Why is long jump distance so short?

[Blatant Beast]

Once again, the rules of the game are consistent across all game tables for saving throw DCs, armor AC, weapon damage dice, equipment prices, class abilities, racial abilities, backgrounds, feats. It's not outrageous to want that same level of consistency for skill use.

Page 238 of the DMG counters your arguments. What is clear is without someone stating: "Tying your shoes in a hurricane is a DC 5 task"....the Qualitative Scale, and the advice that is actually given in the DMG seems to be falling on Deaf Ears, or it is not being understood.

I am fine with more examples being provided for task DCs. I would love it if the Devs wrote about using DCs to set mood, and set up thematic differences...say how DCs bring a Gritty Setting or Wuxia Setting to life, without the need to create special Wuxia style classes.

Telok and Pex and others, I speculate want set DC so they never have to take a risk that they do not know the DC to, well in Advance. DM's having different opinions and DCs is a threat, or at the least feels threatening, as Pex has said. ( I am not trying to throw shade, merely restating for clarification what I think is the underlying variance in view.)

As I stated previously, even a Game of the Year CRPG, Baldur's Gate 3 can not accomplish unitary DCs for D20 Tests, as different difficulty levels modify the world, (foes get stronger, some DCs get higher, Extra Abilities on foes appear etc).

BG3 without a difficulty slider, would not be as popular as it is....the reaction to Honor Mode being added is proof enough of this.

From the DMG:
It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC

The numbers associated with these categories of difficulty are meant to be easy to keep in your head, so that you don't have to refer to this book every time you decide on a DC.

Here are some tips for using DC categories at the gaming table.
If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one.

Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such a task without making a check.

Then ask yourself, "Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate, or hard?"

If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.

Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt.

If you find yourself thinking, "This task is especially hard," you can use a higher DC, but do so with caution and consider the level of the characters. A DC 25 task is very hard for low-level characters to accomplish, but it becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so.

A DC 30 check is nearly impossible for most low-level characters. A 20th-level character with proficiency and a relevant ability score of 20 still needs a 19 or 20 on the die roll to succeed at a task of this difficulty.

[kazaryu]

It's not outrageous to want that same level of consistency for skill use. No, its not outrageous to want that. ITS UNTHINKABLE no sorry, its not outrageous. what im specifically reacting to, and maybe others as well, is the implication that the way the rules are currently set up has no merit. whether you intend for it to come across that way, part of how you're (among others) coming across is saying that its not a preference thing, its instead some kind of objective truth that those tables should exist. Someone else even went so far as to say that not including them had to be the result of deliberate laziness.

so when i argue, im specifically defending against that notion. I believe that its perfectly valid for them to do what they did, with intent, as a game design choice. But I also wholly support your right to not like it.


What's an acceptable failure rate for risk taking? depends on the risk.


My experience with 5e is that all the ability/skill checks have a 50% or higher failure rate across all the GMs I've played with. and how many of those high failure rate checks were things that should have been relatively simple? and how often did you simply succeed at tasks that could have been ability checks? the problem with using experience as evidence isn't really that its a bad sample size. like...sure that problem exists, kind of. but the real problem with anecdotal evidence is that you don't have an objective memory of what happened. what you remembered occurring is colored by what you believe occurred, without full information. This leads to it being subject to varying bias', most significantly probably being confirmation bias.

circling back to the relevance here, you may have been paying attention to when your DM gave extreme DC's for checks...but not when they simply let something happen.


Jumping across at dc=distance means the 18 str +4 prof character makes a 20 foot gap almost half the time and falls into the pit taking the rest of the time, even assuming no disadvantage for carrying a 50 pound backpack while doing it. This is "rulings not rules" where the GM thinks something is "hard" for them to do personally and therefore warrants a dc 20 check. And they're not wrong because thats what the books told them to do. yes, this is a weakness of the system, GM's can use dumb ways to determine what the DC should be. I definitely agree with that. but any system has its weaknesses.


I see lots of "the system works for me so its a great system" from people with years of GMing and doing or reading about statistical analysis of the system. so uh...as a DM that has done some statistical analysis of the game...im gonna go ahead and tell you that my statistical analysis is literally never thought about when coming up with DC's for ability checks. I don't think in terms of %'s. most of the time i don't even know the players modifier before setting the DC (knowing the modifier is important for determining failure/success rate). This touches another problem I have with how DMing is presented. DMing is 100% no where near as difficult as many people believe, and many people claim. sure its a bit of a challenge. actually running the session can be somewhat mentally taxing as you're expected to be dialed in the whole time. but there is ALOT of unnecessary hype surrounding how difficult it is. or more specifically, there are a lot of skills that people tote as being mandatory that...really are just optional. For 5e, for example. doing the statistical analysis and understanding how rolling 2 die instead of 1 (for example 2d6 vs 1d12) changes the odds. or the impact that advantage/disadvantage have. those can be helpful to know...but they're by no means mandatory to DM. not even to DM well.


~snip~ It just doesn't work for them and their groups as soon as you get to the "make the numbers up yourself based on if you think its hard or easy" part. why not? i've never seen a problem with it. although as mentioned..my experience is subject to my own bias'. but i also can't think of a reason that it doesn't work...at least not as a blanket statement. yeah some GM's can mess it up. it does put a little more onus on the GM to be reasonable. but to say that it "doesn't work" is IMO a lil extra.




It's a thought. It would be interesting to hear from DMs who tell players the DC of a skill use beforehand how often/eager are players not having the highest modifier willing to try compared to DMs who do not tell the DC beforehand. I have played with DMs who say what the DC is for the saving throw players need to make. I hear a lot less sighing when told the DC is 11 or 12 even when the player has +0 or +1 to their roll. The sighing is there when told the DC is 16 or 17.
. I've told players the DC before, but only ever for table level drama (i.e. "big bad has a +3 to this save. if they roll a 12 or lower they're gonna die to the damage, if not they'll survive to get another turn"). or similarly I'll sometimes tell a player the DC of an important saving throw or ability check they're about to roll, so they know just based on the die whether they pass or succeed. (not pretending i came up with this idea, i straight stole it from Dimension 20). but...yeah my players seem to like it, or at the very least it dials them in when it happens. i've considered being more generally open about DC's, but i often don't have a hard DC in mind. usually for checks on the easier side. im having the roll to fail, rather than succeed. if they roll crazy low then meh...they fail. but if not they succeed (should note, I do only ask for a roll when its a task that has some kind of fail state. im also quite open about letting my players just...do things.

what I AM very open about is the risks/consequences of failure. especially when its not obvious. for example, i had a player skin a drake recently. they rolled well to get the pelt? does it still count as a pelt if there's no fur? anyway, they got the pelt, then i had them roll to preserve it. But i was careful to assure them that they weren't risking losing the pelt. i wasn't gonna have them roll twice to risk destroying it. failure just meant they needed to get it to someone that knew what they were doing within a couple days, rather than having potentially a few weeks.

or when another group was in a tough spot trying to negotiate, if i called for some kind of check i'd make sure my players knew what was on the line. were they risking actually making the person angry, that type of stuff. i've not noticed too much reticence when i do this. i think in large part it comes down to me being open and them trusting me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah. Most of my new player and new DM experience came when I was very new. And I was never taught. And in fact, had never played D&D at the tabletop before I started DMing.

