn't want me to break into the noble's mansion like this, just say so. Toot toot goes the railway! What's the right rail for me to be on!?"

The problems you're describing aren't problems with having guidelines. They're problems with a particular subset of an adversarial player. And it may or may not be symptomatic of larger problems with the DM's style, depending on what the player's overall responding to. But regardless, it independent of whether or not guidelines that say, "a mortared stone wall would typically be a hard task to climb."

How on earth is "this specific way won't work, but any of these other 5 ways might" a "railway?" How many trains do you know that are capable of choosing 5 different directions to go in?

Even in the example above, I gave multiple routes to solving a problem that don't need the player to rely on static DCs on a table.



Or, as Sneak Dog puts it:
The players are almost certainly making their plans in view of the DM. If they repeatedly talk about how they can make DC 10 to climb a wall, it's reasonable for the DM to ask them what wall they're talking about, if he was thinking DC 15 for the one in question. It's not like the PCs can't see the wall.

And if they're guidelines, the DM is free to extrapolate and interpolate from them, or disregard them entirely. If he is going to disregard them, he should warn the players that he thinks the guidelines are bupkis and will be using different scales. If he is going to extrapolate from them, he should make it clear to the players what their PCs would notice. Perhaps this particular stone wall is extra-smooth, or is all of one piece with no mortar, or has complicating things like overhangs that require angling away from the wall to climb around. These things should, again, be noted to the players, since their PCs would see them.

So why does the static DC need to be there at all?

Player: "I look at the wall with my eyes. What do I see? How tough would it be to climb up there?"
DM: "It looks like it would be a pretty moderate challenge for you. If you were to climb it at night fast enough to get up there between guard patrols, it would probably be harder."
Player: "Okay, that's still our best option. Here's my plan, gang..."



This. This is the problem. Is it easy or hard to push over a pile of rocks? A small boulder? I don't know! I have no guidance!

To elaborate on Thunderous Mojo's post - Why are they pushing over the rocks? Is it narratively interesting? What are they trying to accomplish? As with all challenges, tailor the risk/difficulty to the reward, if there even needs to be a roll in the first place.


And we're back to climbing a rope being a DC 30 check. :smalltongue:

If you want all the ropes in your world to be Nearly Impossible for even athletic PCs to climb, you can do that. And your players who want to be good at climbing ropes can let you know that they're not having fun, in which case you have a choice to make. Running from that choice is not going to help anyone.

[Segev]

1) I do like the notion of closing the gap. That's the DM's job, not the book's.
2) I still find it weird when people like you say it's "not useful" when countless tables have been using it for nearly a decade at this point. I can certainly accept it's not useful to you, but not that it's not useful to anyone.And I'm sure many tables would work just fine without the "codification" of "easy = 5" and "hard = 20." Does that mean those are too much to have in the PHB?

The book's job is to help DMs run the game. If the book is not doing that job, then why do we have the book?

You are adamantly against guidelines. But you, yourself, have scolded me for bringing up "obviously" incorrect DCs to assign to particular tasks. If it is the DM's job to assign DCs, and it is not appropriate for there to be guidelines for various tasks to be particular kinds of difficulty, how is it possible to have incorrect DCs? I find singing in key to be pretty darned easy. If I just make that DC 5 on the off chance that I recognize that some people can't do it, am I wrong? Is the DM who thinks it is very hard to actually sing in key wrong for assigning the exact same task a DC 25? Which of us is actually right? Both? Neither?


How on earth is "this specific way won't work, but any of these other 5 ways might" a "railway?" How many trains do you know that are capable of choosing 5 different directions to go in?You miss the point. It isn't a railway. The problem is with the player who believes that the DM making things harder than the player feels it should be.

The point is that this player is a problem regardless of whether he has "most tasks should be DC 15," "hard tasks are DC 20," or "most stone walls are moderately easy to climb" as guidelines or even hard RAW. Because he'll complain about the wall not being fair to make "very hard" to climb when he thinks it should be "moderately easy" just as fast as he'll complain that stone walls are usually moderately easy, just as fast as he'll complain that most tasks should be DC 15, so making these DC 25 tasks is just not fair.

The problem is with the player, not with the guidelines or lack thereof. THAT is the point.

In the interests of not going down a rabbit hole of further miscommunication, do you now understand why my response to this quote is, "You miss the point?" Do you see how the point I was making has nothing to do with the statement about it being a railway being right or wrong? (Or, rather, that it being wrong is potentially part of the point?)



So why does the static DC need to be there at all?

Player: "I look at the wall with my eyes. What do I see? How tough would it be to climb up there?"
DM: "It looks like it would be a pretty moderate challenge for you. If you were to climb it at night fast enough to get up there between guard patrols, it would probably be harder."
Player: "Okay, that's still our best option. Here's my plan, gang..."

You just put static DCs in place. You just didn't bother to actually describe any of the tasks. The problem arises when you have to start describing those obstacles and challenges as things they're actually encountering in the narrative, rather than as game constructs that are just blocks labeled with DC numbers.


To elaborate on Thunderous Mojo's post - Why are they pushing over the rocks? Is it narratively interesting? What are they trying to accomplish? As with all challenges, tailor the risk/difficulty to the reward, if there even needs to be a roll in the first place.This reads an awful lot like trying to dodge the point.

Are there tasks you ever ask people to roll for? If so, how do you determine the difficulty? If you determine difficulty first, as you indicate, how do you determine what the task actually is to justify that difficulty?

Because I don't know how to take something I can't tell you how hard it is (or how hard it should be for the kind of story we're telling) and translate a "very hard" task to an actual described task.

Edit to add a thought: To put it another way, if I'm tailoring the risk/difficulty to the reward, how do I decide how big the rocks are or the boulder is? Sure, I've decided the risk/reward is interesting enough and that it should be DC 20 to push it over. How big is the rock?

[Thunderous Mojo]

If you want DC 25s at some point, and you just decide that the same "wooden wall" you'd been describing all along is DC 25 here because the players should have a lower chance of success or need to work together or whathaveyou, then you're making the statement that wooden walls are not the same even when they're...the same.

Why would all wood walls be the same?

A palisade made by Hill Giants, might consist of whole trees that have been uprooted and then thrust into the ground, with nary any woodworking done.