And none of it has to do with the actual math. People in general are really bad at statistics, and they matter way less than the nerds (speaking as one of those nerds) here think it does. So the lesson I taught was "don't try to math it. Just go with the flow and pick something. And err on the side of auto success."

I'll be very honest. 90+% of the DCs I set are 10. Most of the rest are 15. And the rest are 20. That's it. I virtually never (single digits in 10 years) use anything outside this band. And you know what? Everything works quite well.

[stoutstien]

Yeah. Most of my new player and new DM experience came when I was very new. And I was never taught. And in fact, had never played D&D at the tabletop before I started DMing.

And none of it has to do with the actual math. People in general are really bad at statistics, and they matter way less than the nerds (speaking as one of those nerds) here think it does. So the lesson I taught was "don't try to math it. Just go with the flow and pick something. And err on the side of auto success."

I'll be very honest. 90+% of the DCs I set are 10. Most of the rest are 15. And the rest are 20. That's it. I virtually never (single digits in 10 years) use anything outside this band. And you know what? Everything works quite well.

I do like DC 5s as well for rushing simple tasks usually in a snap action configuration.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do like DC 5s as well for rushing simple tasks usually in a snap action configuration.

Meh. I tend to just default to succeeding unless the consequences for failing would be die. Or really really funny.

[ericgrau]

Nothing worse than an adventure featuring risk.

When it's at the whim of the DM and you have other options that you know work well enough, making the unknown option useless, 1000% the worst thing imaginable. It becomes dead weight rules. Don't conflate 100% fun challenge with 100% unfun artificial difficulty.

The solution is for the DM to lay out some expectations ahead of time, at minimum in some vague sense. Ideally with more detail but not so much that it gets time consuming.

[Christew]

When it's at the whim of the DM and you have other options that you know work well enough, making the unknown option useless, 1000% the worst thing imaginable. It becomes dead weight rules. Don't conflate 100% fun challenge with 100% unfun artificial difficulty.
This is assuming an adversarial relationship between the DM and the players (or at least an arbitrarily capricious DM). I tend to assume a benevolent DM both because (1) this is a game played between ostensibly like minded people for fun; and (2) that is what my decades of experience in the game have proven most common.

The solution is for the DM to lay out some expectations ahead of time, at minimum in some vague sense. Ideally with more detail but not so much that it gets time consuming.
Sure. An alignment of expectations between players and DM at the outset and open communication throughout should just be an assumed part of play, in my book.

[Brookshw]

When it's at the whim of the DM and you have other options that you know work well enough, making the unknown option useless, 1000% the worst thing imaginable. It becomes dead weight rules. Don't conflate 100% fun challenge with 100% unfun artificial difficulty.

The solution is for the DM to lay out some expectations ahead of time, at minimum in some vague sense. Ideally with more detail but not so much that it gets time consuming.

All challenges are artificial in a game of make believe. Sometimes you just deal with unknowns or can ask basic questions to get a gist, e.g., "does it look like a very hard [task] for my character?" and go from there. That's sufficient without sliding into video game strategy guide request land.

[stoutstien]

Meh. I tend to just default to succeeding unless the consequences for failing would be die. Or really really funny.

I don't use saving throws unless absolutely necessary so DC 5 is good for tasks for the -1 mod heros when they react to something.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't use saving throws unless absolutely necessary so DC 5 is good for tasks for the -1 mod heros when they react to something.

Oops. I meant to say "dire" not "die". I'm going to blame autocarrot (that one's intentional).

[stoutstien]

Oops. I meant to say "dire" not "die". I'm going to blame autocarrot (that one's intentional).

Hey. sometimes you shouldn't try to pull out a spell book while climbing up the side of mountain.

*Insert scene where batman tosses a ton of coins in the air to throw off twoface*

[Telok]

I'll be very honest. 90+% of the DCs I set are 10. Most of the rest are 15. And the rest are 20. That's it. I virtually never (single digits in 10 years) use anything outside this band. And you know what? Everything works quite well.

So why are most of your checks "easy"? Do the characters almost never try anything hard? Do you know if the median dc 15 is too high for making lots of checks? Did the books tell you that 90% of the checks should be easy?

I think this is part of the issue, I haven't played any 5e where a ability check that I know the dc of (including roll 8+7 & fail therefore dc > 15) was less than 15. I've had characters fail at stuff rolling 6-7 with a +11. There have been entire dungeons where a +8 hasn't found any of multiple traps, and among 4 casters in the current party we fail (as in all four characters fail) knowledge/arcana checks more than half the time. Granted its two clerics, a warlock and a sorcerer so nobody has more than 14 int, but its a running group joke that we're magically illiterate and our only successful history checks are sending spells to a fae trapped in a library palace. Literally we expect failure any time its an ability/skill check. Invisible +8 halfling failed stealth enough that we stopped using it. Everyone flies because climbing and swimming are doomed, etc., etc.

I don't believe most people on this board when they say they don't do any math or think about probability for setting dcs. Thats like saying you don't think about speed and distance while driving. You absolutely are thinking about it, but have internalized the process so well that its not taking up consious thought. The folks in these boards, myself included, do stats and spreadsheets quite often. We calculate d20 probability in our heads auotmatically.

Because D&D is a numbers system and we know the probabilities we can see how it works. But to people who don't know the probabilities its a black box function. Can you imagine it? Not knowing the character's numbers, not knowing the dcs, not knowing the success rates, just having a list of adjectives from 'easy' to 'impossible' and getting to pick one every time a player asks to do something? Those people are out there GMing, picking 'medium' as their default setting because its normal & average, and wondering why games fall apart or their players seem so spell happy and risk adverse.

Its not about people like me wanting to know probabilities, I can do those for a d20 in my sleep. Its not about being risk adverse, I wouldn't be willing to fight the bbeg of the currently level 18 campaign on one remaining spell slot and most magic & other resources expended if I were risk adverse. Its not about wanting to hogtie and spank GMs with a list of dcs engraved in stone. Its about running across a bunch of D&D 5e GMs, for years now, who don't understand any of the math and probabilities of the game system. Their combats work out fine, even with as jank as the DMG encounter calculator is. The combat numbers work because they can say "hard encounter", plug in some numbers, get a set of numbers out, roll dice on those numbers, and the pcs nearly always have an acceptable winnable non-trivial fight. But they get to the ability/skill rolls and it tells them to guess if something is hard or not, they guess "hard" because they can't jump a 15 foot gap wearing a 50 pound backpack or something and suddenly the game isn't working fine because the pcs fail more than half of all rolls.