Such a palisade, might still have tree knobs and branches attached, that make scaling the wall much easier. Meanwhile, the wooden palisade around Caerleon, might be well maintained, smoothly planed, and lacquered, and thus much harder to scale.

My belief as a DM, is that details lead to memorable stories.
Players are more apt to remember the “Lacquered Palisade of Caerleon”, as opposed to a ‘generic wood wall’.

If you think the ‘generic wood wall’ has a climb DC of 10, then the lacquered Palisade might have a DC of 15.

Once, you have determined this, write this down in your DM’s Notebook/Word-doc, and Bob’s Your Uncle….consistent Versimiltude.

One could even use the Lacquered Palisade as a Wall Scaling Rubric for the future. One could ask themselves: “is this wall more or less difficult to climb then the Lacquered Palisade”.

To me, part and parcel of being a DM is deciding details, and then rolling with it.

[Segev]

Why would all wood walls be the same?

A palisade made by Hill Giants, might consist of whole trees that have been uprooted and then thrust into the ground, with nary any woodworking done.

Such a palisade, might still have tree knobs and branches attached, that make scaling the wall much easier. Meanwhile, the wooden palisade around Caerleon, might be well maintained, smoothly planed, and lacquered, and thus much harder to scale.

My belief as a DM, is that details lead to memorable stories.
Players are more apt to remember the “Lacquered Palisade of Caerleon”, then
a ‘generic wood wall’.

If you think the ‘generic wood wall’ has a climb DC of 10, then the lacquered Palisade might have a DC of 15.

Once, you have determined this, write this down in your DM’s Notebook/Word-doc, and Bob’s Your Uncle….consistent Versimiltude.

One could even use the Lacquered Palisade as a Wall Scaling Rubric for the future. One could ask themselves: “is this wall more or less difficult to climb then the Lacquered Palisade”.

To me, part and parcel of being a DM is deciding details, and then rolling with it.

Great! You just created guidelines!

But what if you created the scenario first, and didn't consider DCs, party level, etc. until later? Remember, the whole point of bounded accuracy is that a task is a task is a task, and you should not need to scale all the DCs up as the party levels up just to maintain a challenge. That's why so many rolls will still be just using a raw stat mod.

So, you've established that you want a DC 15 challenge for your players for a particular adventure that has the PCs facing Carleon, and its lacquered palisade. Great, you know that you want this to be moderately hard, so you make it DC 15 to climb.

Later, you decide to run that adventure where they're taking on a fortress of forest giants, who made their palisade out of whole trunks of trees: knobly and branched and all. But, you've decided you want this to be a DC 25 task, because that's the level of challenge you want it to be.

So, per your discussion above, you'd have normally made that an easier palisade to climb than the Lacquered Wall of Carleon, but since you started with the DC and task unconnected, you now have to justify the easier task actaully being harder.

Personally, I would design the scenario first, and if I had guidelines telling me that a wooden wall is usually DC 15 to climb, I would probably make the Lacquered Wall of Carleon be DC 20 or 25, depending on how much smoother than "typical" I think its lacquer makes it. I would make the Giants' Palisade probably no difficulty at all, since climbing trees is one of those things that seems assumed to succeed and that's all this is. I would, if I felt this too little challenge, address it by having the giants complicate matters in other ways, such as attacking them while they climb (at the usual half speed, of course) the wall. If they climb the wall at all.

However, without guidelines such as, "climbing trees is usually not a check at all," and, "Wooden walls are often moderately hard to climb," I couldn't make these judgments. I still would be designing scenario-first, rather than challenge-number-first, but I would have a hard time coming up with those numbers to assign as the DCs. I have generally found climbing trees beyond a few feet off the ground to be extremely hard, so I would likely set the Giants' Palisade at DC 20 or 25, and the Lacuqered Wall of Carleon at "impossible," because seriously, what's there to climb on? Except... these are supposed to be legendary heroes, right? We're playing high fantasy, where feats like this happen. So...how hard SHOULD it be? With no guidance, the best I could do is...assign numbers unconnected to the task itself?

[Psyren]

If it is the DM's job to assign DCs, and it is not appropriate for there to be guidelines for various tasks to be particular kinds of difficulty, how is it possible to have incorrect DCs?

I covered this in my last response to you, which you didn't reply to (the DC 30 rope thing.) There is no incorrect DC, there is only fun and not fun. You can make crossing the street DC 30 in your world if you want; if your players are having fun you're doing it right, and if they're not then you have a choice to make. That is the only correct/incorrect that matters when it comes to DCs. I happen to think DC 30 ropes and streets are highly likely to not be fun (see list below) but your games might be different than mine.



The problem is with the player, not with the guidelines or lack thereof. THAT is the point.

It's easier to empower DMs by putting the DCs in their hands rather than setting them globally.



You just put static DCs in place.

Yes - I did, for my challenge. Not a table in the book. Me.



Are there tasks you ever ask people to roll for? If so, how do you determine the difficulty? If you determine difficulty first, as you indicate, how do you determine what the task actually is to justify that difficulty?

Because I don't know how to take something I can't tell you how hard it is (or how hard it should be for the kind of story we're telling) and translate a "very hard" task to an actual described task.


I've covered this multiple times in multiple threads but I'll repeat myself just for you. Taking the characters levels into account as well:

Does the task require neither training or talent? (likely automatic, DC 10 if a roll truly matters e.g. time pressure.)
Does it require talent or training? (DC 15)
Does it require talent and training? (DC 20)
Does it require talent, training, and either supremely good luck/providence or magic? (DC 25)
Does it require talent, training, magic AND good luck/providence? (DC 30)

And all of these are predicated on a meaningful consequence for failure, as well as both success/failure being plausible for the actor in question, before a roll is called for.



Edit to add a thought: To put it another way, if I'm tailoring the risk/difficulty to the reward, how do I decide how big the rocks are or the boulder is? Sure, I've decided the risk/reward is interesting enough and that it should be DC 20 to push it over. How big is the rock?

Using the above is how I decide how big the rock is. Can literally anyone push it over? DC 10 or automatic. Do you need to be strong or well-trained? 15. Both? 20. Need magical assistance too? 25. All of the above and still unlikely to get it? 30.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Either way, Sergev, you, the DM are making a choice, and then rolling with it. The DMG provides the DC chart.

The point of a wall is to keep things out.
DC 15 is the great median choice, in almost all things for 5e.

When in doubt, and you are calling for a dice roll, DC 15 is a good start.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Avoiding the whole "setting DCs thing", a question prompted by the whole Jump Action idiocy:

which is worse. No codification around a particular topic or bad codification? Personally, even if I were a strong fan of codifying ability checks, I'm super distrustful that current WotC and their history of slap-dash, half-baked implementations will produce good, usable codification that improves the median case. Sure, they may stumble into success, but I don't feel confident that they'll do so reliably. Which means even if codification were something I wanted, I wouldn't want WotC to codify things because they'll (more often than not, or at least enough of the time to make the cure arguably worse than the disease) do it badly.

[Kane0]

It's easier to empower DMs by putting the DCs in their hands rather than setting them globally.


Agreed, but as DM sometimes I could use some helpful hints and examples. Some extra notes in the DMG or something that will help me gauge things. I know DM screens often have them.



which is worse. No codification around a particular topic or bad codification? Personally, even if I were a strong fan of codifying ability checks, I'm super distrustful that current WotC and their history of slap-dash, half-baked implementations will produce good, usable codification that improves the median case. Sure, they may stumble into success, but I don't feel confident that they'll do so reliably. Which means even if codification were something I wanted, I wouldn't want WotC to codify things because they'll (more often than not, or at least enough of the time to make the cure arguably worse than the disease) do it badly.

I have little more faith in WotC than you do, but at least I can comfort myself that at my table houseruling and homebrew is largely encouraged (one notable player notwithstanding).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have little more faith in WotC than you do, but at least I can comfort myself that at my table houseruling and homebrew is largely encouraged (one notable player notwithstanding).

Sure. I can ignore the dumb. But it costs me extra to do so--it's an added source of friction. Whereas the default of no codification is the status quo ante, so no extra work. Either way I have to come up with something good on the fly. There are certainly areas that benefit from codification, in part because it's easy to get a "right answer". Or there isn't really a "right answer" and any setting will do. But a lot of things either have
1) expectations of significant inter-table variation (which means that one group's right answer is another group's wrong answer
2) or have many many more BAD answers than good answers.

[Psyren]

I think they're so bad at it in 5e* in large part because this edition is so badly suited for it.

3.5 had granular things like tree-climbing DCs because, rather than rely on "natural language," they went to the trouble of defining the stats for a typical tree, and a typical stone wall, and scree on a slope, rivers of varying speeds, etc. And that fit 3.5's overall design goal - training DMs and players to be good at memorizing or looking up dozens and dozens of tables and passages.

That's not an inherently bad way to design a game - but it is a bad fit for 5e, which is explicitly trying not to be that, and be more open to creative thinking even if that causes table variation.

*not that they did a particularly good job anywhere else


Agreed, but as DM sometimes I could use some helpful hints and examples. Some extra notes in the DMG or something that will help me gauge things. I know DM screens often have them.

I have the Reincarnated DM Screen. It has the DC setting table in one tiny portion. That leaves it room for a ton more other useful things - all the conditions, all the typical actions in combat, the travel pace rules, the cover and obscurement/light source rules, Improvised Damage and more. It doesn't even have the interaction DCs.

[Rukelnikov]

Avoiding the whole "setting DCs thing", a question prompted by the whole Jump Action idiocy:

which is worse. No codification around a particular topic or bad codification?

I think this is the most interesting question here, let's see, with Jump we used to have no codification for the skill check, and now we do.

So in the past can I jump a 20 foot gap with 15 Str? Who knows? Can I jump a 15 foot gap? Certainly.

With 5.1 I know I need to roll a total of 20 and 15 respectively (I'm unsure whether its bad or not, probably bad, though, the action cost is definitely bad).

I preffer bad codification cause at least I can get an idea of what the game expects, and then discard it or tweak it, but still knowing what the idea during design was.

[OldTrees1]

Avoiding the whole "setting DCs thing", a question prompted by the whole Jump Action idiocy:

which is worse. No codification around a particular topic or bad codification? Personally, even if I were a strong fan of codifying ability checks, I'm super distrustful that current WotC and their history of slap-dash, half-baked implementations will produce good, usable codification that improves the median case. Sure, they may stumble into success, but I don't feel confident that they'll do so reliably. Which means even if codification were something I wanted, I wouldn't want WotC to codify things because they'll (more often than not, or at least enough of the time to make the cure arguably worse than the disease) do it badly.

Some premises/observations:
1) We know WotC's quality inaccuracy and imprecision based on past performance. It is unlikely for them to make universally bad or universally good guidelines. Assuming they are their typical lazy, they will have 0 good, some decent, some average, some mediocre, and 1 bad.
2) WotC has always put GMs in total control of DCs. Even the most codified version (3E) gave GMs 3 100% control in 3 different redundant ways. I hope they continue to improve their messaging on that front, but I will expect GMs to remain 100% in control of DCs in at least 2 redundant ways,
3) I personally find it much easier to modify than to create from scratch. Even a bad rule helps me know what not to do.



Based on that, I would take the "bad guidelines" over "no guidelines". For me the 3E Diplomacy guidelines are a great example of a terrible guideline. I was new to RPGs and new to GMing when I encountered the infamous 3E Diplomacy guidelines.
1) There were other good guidelines nearby. The 3E Bluff guidelines were good for their decade.
2) I never used the 3E Diplomacy rules. D&D let me modify the DC with circumstance modifiers. D&D let me set the DC from scratch. and D&D let me throw out the 3E Diplomacy solo check and replace it. I replaced it with a better bargaining contested check from what I learned from other better guidelines. My "from scratch with help" replacement was not as good as 5E's social check guidance in the DMG, but everyone knew the DM had 100% control over how it would work. Nobody "weaponized" the bad guideline against our GMs.
3) Even without the help provided by the 3E Bluff guidance (and elsewhere), 3E's Diplomacy guidance being bad taught me that solo checks for social checks are a terrible idea that ignores there being a 2nd (or 3rd) person involved.

So, based on experience with one of their bad takes, I appreciate their bad guidance more than no guidance (provided my 3 premises continue to be met*). I would prefer a good take, or even an average take (5E jump) over a bad take, but I can take their 1D&D jump guidance and fix it easier than if they provided no guidance.