And it could all probably be avoided with just some decent examples for each proficency plus a warning that too much rolling of skills can screw up the game. Or just designing the game numbers so that "too much rolling skills" is just a slow way of playing instead of turning the pcs into fumbling fail-clowns.

[Pex]

Yeah. Most of my new player and new DM experience came when I was very new. And I was never taught. And in fact, had never played D&D at the tabletop before I started DMing.

And none of it has to do with the actual math. People in general are really bad at statistics, and they matter way less than the nerds (speaking as one of those nerds) here think it does. So the lesson I taught was "don't try to math it. Just go with the flow and pick something. And err on the side of auto success."

I'll be very honest. 90+% of the DCs I set are 10. Most of the rest are 15. And the rest are 20. That's it. I virtually never (single digits in 10 years) use anything outside this band. And you know what? Everything works quite well.

Which is a contributing factor of why you get players more willing to try crazy things even if the DC is not 10 because most attempts are. They are used to having a decent chance. However, in another game where that DM sets most DCs as 15 because it's "medium" let alone the poor souls who have DMs set most DCs at 20 players are discouraged to try and only insist the one with the highest modifier attempt to do anything. Even DMs wanting to be fair won't set a lot of DC 10s because they see Easy and think to themselves if there's no challenge there's no fun. They want a challenging game, not an easy one. It does look good on paper to tell DMs, as the rules do, to set the DC at 10 when it's Easy or not even roll at all and just let the PC do it when a task is trivial, but the rules fail to show the DM what things are so Easy or trivial because there are no examples of them. The rules need to tell the DM the 'game' considers these various more common or likely to happen events are Trivial, Easy, Hard etc. When that happens, that will encourage players with only a +1 to try stuff as well stop something that is Easy in one game be Hard in another game and Impossible in a third game when a player happens to play more than one game either at the same time or in linear. Then as suggested offer advice about changing the DCs for a grittier or more heroic games if that's your preference and the consequences there of if for whatever reason you don't like the numbers they came up with. Naturally the players would know what type of game you're running and can create their characters accordingly rather than be surprised they can't climb a tree or something 4 sessions into the campaign.

[Blatant Beast]

So why are most of your checks "easy"? Do the characters almost never try anything hard? Do you know if the median dc 15 is too high for making lots of checks? Did the books tell you that 90% of the checks should be easy?

While the DMG does not specify percentages of task DCs, it does state:
“ If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.”

Apparently, PhoenixPhyre’s experience supports the contention in the DMG.

Bad Dungeon Masters exist. The game should be changed into A GURP-ish game, due to an unknown number of bad Dungeon Masters?

[Pex]

While the DMG does not specify percentages of task DCs, it does state:
“ If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.”

Apparently, PhoenixPhyre’s experience supports the contention in the DMG.

Bad Dungeon Masters exist. The game should be changed into A GURP-ish game, due to an unknown number of bad Dungeon Masters?

So now a DM is a bad DM because they disagree with PhoenixPhyre on the difficulty of a task? If the rules tell the DM to make up the DC and he sets the DC at 15 why is he a bad DM when PhoenixPhyre would set the DC at 10?

[GloatingSwine]

While the DMG does not specify percentages of task DCs, it does state:
“ If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.”

Apparently, PhoenixPhyre’s experience supports the contention in the DMG.


That's not quite what the real reveal of the post was though. It was that overwhelmingly the DCs they use is 10. Not the 10-20 range really. Just 10.

To me that seems to suggest that in their experience people almost only ask to do easy things with skills. Which goes back to what IgnisMortis was talking about earlier on with the systems comparisons and the baseline skill check competence of a 5e character, especially early on in their career, being pretty much a coin toss even if they are skill proficient and suited to the task via stats.

Players have low expectations about what they can use the skill system to pull off, so 90% of the time they're asking to do things they think are pretty easy.

[stoutstien]

So now a DM is a bad DM because they disagree with PhoenixPhyre on the difficulty of a task? If the rules tell the DM to make up the DC and he sets the DC at 15 why is he a bad DM when PhoenixPhyre would set the DC at 10?

A GM is bad if the players cant make a reasonable judgment on the possible outcomes before anyone touches the dice.

[noob]

A GM is bad if the players cant make a reasonable judgment on the possible outcomes before anyone touches the dice.

Nearly all gms are bad according to that because the expectations of difficulties of the gms varies massively depending on their personal experiences.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not quite what the real reveal of the post was though. It was that overwhelmingly the DCs they use is 10. Not the 10-20 range really. Just 10.

To me that seems to suggest that in their experience people almost only ask to do easy things with skills. Which goes back to what IgnisMortis was talking about earlier on with the systems comparisons and the baseline skill check competence of a 5e character, especially early on in their career, being pretty much a coin toss even if they are skill proficient and suited to the task via stats.

Players have low expectations about what they can use the skill system to pull off, so 90% of the time they're asking to do things they think are pretty easy.
No. People ask to do things. Including crazy things. And because I prefer to ask the question "what do you choose to do and how will you deal with the consequences" over "do you succeed", I chose to set the DCs low. I prefer to use advantage and disadvantage instead most of the time. The PCs are heros, and heros don't make checks at all for picayune things. So those easy things? No check needed. A DC 10 task thus represents something heroic already.

Note that I said "of the times I set DCs" or something like that. That's because most of the things people ask to do don't even get a DC, they just get a nod. And another (much smaller) chunk of the time they get a "sorry, that's not possible because <XYZ>". If I'm setting a DC at all, the task is already significant, and the starting point for that is "50% chance for an average someone".

And lots of checks aren't binary--it's not "do you know anything or do you know everything", it's "how much do you know." Thus, DC 10 gives something meaningful and higher gives more. I heavily use degrees of success and degrees of failure.

And I don't claim that everyone should do this. In fact, the opposite. The numbers really don't matter, as long as they're in the 10-20 range. And they have reasonable connection to the actual facts on the ground. Which has many factors.

[GloatingSwine]

That’s an even more damning indictment of the skill system. Essentially shoving its primary design goal aside because using it as intended failed to enhance the game.

[stoutstien]

Nearly all gms are bad according to that because the expectations of difficulties of the gms varies massively depending on their personal experiences.

As a whole yes but the table level should be *consistent* which is all that matters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That’s an even more damning indictment of the skill system. Essentially shoving its primary design goal aside because using it as intended failed to enhance the game.

????

At this point, I'm fairly sure that we don't have enough of a shared understanding of what the primary design goal of the system is to make further discussion productive. All I can say is that it works perfectly fine for me and I'm fairly certain that "use it only when there's a meaningful chance of interesting failure and it fits the narrative" is exactly the primary design goal. It's not a simulation of life at all. It's a uncertainty resolution system. To be used only where there's meaningful uncertainty about which of several equally-valid results will happen as a result of an action.

[Slipjig]

When that happens, that will encourage players with only a +1 to try stuff

Even if you only have a +1 in something, that still means a success 60% of the time on a DC 10. Players should probably avoid those odds when failure means "plummeting to certain doom". But the vast majority of skill checks have much less dire consequences for failure, and in my experience most players are happy to take their chances even when they need a 19 or 20 on the die.