*
1) Obviously if quality drops and they make only bad guidance (unlikely given past and current performance), then I would reevaluate the bad guidance when there is no average guidance nearby.
2) Obviously if WotC ever forgets to give the GM 100% control over the DCs (something GMs had 3x over in 3E and 3x in 5E), then I would call that a mistake and Rule 0 it (but that would still count as a mistake and require reevaluation)
3) The 3rd premise is harder to fail since it is based on GMs having the capacity to learn from both successes and mistakes of WotC. This could be true for repetitive mistakes.

[Psyren]

I think this is the most interesting question here, let's see, with Jump we used to have no codification for the skill check, and now we do.

So in the past can I jump a 20 foot gap with 15 Str? Who knows? Can I jump a 15 foot gap? Certainly.

With 5.1 I know I need to roll a total of 20 and 15 respectively (I'm unsure whether its bad or not, probably bad, though, the action cost is definitely bad).

I preffer bad codification cause at least I can get an idea of what the game expects, and then discard it or tweak it, but still knowing what the idea during design was.

Well it's worse than that; before you could jump a 20ft gap with 20 Str easily, now, who knows?

Needless to say I'll take no codification all day over that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some premises/observations:
1) We know WotC's quality inaccuracy and imprecision based on past performance. It is unlikely for them to make universally bad or universally good guidelines. Assuming they are their typical lazy, they will have 0 good, some decent, some average, some mediocre, and 1 bad.
2) WotC has always put GMs in total control of DCs. Even the most codified version (3E) gave GMs 3 100% control in 3 different redundant ways. I hope they continue to improve their messaging on that front, but I will expect GMs to remain 100% in control of DCs in at least 2 redundant ways,
3) I personally find it much easier to modify than to create from scratch. Even a bad rule helps me know what not to do.



Based on that, I would take the "bad guidelines" over "no guidelines". For me the 3E Diplomacy guidelines are a great example of a terrible guideline. I was new to RPGs and new to GMing when I encountered the infamous 3E Diplomacy guidelines.
1) There were other good guidelines nearby. The 3E Bluff guidelines were good for their decade.
2) I never used the 3E Diplomacy rules. D&D let me modify the DC with circumstance modifiers. D&D let me set the DC from scratch. and D&D let me throw out the 3E Diplomacy solo check and replace it. I replaced it with a better bargaining contested check from what I learned from other better guidelines. My "from scratch with help" replacement was not as good as 5E's social check guidance in the DMG, but everyone knew the DM had 100% control over how it would work. Nobody "weaponized" the bad guideline against our GMs.
3) Even without the help provided by the 3E Bluff guidance (and elsewhere), 3E's Diplomacy guidance being bad taught me that solo checks for social checks are a terrible idea that ignores there being a 2nd (or 3rd) person involved.

So, based on experience with one of their bad takes, I appreciate their bad guidance more than no guidance (provided my 3 premises continue to be met*). I would prefer a good take, or even an average take (5E jump) over a bad take, but I can take their 1D&D jump guidance and fix it easier than if they provided no guidance.



*
1) Obviously if quality drops and they make only bad guidance (unlikely given past and current performance), then I would reevaluate the bad guidance when there is no average guidance nearby.
2) Obviously if WotC ever forgets to give the GM 100% control over the DCs (something GMs had 3x over in 3E and 3x in 5E), then I would call that a mistake and Rule 0 it (but that would still count as a mistake and require reevaluation)
3) The 3rd premise is harder to fail since it is based on GMs having the capacity to learn from both successes and mistakes of WotC. This could be true for repetitive mistakes.

For me, the answer depends. Is the badness just numbers (ie the DCs are too high/too low)? That's easy to fix and provides a starting point. If, on the other hand, the framework is bad (as in the "jump is an action"), then there's work just to get back to the point you can make up a better framework. And so far with this UA series, WotC is batting 0% on codification that is better than no codification, at least for me.

And your premises assume that you can define a "good" universally. Which isn't the case. But defaults are sticky--putting defaults in play means that if I want to alter them I need to untrain the players, which causes friction. So defaults should be reserved for things where
a) making up your own framework is challenging
b) there's a general consensus as to what the answer should look like OR the choice is a "free choice" central to the mechanical system (such as choosing a flat 1d20 over 3d6, etc).
c) AND there's substantial value in inter-table uniformity

Starfinder, for instance, codifies their setting into their content hard. Yes, you can extract the setting-agnostic parts of the system. But you have to file off details in lots of places and change a lot of things that really were designed around the nations, races, cultures, and (especially) deities and planar structure. That turns me off of Starfinder almost entirely--I have no interest in their setting, so just getting back to neutral would require doing a massive amount of work.

3e's skill system was, in my opinion, a horrible form of codification. The framework itself was utterly broken and hacked together for every skill. Plus the numbers themselves made zero sense to even a casual inspection. Root and branch, it did not serve any purpose I was interested in.

5e's codification of armor types, on the other hand, is at least useful. The values may not be perfect, but having fixed targets for that one thing make sense. And the numbers there are arbitrary except that they need to match up with the attack bonuses to a certain extent.

[OldTrees1]

For me, the answer depends. Is the badness just numbers (ie the DCs are too high/too low)? That's easy to fix and provides a starting point. If, on the other hand, the framework is bad (as in the "jump is an action"), then there's work just to get back to the point you can make up a better framework. And so far with this UA series, WotC is batting 0% on codification that is better than no codification, at least for me.
I get what you mean by framework, although 1D&D's Jump might not be a good example. 1D&D's "Jump is an action" and its DCs is relatively easy to fix:
"No it is not an action, jump is part of movement. Also here are the numbers that are closer to the DC I will use instead."
A) Fixes the framework problem based on past decent codification (Jump used to be codified as part of movement).
B) Fixes the numbers
C) Reinforces the numbers are guidelines (although I would still prefer if they put optional guidance in the DMG instead of PHB).

I also agree 1D&D jump is an example of bad guidance (due to the action cost, the numbers are just mediocre). However there is speculation that 1D&D playtest is intentionally including bait to help their PR of listening without having to listen. I also recognize 1D&D Jump is not in a vacuum, consider 5E social checks guidance in the DMG. That guidance will likely be in 5.5E too.