What you are describing is only a problem if the DM refuses to let players know the DC until after they roll. That may be appropriate for a social encounter where the other party is playing their cards close to the vest, but it makes zero sense for most physical activities.

[Pex]

Even if you only have a +1 in something, that still means a success 60% of the time on a DC 10. Players should probably avoid those odds when failure means "plummeting to certain doom". But the vast majority of skill checks have much less dire consequences for failure, and in my experience most players are happy to take their chances even when they need a 19 or 20 on the die.

What you are describing is only a problem if the DM refuses to let players know the DC until after they roll. That may be appropriate for a social encounter where the other party is playing their cards close to the vest, but it makes zero sense for most physical activities.

That's the DMs' style. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why? How? What about the DMs who do tell the players the DC before the roll, but the DC is rarely below 15 because in their view without a challenge there is no fun in the success. It's "Moderate" - not too easy not too hard in their view. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why?

If there were example DCs for everyone to see then everyone would know, and this problem goes away.

[Keltest]

That's the DMs' style. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why? How? What about the DMs who do tell the players the DC before the roll, but the DC is rarely below 15 because in their view without a challenge there is no fun in the success. It's "Morderate" - not too easy not too hard in their view. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why?

If there were example DCs for everyone to see then everyone would know, and this problem goes away.

No it doesnt. People who like their own numbers will continue to use them, except now its badwrongfun to exercise their authority as a DM to set their own DCs, instead of the DM doing their job.

[Sindeloke]

If a DM is told by the CR guidance that a monster appropriate to the current party should have 15 AC, but instead gives it 12 or 17, is anyone going to accuse her of badwrongfun? Has anyone? Does the game break?

Or does having the guidance "15 is the recommended AC here" simply mean that she can choose a different AC deliberately, with an informed understanding of how it will change her group's experience?

[Pex]

No it doesnt. People who like their own numbers will continue to use them, except now its badwrongfun to exercise their authority as a DM to set their own DCs, instead of the DM doing their job.

It becomes a house rule like any other house rule, and players decide for themselves if they're comfortable with it or not. However, to address this concern ideally those same skill use rules will also advise the DM on how and why one might want to change and use the numbers. There's regular adjudication for Advantage and Disadvantage based on conditions. To change the actual numbers it's a case of an item is not listed on the table, but there's a ballpark. Object A is DC 10. Object B is DC 15. Object C not on the table but happens in the game is somewhere between those, so the DM adjudicates the DC is 12. That's the DM doing his job. A DM may want to increase or decrease all the numbers for grittier/heroic games where the rules would explain the effect the change would have. This would be enough for most DMs because most DMs just want to run the game, not make up their own rules so are happy just using the default. However, for those DMs who absolutely must make up all DCs on the fly by fiat they are still welcome to do so, but we're back to house rule territory.

[Blatant Beast]

So now a DM is a bad DM because they disagree with PhoenixPhyre on the difficulty of a task? If the rules tell the DM to make up the DC and he sets the DC at 15 why is he a bad DM when PhoenixPhyre would set the DC at 10?

Have you considered switching to decalf?

A DM that consistently creates a game that causes people to give up on Ability Checks, as Telok described in their posts, sounds like a poor DM to me.

Feel free, to feel differently.

[stoutstien]

That's the DMs' style. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why? How? What about the DMs who do tell the players the DC before the roll, but the DC is rarely below 15 because in their view without a challenge there is no fun in the success. It's "Moderate" - not too easy not too hard in their view. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why?

If there were example DCs for everyone to see then everyone would know, and this problem goes away.

In some ways yes I would say they're playing wrong as far as the rules go.
Rolling dice is inherently not a challenge just because the numbers are bigger or smaller. So unless you are making them answer trivial pursuit questions before they're allowed to roll it's not a really good place to try to maintain challenge. Tension sure but tension is basically synonymous with the unknown.

Ability checks is just a resolution system for the player's decisions for the situations where the outcome is uncertain and situational circumstances mean that being unsuccessful carries a risk.

You're not supposed to adjust the DC based on the amount of danger from failing or use it to make them earn it because DC is merely there the represent the odds of failing the particular action in a particular situation. So regardless of what DC charge you provide if a GM is going to try to use it as a punitive system they're already doing it wrong and they'll continue to do.

In a lot of way ability checks are kind of a last ditch effort rather than the primary way that you're supposed to address scenarios. It's the neutral provider of numbers the GM then uses to figure out what happened when the player/PC did something.

Unfortunately a lot of people have brought habits over from different systems where that's not the case and the game is in a pretty bad job of reinforcing this by either giving players <buttons> that overcome scenarios by screwing with the DC math (pass without trace) and making it relatively easy to stack a bunch of dices on to ability checks. If you give players five different ways to add dice to something they're going to assume that's what they're supposed to do.

[Pex]

In some ways yes I would say they're playing wrong as far as the rules go.
Rolling dice is inherently not a challenge just because the numbers are bigger or smaller. So unless you are making them answer trivial pursuit questions before they're allowed to roll it's not a really good place to try to maintain challenge. Tension sure but tension is basically synonymous with the unknown.

Ability checks is just a resolution system for the player's decisions for the situations where the outcome is uncertain and situational circumstances mean that being unsuccessful carries a risk.

You're not supposed to adjust the DC based on the amount of danger from failing or use it to make them earn it because DC is merely there the represent the odds of failing the particular action in a particular situation. So regardless of what DC charge you provide if a GM is going to try to use it as a punitive system they're already doing it wrong and they'll continue to do.

In a lot of way ability checks are kind of a last ditch effort rather than the primary way that you're supposed to address scenarios. It's the neutral provider of numbers the GM then uses to figure out what happened when the player/PC did something.

Unfortunately a lot of people have brought habits over from different systems where that's not the case and the game is in a pretty bad job of reinforcing this by either giving players <buttons> that overcome scenarios by screwing with the DC math (pass without trace) and making it relatively easy to stack a bunch of dices on to ability checks. If you give players five different ways to add dice to something they're going to assume that's what they're supposed to do.

DMs bring in their biases because they are told to make it up. They will do what they think is right. You say they're playing wrong. The game is telling them they're playing correctly because that's what they are supposed to do. They just disagree with you on the how and why of coming up with their numbers. Who cares what happens at Jimmy's table, so how can Jimmy be playing the game wrong? However, I would agree with you the game should be setting the standard baseline of what is possible, not the DM's personal biasness. One way that can be done is have DC tables so the game tells the DM what the expected standards are. Once that baseline is established most DMs would be satisfied with it because why bother doing extra work. For those DMs who love to tinker they'll continue to do so.