And your premises assume that you can define a "good" universally.
That isn't the case, my premise is compatible with subjectivity. Even if the grade of each guidance is subjective, we see WotC's inaccuracy and imprecision avoid the result of all the guidance being terrible despite the average being mediocre. Although maybe this is my bias to consider the merit to others while subjectively evaluating.


But defaults are sticky--putting defaults in play means that if I want to alter them I need to untrain the players, which causes friction.
So defaults should be reserved for things where
a) making up your own framework is challenging
b) there's a general consensus as to what the answer should look like OR the choice is a "free choice" central to the mechanical system (such as choosing a flat 1d20 over 3d6, etc).
c) AND there's substantial value in inter-table uniformity

Yep. Which is why I suggest WotC have guidance as opt-in sections in the DMG. Let me enable it rather than you have to disable it.

Ability check guidance only satisfies "A", so it should be put in the DMG as opt-in rather than a PHB opt-out default.



Starfinder, for instance, codifies their setting into their content hard. Yes, you can extract the setting-agnostic parts of the system. But you have to file off details in lots of places and change a lot of things that really were designed around the nations, races, cultures, and (especially) deities and planar structure. That turns me off of Starfinder almost entirely--I have no interest in their setting, so just getting back to neutral would require doing a massive amount of work.

3e's skill system was, in my opinion, a horrible form of codification. The framework itself was utterly broken and hacked together for every skill. Plus the numbers themselves made zero sense to even a casual inspection. Root and branch, it did not serve any purpose I was interested in.

5e's codification of armor types, on the other hand, is at least useful. The values may not be perfect, but having fixed targets for that one thing make sense. And the numbers there are arbitrary except that they need to match up with the attack bonuses to a certain extent.

I agree on Starfinder.

We differ in our evaluation of 3E. I elaborate in the spoiler, however the main takeaways are
1) I agree guidance should not be an opt-out default but rather at most an optional opt-in section in the DMG. (Oddly, it was optional opt-in in my experience, but I listened to others and think it being an optional section in the DMG can help that experience)
2) Other people finding something valuable raises the subjective grade I give to something, even if it is not useful to me.
Thus I consider 3E to be average for its time. Update it with the lessons learned and I think it would be mediocre to decent rather than horrible.
Its root (1d20+ability+ranks vs DC the GM decides) is very similar to 5E's root (1d20+ability+prof vs DC the GM decides). I do recognize "default to opt-out of" is a mistake and usually discuss 3E's guidance in the hypothetical context of it being optional opt-in guidance in a 6E DMG. This helps account for the reasonable assumption that WotC has some capacity to learn something over the decades. Furthermore, when I subjectively evaluate the quality of guidance, I include its merit to groups beyond my own. If something "did not serve any purpose I was interested in" but did serve a purpose to Segev, then it would need to be especially egregious for me to rank it below mediocre. 3E Diplomacy is my example for "bad" but 3E Climb gets an average grade from me. Again, in the hypothetical context of it being optional opt-in guidance in a DMG.

I agree on 5E codifying Armor if they codify attacks, spell save DCs, and saving throws.

[Psyren]

3e codification was absolutely horrible. Not only were there countless tables to keep track of even in core, but they would just randomly hide DCs and modifiers all over the place, including some in setting-specific books. Like how the rules to sabotage someone's weapon or armor were squirrelled away in City of Stormreach, or how the rules to interpret dreams are in Heroes of Horror, or how the rules to fake your death are in Heroes of Battle etc.

Their need to just invent new skills (regardless of balance) when they wanted to codify something not covered by one of the existing ones was also a problem. Autohypnosis, Hypnotism, Profession (Executioner) and Lucid Dreaming for instance let you do some truly bonkers things thanks to codification.

[Segev]

I covered this in my last response to you, which you didn't reply to (the DC 30 rope thing.) There is no incorrect DC, there is only fun and not fun. You can make crossing the street DC 30 in your world if you want; if your players are having fun you're doing it right, and if they're not then you have a choice to make. That is the only correct/incorrect that matters when it comes to DCs. I happen to think DC 30 ropes and streets are highly likely to not be fun (see list below) but your games might be different than mine.That's a shift, since in the past, you've told me that I was obviously being ridiculous (I am paraphrasing) with that DC assignment, indicating that there WAS a wrong answer. This statement that it's fine is at least consistent, though I disagree with it, because I think that being wildly wrong about how hard something is (supposed to be in the context of the game or) in the real world is very bad for verisimilitude.


It's easier to empower DMs by putting the DCs in their hands rather than setting them globally.Then don't set them globally. Have a discussion section about genres of games and what kinds of tasks are easy/routine vs. hard/impossible in various genres. Wuxia should have massive leaps, and maybe make jumping be your Strength plus the result of a check in feet. A more grounded game might make merely extending it 5 feet be Hard. (I am not sure that's actually appropriate, mind; I am giving examples of what the examples might look like.)


Yes - I did, for my challenge. Not a table in the book. Me.And you described how you got there, and that it's rooted in the world. If the game gave examples that conflicted wtih how you got there, would you just ignore those examples and go with your design? Then you're empowered to do so. No problem. The worst case scenario is that you'd have to tell your players that examples and guidelines are just that, and that you will ignore them when you think they don't make sense.

I would fully support the kind of discussion and set of examples I am asking for including prominent text stating that these guidelines are just ideas for DMs who don't have a different starting point in mind, and that DMs are the final arbiter of any DCs, for any reason.


I've covered this multiple times in multiple threads but I'll repeat myself just for you. Taking the characters levels into account as well:

Does the task require neither training or talent? (likely automatic, DC 10 if a roll truly matters e.g. time pressure.)
Does it require talent or training? (DC 15)
Does it require talent and training? (DC 20)
Does it require talent, training, and either supremely good luck/providence or magic? (DC 25)
Does it require talent, training, magic AND good luck/providence? (DC 30)

And all of these are predicated on a meaningful consequence for failure, as well as both success/failure being plausible for the actor in question, before a roll is called for.Sure, and those are better than what we get, and are not the RAW "DC table" that people keep telling me is there in the PHB and totally sufficient.