[stoutstien]

DMs bring in their biases because they are told to make it up. They will do what they think is right. You say they're playing wrong. The game is telling them they're playing correctly because that's what they are supposed to do. They just disagree with you on the how and why of coming up with their numbers. Who cares what happens at Jimmy's table, so how can Jimmy be playing the game wrong? However, I would agree with you the game should be setting the standard baseline of what is possible, not the DM's personal biasness. One way that can be done is have DC tables so the game tells the DM what the expected standards are. Once that baseline is established most DMs would be satisfied with it because why bother doing extra work. For those DMs who love to tinker they'll continue to do so.

Can you honestly not tell the difference between setting a DC based on the situation rather than setting the DC to be punitive?

It's been pointed out three dozen times if a DM doesn't want to deal with it then they can just reference a DMG and only use three separate DCs and the game functions. If a GM can't figure out that what good what a multifactorial chart be?

[Pex]

Can you honestly not tell the difference between setting a DC based on the situation rather than setting the DC to be punitive?

It's been pointed out three dozen times if a DM doesn't want to deal with it then they can just reference a DMG and only use three separate DCs and the game functions. If a GM can't figure out that what good what a multifactorial chart be?

It's been pointed out that the DM is not being punitive; he just disagrees with you on the difficulty of a task. He absolutely really thinks a given task is hard where you say it's easy. He thinks a roll is warranted where you'll say it's automatic no roll is needed. He's not you, so he will inherently have a different opinion on the resolution of a task. It's that difference that causes my character to be Tarzan or George of the Jungle depending on who is the DM that day given the same relevant game statistics of my characters. It's that difference that bothers me. It's that difference that would be mitigated if there were DC tables for all skills in a convenient easy to find location to reference. There's a reference for armor AC, weapon damage dice, saving throw DC, class abilities, feats, spells, racial abilities, backgrounds. My characters across the games all use those same references regardless of who is DM. I would like skill use to be given that same courtesy. The game designers chose not to. I don't expect them to 'fix' this in the new version. I find that a mistake, but I will be happy wrong if they do.

[stoutstien]

It's been pointed out that the DM is not being punitive; he just disagrees with you on the difficulty of a task. He absolutely really thinks a given task is hard where you say it's easy. He thinks a roll is warranted where you'll say it's automatic no roll is needed. He's not you, so he will inherently have a different opinion on the resolution of a task. It's that difference that causes my character to be Tarzan or George of the Jungle depending on who is the DM that day given the same relevant game statistics of my characters. It's that difference that bothers me. It's that difference that would be mitigated if there were DC tables for all skills in a convenient easy to find location to reference. There's a reference for armor AC, weapon damage dice, saving throw DC, class abilities, feats, spells, racial abilities, backgrounds. My characters across the games all use those same references regardless of who is DM. I would like skill use to be given that same courtesy. The game designers chose not to. I don't expect them to 'fix' this in the new version. I find that a mistake, but I will be happy wrong if they do.

As long as the GM is question is consistent at the given table/group then it's fine. It might be a mismatch for a given player but the rest is a *you* problem.

The reason why they won't fix it is because it would take the core principle of the game out and without that it wouldn't have much left.

If you don't like the variance of playing with different GMs....then don't or write up a chart and have it notarized for each table.

*In the same view that I think wizard<class> should be gutted from the system is a *me* problem that i don't expect to be address by anyone else.*

[Telok]

Have you considered switching to decalf?

A DM that consistently creates a game that causes people to give up on Ability Checks, as Telok described in their posts, sounds like a poor DM to me.

Feel free, to feel differently.

I would suggest from my experience of never seeing a "good" 5e GM (by your definition) even though some of the GMs I've played with have run perfectly good games in AD&D which has no skill system and/or 3.x & 4e which have highly defined skill systems and/or in other game systems like Shadowrun and two other GMs who started on 5e, that there is something about the 5e ability/skill check system that consistently fails a subset of D&D GMs who apparently make up 100% of the D&D GMs in my area for the past decade-plus years.

From my observation its that nobody knows what the **** a "medium" or "hard" check for jumping, climbing, swimming, healing, intimidating, stealth, percepton, etc., is supposed to be. Although I could be wrong about the exact cause, it is abundantly clear to me that the 5e ability/skill check system is a problem source that many other games don't have.

[crayonshinchuck]

Another factor that doesn't seem to be receiving much (if any) discussion on this thread, is what the consequences of failure might be according to whoever is DMing. I suspect that DMs that set lower DCs, may be stricter about the negative consequences of failure, while someone who sets higher DCs may be more willing to let players "fail forward". Of course, this may not be true everywhere, but I think a good DM will generally tend towards one of these styles. Of course, not all DMs are good, especially ones that have less experience.

The problem with being more specific about DC calculation is that to make that further level of detail useful, it would also be necessary to give specific examples of what failure would mean. In the example of leaping over a pit, does failure mean that the character necessarily drops down to the bottom of the pit, or does it mean that they have a second of clawing at the edge, either providing a chance for a second check or for one of their party members to somehow help them out.

I suspect that some of the vehement disagreements may come from folks assuming that the consequences for failing a check are the same in either DM's game, which I doubt is the case. In addition, I believe it is much more difficult to objectively quantify the differences between different DMs' adjudication of the results of a failed check.

[Pex]

Another factor that doesn't seem to be receiving much (if any) discussion on this thread, is what the consequences of failure might be according to whoever is DMing. I suspect that DMs that set lower DCs, may be stricter about the negative consequences of failure, while someone who sets higher DCs may be more willing to let players "fail forward". Of course, this may not be true everywhere, but I think a good DM will generally tend towards one of these styles. Of course, not all DMs are good, especially ones that have less experience.

The problem with being more specific about DC calculation is that to make that further level of detail useful, it would also be necessary to give specific examples of what failure would mean. In the example of leaping over a pit, does failure mean that the character necessarily drops down to the bottom of the pit, or does it mean that they have a second of clawing at the edge, either providing a chance for a second check or for one of their party members to somehow help them out.

I suspect that some of the vehement disagreements may come from folks assuming that the consequences for failing a check are the same in either DM's game, which I doubt is the case. In addition, I believe it is much more difficult to objectively quantify the differences between different DMs' adjudication of the results of a failed check.

Good point. In 3E they mention failing to climb a wall only meant you never got off the ground, not climb half-way up then fall taking Xd6 damage. They meant typical walls of caverns or keeps, not mile high cliff-faces. Here is where DMs like to use Natural 1 hijinks, even if accepting a Natural 1 is not an autofailure. Roll a 6 and fail to jump the pit, you realize you lost momentum and stopped before you reach the edge. Roll a 1 and fail to jump the pit, you're going down into it but to be nice DM allows a DX saving throw to grab the edge.

A DC table alone would not answer this question. The skills chapter in the DMG would need to have two or three pages discussing the matter. Whether it's for each individual skill or general I'm not sure which is better or even if it's possible to do for every skill. It's the difference between when you fail to convince the King to give you his throne, does he laugh thinking you're joking or does he throw you in the dungeon. My preference is for they would dedicate the pages to provide example of failing each skill, but the reality of publication might not permit this so a universal advice would be used. What that would say I don't know, but it needs to be there whether DC tables exist or not.

[Zhorn]

Here is where DMs like to use Natural 1 hijinks, even if accepting a Natural 1 is not an autofailure. Roll a 6 and fail to jump the pit, you realize you lost momentum and stopped before you reach the edge. Roll a 1 and fail to jump the pit, you're going down into it but to be nice DM allows a DX saving throw to grab the edge.
I remember a Matt Colville did a good video on multiple fail states (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1zaNJrXi5Y); highly recommended for readers who've not seen it before

The takaway is understanding a skillcheck in a similar lens as combat.
You miss on you attack, combat doesn't just end; the enemy getting a turn is a consequence of not eliminating them on a single turn.
If you fail a skill check, the DM has the opportunity to pace a new challenge as a consequence of the initial failure.
Like Pex covered; miss the jump, but have a new challenge in catching the ledge, climbing vines, etc etc.
There still can be some damage or other consequences, but you don't need to view DCs for skill as single failure = all over.

[Aquillion]

Yes, another problem with the skill system is that if you run it by the books it tends to lead to a lot of "one roll and done" events that are not very interesting.

Players have invented a bunch of suggestions and approaches that address this, but, again, crucially, none of this is in the book.

My real point is that based on the way classes are set up, skills ought to be a third pillar of the game alongside spellcasting and combat, and ought to get a similar amount of focus in some manner. But it just... doesn't. Everything above people have said in terms of ways to salvage the skill system, or particular things they like that they or other people have done with the skill system... all of it is ultimately players filling the gaps left by the core system, which is poorly fleshed-out and provides very little guidance.

The question of whether you want a more rigid or freeform system is a distraction. The books provide no real support for either of those things.

In fact, it's even vague where the system is meant to be on that spectrum - there is absolutely an interpretation where 95% of skill checks are meant to be from the tiny boxed list that the game provides, basically just awareness, stealth, traps and lockpicking and the occasional athletics, social or knowledge check, with other things mostly being there as a flavor "if you absolutely must" sort of thing. In my experience this is really the most common way it ends up being played because most people don't react to the gaping void where the rest of the skill system should be with "I can fix that!", they react with "I guess that's not what D&D is about, then" or with "I ain't got time to invent a whole third of the game myself, especially if it might just fall apart if the other people at the table disagree."

And perhaps the latter is correct. I mean - people in this thread have come up with multiple suggestions that are much better or more useful guidance than the book provides, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that 5e's real view on skills is "these are a minor flavor thing included for legacy reasons; rogues are really about backstabs and bards are really about magic."

[Segev]

I'd just like to point out that, at every single table, the minimum distance a creature can be guaranteed to successfully jump is his strength score in feet. Nobody seems to be saying, "Well, that's a problem; DMs should be free to limit that distance to much shorter, or to extend it to much further, depending on the kind of game they're running." However, the moment you want to jump an inch past that, the only guidance the DM gets is, "The DM may permit you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump further." There's not a hint, clue, or scintilla of a guideline as to how much further it should be. This, now, is held up as the design genius feature of the game, that DMs are free to determine how much beyond Strength Score In Feet a creature can jump at what DC.

But it's not a problem that a universal distance is set. It's only a problem if a universal guideline for how much further than that distance could be possible with a roll of Strength (Athletics).

The claim that this lack of guidance on Strength (Athletics) checks to exceed that distance is a feature stands in stark contrast to the lack of complaint about a hard-and-fast, universal rule for that minimum successful jump distance.

[Aimeryan]

I'd just like to point out that, at every single table, the minimum distance a creature can be guaranteed to successfully jump is his strength score in feet. Nobody seems to be saying, "Well, that's a problem; DMs should be free to limit that distance to much shorter, or to extend it to much further, depending on the kind of game they're running." However, the moment you want to jump an inch past that, the only guidance the DM gets is, "The DM may permit you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump further." There's not a hint, clue, or scintilla of a guideline as to how much further it should be. This, now, is held up as the design genius feature of the game, that DMs are free to determine how much beyond Strength Score In Feet a creature can jump at what DC.

But it's not a problem that a universal distance is set. It's only a problem if a universal guideline for how much further than that distance could be possible with a roll of Strength (Athletics).

The claim that this lack of guidance on Strength (Athletics) checks to exceed that distance is a feature stands in stark contrast to the lack of complaint about a hard-and-fast, universal rule for that minimum successful jump distance.

I don't see the problem; its not like Elephants can jump 22ft or something without fail... wait. Well, guess the DM can just change that. Now if there was guidance on the check that would be a different thing!

[Slipjig]

That's the DMs' style. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why? How? What about the DMs who do tell the players the DC before the roll, but the DC is rarely below 15 because in their view without a challenge there is no fun in the success. It's "Moderate" - not too easy not too hard in their view. Are they wrong? Are they bad DMs? Are they playing the game wrong? If yes, why?

If there were example DCs for everyone to see then everyone would know, and this problem goes away.

I don't want to accuse anybody of having "badwrongfun", but refusing to give the players an idea of what a DC will be for something they SHOULD be able to eyeball seems pretty adversarial. Not saying the DM is "wrong", but I probably wouldn't play at their table if that's representative of their style as a whole.

Likewise a DM who never assigns DCs below 15, especially for tasks that you would expect ordinary people off the street to succeed at 99% of the time, like climbing a ladder. If you are running a slapstick game where everybody thinks it's funny that the PCs keep tripping over their own shoelaces and walking into doorframes, cool. But, again, I probably wouldn't play at that table, and I suspect a lot of other people wouldn't either.


I don't see the problem; its not like Elephants can jump 22ft or something without fail... wait. Well, guess the DM can just change that. Now if there was guidance on the check that would be a different thing!

Yes, the rule should probably be something like "you can jump your STR in feet if you are Small- or Medium-Sized. Cut the number in half for every size category larger than Medium." But this is exactly the kind of thing where the DM has to exert some judgement and say, "OK, that rule that was designed for roughly human-sized creatures. Since STR is an absolute number that in now way corresponds to a creature's mads, it doesn't make sense for bigger creatures, so I'm going to apply common sense." But that answer upsets people who want D&D to be a simulationist wargame.

Don't get me wrong, games like Gloomhaven where everybody has a strictly limited moveset and there's zero question about how things interact can be tons of fun. But that's not D&D.

[Hytheter]

Personally I like to embrace the elephants' 22ft leap as part of the world :smallbiggrin:

It's certainly not the only case where the game fails to capture the nuance of interaction between size and physical prowess, but it's an understandable compromise for rules simplicity.

[Pex]

A human does not have dark vision. That doesn't make it absurd a dwarf does. A human with 22 ST can jump 22 ft. That doesn't make it absurd an elephant can't.

However, for whatever reason some people think it is absurd to want a defined rule on how a human with 20 ST can jump 22 ft.

[Keltest]

Elephants don't jump (or run, usually) because their bones cant handle having an entire elephant dropped on them like that, not because they are literally incapable of propelling themselves. So its a super weird comparison.