They still don't quite close the loop. How big is that rock that requires talent AND training, but not magic as well? I honestly don't know. Does performing in a high-class tavern well enough to earn at least one offer of a night at a comfortable merchant's home in return for further company and/or entertainment require talent and training and luck? Or just talent and training? Or is just enough talent sufficient? And I also recall we had a long argument over whether these thresholds are even just bars to permitting a check; can an untrained person even attempt the DC 20 check to win a night's lodgings if you decide it's a DC 20 check because it requires talent and training? His 18 Charisma might give him more of a bonus than the 13 charisma but proficient character has! We're firmly in your own rulings, here, and not really dealing with anything the RAW guide us to do. Yes, you derive your choices from how you read the RAW, but that's extrapolation at best, not something the RAW actually provided guidance on.

To actually close the loop, we need some basis of what the game expects is the kind of thing that requires "talent and training." With even one touchpoint, it's much easier to extrapolate, "Okay, this is easier than the example, so..."


Using the above is how I decide how big the rock is. Can literally anyone push it over? DC 10 or automatic. Do you need to be strong or well-trained? 15. Both? 20. Need magical assistance too? 25. All of the above and still unlikely to get it? 30.Okay, but how big is it?


Either way, Sergev, you, the DM are making a choice, and then rolling with it. The DMG provides the DC chart.It literally doesn't. It provides a translation of DC into fuzzy logic language; it provides nothing (except when dealing with social rolls) that actually translates whether a given task that my PCs come across is "easy" or "hard." Is knowing that the King's father was rumored to be going mad and may still be alive but deposed by a quite palace coup for his own protection an "easy" rumor to know? A "hard" rumor to know? How difficult is it to know that, technically, nobody ever saw the King's body when the new King took over?

Now, I don't expect the game to have a table of DCs that includes that specific task, but I would appreciate some simple examples of what kind of thing is "easy" for a character to know about history, and what kinds of things are "hard" for a character to know about history.


The point of a wall is to keep things out.
DC 15 is the great median choice, in almost all things for 5e.

When in doubt, and you are calling for a dice roll, DC 15 is a good start.Okay. What is the base "wall" that I should start with? A smoothly-mortared brick wall, such as I might find on an American or British home from the 1800s onwards? A plaster wall with prominent beams sticking out for handholds and footholds every five feet or so? A rough stone wall, with each brick its own handhold due to the lack of uniformity and just piling them on and closing the gaps with mortar? A solid wall of polished marble with either no seams or such precisely-cut stone that it needs no mortar and the seams are so smooth that you couldn't feel them if you didn't know they were there? A palisade of vertical stakes?

Which of those is the wall that doesn't require a roll at all, because you just apply your climb speed and assume it's climbable? Which is the DC 15 wall I start with as a baseline? Note: I don't know which of those requires talent, talent+skill, talent+skill+luck, or talent+skill+outright magic. I'm guessing a straight-up wall of force might be the last one, but even that falls into, "wait, am I sure that's not impossible?" territory.


Avoiding the whole "setting DCs thing", a question prompted by the whole Jump Action idiocy:

which is worse. No codification around a particular topic or bad codification? Personally, even if I were a strong fan of codifying ability checks, I'm super distrustful that current WotC and their history of slap-dash, half-baked implementations will produce good, usable codification that improves the median case. Sure, they may stumble into success, but I don't feel confident that they'll do so reliably. Which means even if codification were something I wanted, I wouldn't want WotC to codify things because they'll (more often than not, or at least enough of the time to make the cure arguably worse than the disease) do it badly.
No codification is worse. Bad codification can at least give you an idea of what you find unreasonable. If you know enough to recognize it isn't working, that gives you some idea of what to fix.

If the guidelines have what you consider a truly ridiculous baseline, the fact that you consider it ridiculous means that you can adjust to set a baseline you find reasonable. If you don't know (or believe you know) enough to find the guideline ridiculous, then at least you have the guideline. Which is better than having to make up your own guideline, which you have even less faith in and which may be even more wildly out of whack. The above-suggested "just make it DC 15" gets really wonky when you follow that with whatever the first task the PCs encounter is.

[Psyren]

That's a shift, since in the past, you've told me that I was obviously being ridiculous (I am paraphrasing) with that DC assignment, indicating that there WAS a wrong answer. This statement that it's fine is at least consistent, though I disagree with it, because I think that being wildly wrong about how hard something is (supposed to be in the context of the game or) in the real world is very bad for verisimilitude.

No, it's not a shift. My personal opinion is and always has been that DC 30 ropes and streets (without a narrative justification beyond "I find rope climbing hard in real life") are excessive. I've never said you can't run your game the way you want. And if your players are fine with their olympic-athlete-level martials struggling to climb any random rope, and are having fun with that, go nuts. I find that exceedingly unlikely, but then so is getting struck by lightning and that happens too, who knows.


Then don't set them globally. Have a discussion section about genres of games and what kinds of tasks are easy/routine vs. hard/impossible in various genres.

I do that, during session zero. Just because I'm not willing to do it with you and a bunch of other strangers on a forum doesn't mean I don't extend that courtesy to my players.



And you described how you got there, and that it's rooted in the world. If the game gave examples that conflicted wtih how you got there, would you just ignore those examples and go with your design?

If those examples included things like DC 30 to climb an average rope like you've been describing? You'd better believe I'd disregard that.
More broadly - there are printed DCs all over 5e, it's called running a module. And I have no qualms about changing those either (to be both easier and harder or have different effects on a success or failure depending on my group).



Sure, and those are better than what we get, and are not the RAW "DC table" that people keep telling me is there in the PHB and totally sufficient.

I built that using the DMG (pg. 238, paragraph 4), not the PHB.



They still don't quite close the loop.
...
To actually close the loop, we need some basis of what the game expects is the kind of thing that requires "talent and training." With even one touchpoint, it's much easier to extrapolate, "Okay, this is easier than the example, so..."

Again, that's up to you. And if you land on "well, I find ropes nearly impossible to climb IRL, so they must be DC 30 in-game" then build your world accordingly; you're essentially saying only near-epic adventurers can climb a rope, so nobody else would even be using them. Again, I don't think your players (especially the martial players) will find that fun, but I don't know your players, so they might. If they don't, it's not the end of the world, make adjustments.