[Hytheter]

Elephants don't jump (or run, usually) because their bones cant handle having an entire elephant dropped on them like that, not because they are literally incapable of propelling themselves. So its a super weird comparison.

No, the anatomy of their legs does in fact prevent them from jumping.

[stoutstien]

A human does not have dark vision. That doesn't make it absurd a dwarf does. A human with 22 ST can jump 22 ft. That doesn't make it absurd an elephant can't.

However, for whatever reason some people think it is absurd to want a defined rule on how a human with 20 ST can jump 22 ft.

Because that's the president that everything needs to sit nicely onto a grid and have perfect proportionate relative sizing. PCS don't actually take up the entire 5 ft grid they're on nor are doors and windows but it is usually this case when we use a map and or grid to represent their existence and is use that as a rough means of determining what is what.

This means something that would take seconds to prep and resolve is going to take exponentially longer at every step of the process. Right now it's real easy because there's only three distances to consider for each person who wants to jump: automatic, possible but risk, not possible find alternatives. If they did include your chart the outcome would still be these three options but you're just shifting the middle one left and right in tiny tiny increments. You're still going to have the exact same process where the player describes what they want to do and you have to decide first off if it's possible, second if dice are needed, and finally you resolve it.

It also trains GMs to build scenarios that are fitted for the PCS rather than building the world in a a more internally logical fashion.

[Segev]

Because that's the president that everything needs to sit nicely onto a grid and have perfect proportionate relative sizing. PCS don't actually take up the entire 5 ft grid they're on nor are doors and windows but it is usually this case when we use a map and or grid to represent their existence and is use that as a rough means of determining what is what.

This means something that would take seconds to prep and resolve is going to take exponentially longer at every step of the process. Right now it's real easy because there's only three distances to consider for each person who wants to jump: automatic, possible but risk, not possible find alternatives. If they did include your chart the outcome would still be these three options but you're just shifting the middle one left and right in tiny tiny increments. You're still going to have the exact same process where the player describes what they want to do and you have to decide first off if it's possible, second if dice are needed, and finally you resolve it.

It also trains GMs to build scenarios that are fitted for the PCS rather than building the world in a a more internally logical fashion.

Actually, the lack of "possible but with risk" and "not possible" delineations or even guidelines is the problem. So, no, those three categories do not exist, as two of them need to be invented by the DM.

[stoutstien]

Actually, the lack of "possible but with risk" and "not possible" delineations or even guidelines is the problem. So, no, those three categories do not exist, as two of them need to be invented by the DM.

They do exist just needs to be determined on the game not the rules because DND is a game that uses rules rather than a game about using the rules to play.

You could have the exact same environment that is approached wildly different.

Rounding a corner and having a gap that could be jumped while:

-just casually exploring with no pressure.

- in a time crunch from the cavern collapsing but having a few moments to example your surroundings.

-presuded by the dragon you just stole from so you need to either jump now or skid to a halt.

Same <jump> but with wildly different game factors to consider that could shift the direction the player takes and the GM decision tree goes to figure out what happens. Could they be the same DC? Sure but I doubt it unless you do try to force it because jumping isn't the goal. We aren't playing pit fall and are stuck with the limitations of such.

[Segev]

They do exist just needs to be determined on the game not the rules because DND is a game that uses rules rather than a game about using the rules to play.

Then, if the only rule we were given is, "How far you can jump is determined by a Strength(Athletics) check," with literally nothing else, would also categorize "sure thing," "possible, but not guaranteed," and "definitely impossible," too? Why bother with the "you can jump your strength score in feet" rule at all?

Surely, spells and abilities that double or triple your jumping distance would work just fine with no rules for how far you can jump as a baseline, since we would have a roll that could determine how far we could jump, if the DM makes up how that roll does that determination.

[stoutstien]

Then, if the only rule we were given is, "How far you can jump is determined by a Strength(Athletics) check," with literally nothing else, would also categorize "sure thing," "possible, but not guaranteed," and "definitely impossible," too? Why bother with the "you can jump your strength score in feet" rule at all?

Surely, spells and abilities that double or triple your jumping distance would work just fine with no rules for how far you can jump as a baseline, since we would have a roll that could determine how far we could jump, if the DM makes up how that roll does that determination.

Honestly ditch the baseline based on feet all together and add a section about modifying setting/games to fit theme/feel goals. I don't need a system that can't figure out the difference between attrition and tactics to govern how far a 1 in a million epic hero can jump while chasing down the goblins that stole the staff off mighty might.

[Pex]

They do exist just needs to be determined on the game not the rules because DND is a game that uses rules rather than a game about using the rules to play.

You could have the exact same environment that is approached wildly different.

Rounding a corner and having a gap that could be jumped while:

-just casually exploring with no pressure.

- in a time crunch from the cavern collapsing but having a few moments to example your surroundings.

-presuded by the dragon you just stole from so you need to either jump now or skid to a halt.

Same <jump> but with wildly different game factors to consider that could shift the direction the player takes and the GM decision tree goes to figure out what happens. Could they be the same DC? Sure but I doubt it unless you do try to force it because jumping isn't the goal. We aren't playing pit fall and are stuck with the limitations of such.

In all those scenarios if the pit to jump is 15 ft and I have 16 ST, I can jump the pit without question every time all the time without a roll across all game tables everywhere, so the stress of the scenario is irrelevant.

[stoutstien]

In all those scenarios if the pit to jump is 15 ft and I have 16 ST, I can jump the pit without question every time all the time without a roll across all game tables everywhere, so the stress of the scenario is irrelevant.

And what about every one else? because one person can overcome the gap but not others is exactly why the ability check system exists to begin with. You don't always get to rolledex the party to allow the highest relevant numbers can be applied to the challenge.

[schm0]

And what about every one else? because one person can overcome the gap but not others is exactly why the ability check system exists to begin with. You don't always get to rolledex the party to allow the highest relevant numbers can be applied to the challenge.

If the 16 STR PC makes the jump, but the others need to roll Athletics, then they do so. And the DM sets the DC and applies advantage or disadvantage as appropriate.

Alternatively, the party is casually exploring and uses other tools to cross the gap.

[stoutstien]

If the 16 STR PC makes the jump, but the others need to roll Athletics, then they do so. And the DM sets the DC and applies advantage or disadvantage as appropriate.

Alternatively, the party is casually exploring and uses other tools to cross the gap.

Exactly. You don't need 4 different charts, a ruler, and a calculator to deal with a hole in the ground.

[Blatant Beast]

It's that difference that causes my character to be Tarzan or George of the Jungle depending on who is the DM that day given the same relevant game statistics of my characters. It's that difference that bothers me. .

Welcome to Roleplaying. If this uncertainty does not appeal to you there are plenty of CRPG games, like Baldur's Gate 3, or hybrid board/RPG games like Gloomhaven, or RPG games like 3e D&D that can met your needs.