And as Mojo said (though I think you misquoted me as saying this) - if you're truly not sure what DC to pick for something, 15 is a fine "shrug" to start from - and if you need to make adjustments then it's likely to be a lot less drastic than starting from 30.


Okay, but how big is it?

As big as I say it is. How big is that? Irrelevant to someone I'm not playing with.

[Segev]

No, it's not a shift. My personal opinion is and always has been that DC 30 ropes and streets (without a narrative justification beyond "I find rope climbing hard in real life") are excessive. I've never said you can't run your game the way you want. And if your players are fine with their olympic-athlete-level martials struggling to climb any random rope, and are having fun with that, go nuts. I find that exceedingly unlikely, but then so is getting struck by lightning and that happens too, who knows.Then you do believe there is some way to close the loop that SHOULD be universal, even if you allow that others may disagree on how that loop is closed. You find DC 30 ridiculous for that task, to the point that you can point out reasons why.

Why shouldn't the PHB - or if not the PHB, the DMG - actually discuss something like, "Olympic-level athletes struggle with DC 30 checks?" Is it that you don't think Olympic-level athletes would struggle with it in my games, despite the fact that you said they would if I set the DC at 30?


I do that, during session zero. Just because I'm not willing to do it with you and a bunch of other strangers on a forum doesn't mean I don't extend that courtesy to my players.And you should, but you miss my point: why shouldn't the DMG have this discussion in it, so that DMs who aren't as well-versed in DC-setting as you are can have the benefit of some advice on how to consider it?

More broadly - there are printed DCs all over 5e, it's called running a module. And I have no qualms about changing those either (to be both easier and harder or have different effects on a success or failure depending on my group).Okay. What's wrong with a few of those in the PHB or DMG, where a DM who has not bought a module might find them?


And as Mojo said (though I think you misquoted me as saying this) - if you're truly not sure what DC to pick for something, 15 is a fine "shrug" to start from - and if you need to make adjustments then it's likely to be a lot less drastic than starting from 30.It just seems to me very odd that this means that what kind of wall the PCs first encounter will determine how hard every wall they will face from then on is to climb/knock down/whatever. Since if they encounter the Giants' Palisade or the Laquered Wall of Carleon first, it doesn't matter; either would be DC 15 to both knock down and to climb, and the others get easier or harder relative to that. :smallannoyed:


As big as I say it is. How big is that? Irrelevant to someone I'm not playing with.Okay. How do you recommend another DM who doesn't have whatever divinely-granted gift for just knowing how big such rocks are should determine how big that rock is?

And why are you so opposed to the DMG having some sort of guideline or discussion about what kinds of tasks are what kinds of difficulty (beyond the tautological/circular "hard tasks are DC 20" that answers "what is a hard task, though?" with "one that is DC 20" and "What kind of task would be DC 20, then?" with "a hard one")?

You've given plenty of examples in how you come to your conclusions that should be in the DMG. Or, if not your specific examples ("If olympic-level athletes struggle with it, it is nigh impossible and should be DC 30" is something one can conclude from things you've said in this very thread), then things in that shape and spirit that give whatever guidelines the writers think are fitting. Possibly with expanded discussion about genre conventions changing these expectations.

[Psyren]

Then you do believe there is some way to close the loop that SHOULD be universal, even if you allow that others may disagree on how that loop is closed. You find DC 30 ridiculous for that task, to the point that you can point out reasons why.
...
Why shouldn't the PHB - or if not the PHB, the DMG - actually discuss something like, "Olympic-level athletes struggle with DC 30 checks?" Is it that you don't think Olympic-level athletes would struggle with it in my games, despite the fact that you said they would if I set the DC at 30?
...
And you should, but you miss my point: why shouldn't the DMG have this discussion in it, so that DMs who aren't as well-versed in DC-setting as you are can have the benefit of some advice on how to consider it?

So I think the big question here before I answer these in more detail - do you think characters can be olympic-level at level 1? Meaning, do you consider level 1 talent and training (i.e. +3 ability modifier, +2 proficiency for a total of +5) to be olympic level?

Because I definitely think a level 1 Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Monk etc could represent an olmypiad. If you don't, that would go a long way to explaining the struggles you seem to be having with the DC guidance.


Okay. What's wrong with a few of those in the PHB or DMG, where a DM who has not bought a module might find them?

There are no premade encounters in the PHB and DMG, that's not what those books are for. That's what modules are for.

And if you don't want to buy a module to see how they do it, that's fine - there are plenty of free ones online, even official ones (e.g. Frozen Sick).



It just seems to me very odd that this means that what kind of wall the PCs first encounter will determine how hard every wall they will face from then on is to climb/knock down/whatever. Since if they encounter the Giants' Palisade or the Laquered Wall of Carleon first, it doesn't matter; either would be DC 15 to both knock down and to climb, and the others get easier or harder relative to that. :smallannoyed:

Why? you control every single variable, not just the wall itself. Maybe that one was pitted while this one is smooth, or one had vines growing along it, or is at a different angle than this one, or it wasn't raining then and now it is. And a challenge can contain more objectives than "climb wall", for example the objective could be to climb between guard shift changes or to climb a shorter or longer distance. There is no reason that the first wall the players come across needs to be an anchor that you then have to be deathly afraid of violating. Evaluate each encounter on its own merits, and take your players' abilities into account.



Okay. How do you recommend another DM who doesn't have whatever divinely-granted gift for just knowing how big such rocks are should determine how big that rock is?

I recommend them to follow the guidance in the DMG, which I summarized in the previous post. I further recommend that they be ready to make adjustments if their players are not having fun. Nobody expects new DMs to be perfect, and if they do, they're being jerks - which is not a rules issue.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It literally doesn't. It provides a translation of DC into fuzzy logic language; it provides nothing (except when dealing with social rolls) that actually translates whether a given task that my PCs come across is "easy" or "hard." Is knowing that the King's father was rumored to be going mad and may still be alive but deposed by a quite palace coup for his own protection an "easy" rumor to know? A "hard" rumor to know? How difficult is it to know that, technically, nobody ever saw the King's body when the new King took over?

Now, I don't expect the game to have a table of DCs that includes that specific task, but I would appreciate some simple examples of what kind of thing is "easy" for a character to know about history, and what kinds of things are "hard" for a character to know about history.


Ultimately, the game is a game of imagination.
As the DM, your role is to answer these questions.

If you don’t feel confident making these sorts of determinations, then it would probably be best to avoid DM-ing, or only DM limited scenarios that you are able to work out these details in advance.

DM-ing, in my estimation, requires the ability to ad-lib, and make adjustments in the moment, but like all skills, practice can improve this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ultimately, the game is a game of imagination.
As the DM, your role is to answer these questions.

If you don’t feel confident making these sorts of determinations, then it would probably be best to avoid DM-ing, or only DM limited scenarios that you are able to work out these details in advance.

DM-ing, in my estimation, requires the ability to ad-lib, and make adjustments in the moment, but like all skills, practice can improve this.

It's something my 9-year-old nephew and niece were both able to do with basically no issue after their first session. Mainly because they weren't super concerned about being right, just about having fun. That trust and forgiveness is key.

-----------

What if they just added the following paragraphs to the ability check/DC section:



In general, D&D assumes that the heroes are capable of fantastic feats as a baseline. As a result, avoid asking for checks for things you could imagine your average action hero doing on a regular basis as part of their movies. For more difficult things, default to DC 10 unless you have a good reason why it should be harder for this case. If you are playing a game where the PCs are struggling, gritty people, the threshold for a check should be lower (but still above the normal day-to-day tasks of living) and the default DC should be slightly higher, like 15. Avoid DCs above 20 unless you really are sure you want a high probability that even a specialist will fail. For very high-powered games, set the threshold up to your average superhero but leave the default DC at 10.

Additionally, avoid calling for more than one check for the same task and avoid calling for repeated checks if nothing has changed. Each additional check drastically reduces the chances of overall success.


Would that satisfy anyone? Sets the default DC at 10 (not 15) and suggests giving auto-success for most "normal action hero" actions across the board. With some discussion of other possibilities.

[Rukelnikov]

What if they just added the following paragraphs to the ability check/DC section:



Would that satisfy anyone? Sets the default DC at 10 (not 15) and suggests giving auto-success for most "normal action hero" actions across the board. With some discussion of other possibilities.

My problem with this, is that only applies to the PCs, henchmen they hire? Summons they bring? They would not abide by those rules

[PhoenixPhyre]

My problem with this, is that only applies to the PCs, henchmen they hire? Summons they bring? They would not abide by those rules

Yes, and? Heroes are heroes. Their hirelings (etc) aren't. And how often do henchmen and summons make ability checks that don't already have fixed DCs?

Or you could trivially say that you include anyone in the party in this characterization.

[Rukelnikov]

Yes, and? Heroes are heroes. Their hirelings (etc) aren't. And how often do henchmen and summons make ability checks that don't already have fixed DCs?

Or you could trivially say that you include anyone in the party in this characterization.

I prefer a "universal" system, not one that only applies to the PCs.

Answering your question though, extremely frequently, Its the norm rather than the exception for my group to have a revolving door of NPCs joining and leaving/dying or sometimes staying with the party.

[Psyren]

I feel like if they shifted the descriptions down one step then a lot of this heartburn would go away. DC 5 is Easy, DC 10 is Medium, DC 15 is Hard, DC 20 is Very Hard, DC 25 is Nearly Impossible, and then come up with something even more hardcore for DC 30.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It's something my 9-year-old nephew and niece were both able to do with basically no issue after their first session. Mainly because they weren't super concerned about being right, just about having fun. That trust and forgiveness is key..

Especially trust in one’s self and self forgiveness.
Ultimately, most players are not going to remember a specific DC from session to session.

[Psyren]

Especially trust in one’s self and self forgiveness.
Ultimately, most players are not going to remember a specific DC from session to session.

And even if they do, it's so trivial to say "well, here's why this stone wall is 5 higher/lower than the last one."

[Amechra]

Set every ability check DC to 13 for a few sessions, its quite an experience.

Controversial opinion: D&D would be a better game if there was a single DC that everything was balanced around, and advantage/disadvantage were the DM's method of adjusting difficulty.

[Rukelnikov]

Controversial opinion: D&D would be a better game if there was a single DC that everything was balanced around, and advantage/disadvantage were the DM's method of adjusting difficulty.

So there would only be 3 possible difficulties for any and all actions?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Controversial opinion: D&D would be a better game if there was a single DC that everything was balanced around, and advantage/disadvantage were the DM's method of adjusting difficulty.

I’m failing to see how that would improve the game.
Advantage/Disadvantage is already an overused mechanic, given the fact that it doesn’t stack.

This is why changing the Protection Fighting style to a numerical penalty in the Playtest is helpful…the revised fighting style can stack with Disadvantage.

The other issue is D&D does not have a single setting like a game such as the Warhammer Fantasy RPG. One size does not fit all in D&D because one game could have elements of Sci-Fantasy, another might be a Forgotten Realms campaign, another could be inspired by the Mahabharata.

Each one is sufficiently different that one size just does not fit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’m failing to see how that would improve the game.
Advantage/Disadvantage is already an overused mechanic, given the fact that it doesn’t stack.

This is why changing the Protection Fighting style to a numerical penalty in the Playtest is helpful…the revised fighting style can stack with Disadvantage.

The other issue is D&D does not have a single setting like a game such as the Warhammer Fantasy RPG. One size does not fit all in D&D because one game could have elements of Sci-Fantasy, another might be a Forgotten Realms campaign, another could be inspired by the Mahabharata.

Each one is sufficiently different that one size just does not fit.

And this is one reason why I'm not fond of strict codification--what's possible or even easy in one setting (or game) might be impossible, difficult, or trivial in another. Codification means there's fewer ways to play.

[Thunderous Mojo]

And this is one reason why I'm not fond of strict codification--what's possible or even easy in one setting (or game) might be impossible, difficult, or trivial in another. Codification means there's fewer ways to play.

Exactly. Codification is fine for an individual game, but for a whole system it it tends to constrain the metaphysics.

AD&D’s Racially Based Class level caps, for example, had implications, which is precisely why Setting Books such as Dragonlance Adventures or Dark Sun, altered certain core rules.

D&D core rules need to be broad based, and somewhat modular to allow for customization.

Warhammer or Shadowrun do not, because neither of those games is trying to depict a generic fantasy system, unlike D&D.