5e is designed with the expectation that a DM does not need to consult charts for setting jumping DCs. 5e is designed for easy, bookless resolution. If that does not appeal to you, one can switch systems, or find a DM that shares your concerns and institutes a set DC, or play something else that does not bother you.

The System Goals of 5e does not meet your personal expectations, I think it is quite obvious at this point you either need to make peace with that, or move on to something that better aligns with your preferences.

(Note, I am not writing this with exclusionary intent, but with the realistic expectation that not every RPG system is a great fit for everyone)

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd just like to point out that, at every single table, the minimum distance a creature can be guaranteed to successfully jump is his strength score in feet. Nobody seems to be saying, "Well, that's a problem; DMs should be free to limit that distance to much shorter, or to extend it to much further, depending on the kind of game they're running." However, the moment you want to jump an inch past that, the only guidance the DM gets is, "The DM may permit you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump further." There's not a hint, clue, or scintilla of a guideline as to how much further it should be. This, now, is held up as the design genius feature of the game, that DMs are free to determine how much beyond Strength Score In Feet a creature can jump at what DC.

But it's not a problem that a universal distance is set. It's only a problem if a universal guideline for how much further than that distance could be possible with a roll of Strength (Athletics).

The claim that this lack of guidance on Strength (Athletics) checks to exceed that distance is a feature stands in stark contrast to the lack of complaint about a hard-and-fast, universal rule for that minimum successful jump distance.
Quoted for truth.

[Pex]

Exactly. You don't need 4 different charts, a ruler, and a calculator to deal with a hole in the ground.

Correct. One chart is enough.


Welcome to Roleplaying. If this uncertainty does not appeal to you there are plenty of CRPG games, like Baldur's Gate 3, or hybrid board/RPG games like Gloomhaven, or RPG games like 3e D&D that can met your needs.

5e is designed with the expectation that a DM does not need to consult charts for setting jumping DCs. 5e is designed for easy, bookless resolution. If that does not appeal to you, one can switch systems, or find a DM that shares your concerns and institutes a set DC, or play something else that does not bother you.

The System Goals of 5e does not meet your personal expectations, I think it is quite obvious at this point you either need to make peace with that, or move on to something that better aligns with your preferences.

(Note, I am not writing this with exclusionary intent, but with the realistic expectation that not every RPG system is a great fit for everyone)

5E is designed with the expectation that all non-magical platemail for all games of every table provide AC 18. The DM can consult the armor equipment table. 5E is designed with the expectation that Fireball cast in a 3rd level spell slot will deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius for all games of every table. The DM can consult the spell description.

[Segev]

5E is designed with the expectation that all non-magical platemail for all games of every table provide AC 18. The DM can consult the armor equipment table. 5E is designed with the expectation that Fireball cast in a 3rd level spell slot will deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius for all games of every table. The DM can consult the spell description.

Heck, on jumping, itself, 5e is designed with the expectation that every creature (without magical or special ability assistance) can jump a minimum of its Strength score in feet, no variation between tables expected.

[GloatingSwine]

Correct. One chart is enough.

Do you even need one?

You can jump STR in feet, it's a moderate check for 25% more, hard check for 50% more, round down on both. You fail you get your normal jump distance and the situation dictates what options you have from there.

There I fixed jumping forever.

[Segev]

Do you even need one?

You can jump STR in feet, it's a moderate check for 25% more, hard check for 50% more, round down on both. You fail you get your normal jump distance and the situation dictates what options you have from there.

There I fixed jumping forever.

Man, wouldn't it be nice if that was given in the actual rules? Everything after the word "feet" is your addition.

[GloatingSwine]

Man, wouldn't it be nice if that was given in the actual rules? Everything after the word "feet" is your addition.
~**
Yeah, it would be. But that would mean they would have to sit down and write some rules beyond "**** it the DM will fix it".

[RSP]

5E is designed with the expectation that all non-magical platemail for all games of every table provide AC 18. The DM can consult the armor equipment table. 5E is designed with the expectation that Fireball cast in a 3rd level spell slot will deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius for all games of every table. The DM can consult the spell description.

Indeed. It’s also designed so DMs can resolve skill checks as they wish, and it’s 100% intended that DM A resolves differently than DM B, if they deem those are the best resolutions for their table in those situations.

We all understand your want to tell them they’re wrong, but 5e was designed to allow DMs making the game theirs.

It’s not intended to be “regardless of table, campaign or DM, you get the exact same story and result”. It’s not meant to be cookie cutter.

Per the PHB Introduction: “…the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.”

“Infinitely flexible” “improvise” “react” “unexpected” are all important words here. It’s not supposed to be “rigidly dictated”.

And yes, if you want to try and explore whether you can buy AC 17 Plate Mail, ask your DM and maybe you can buy an old set, or something that was made incorrectly (perhaps at an Outlet Armorer, or some such), the game says that’s okay if the DM decides it! Maybe the first says no, but keep trying and I’m sure you’ll find one who’s okay with it. (RAW, any Full Plate hit by a Rust Monster would suffice as well…so long as it was only hit once.)

[Blatant Beast]

5E is designed with the expectation that all non-magical platemail for all games of every table provide AC 18. The DM can consult the armor equipment table. 5E is designed with the expectation that Fireball cast in a 3rd level spell slot will deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius for all games of every table. The DM can consult the spell description.

Category Error.

Page 238 of the DMG:
“ It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table.”….

“ If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.”


Consulting the AC value of Hide Armor is inherently different than establishing a DC for an ability check or Saving Throw. “Sometimes, you’ll even want to change established DCs.”…DM Fiat…them’s the rules…by RAW.

[Segev]

Indeed. It’s also designed so DMs can resolve skill checks as they wish, and it’s 100% intended that DM A resolves differently than DM B, if they deem those are the best resolutions for their table in those situations.

We all understand your want to tell them they’re wrong, but 5e was designed to allow DMs making the game theirs.

It’s not intended to be “regardless of table, campaign or DM, you get the exact same story and result”. It’s not meant to be cookie cutter.

Per the PHB Introduction: “…the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.”

“Infinitely flexible” “improvise” “react” “unexpected” are all important words here. It’s not supposed to be “rigidly dictated”.

And yes, if you want to try and explore whether you can buy AC 17 Plate Mail, ask your DM and maybe you can buy an old set, or something that was made incorrectly (perhaps at an Outlet Armorer, or some such), the game says that’s okay if the DM decides it! Maybe the first says no, but keep trying and I’m sure you’ll find one who’s okay with it. (RAW, any Full Plate hit by a Rust Monster would suffice as well…so long as it was only hit once.)

While we have had the discussion about skill checks in the past, this isn't really about skill checks in general.

This is about the very specific juxtaposition of a defined rule and an addition of "yeah, maybe you can do more, but we won't give you or your DM any hints as to how to actually make that determination."

It's akin to saying, "You deal damage to the monster equal to the number you roll on your damage dice, plus any modifiers. Even if this doesn't reduce the monster to 0 hp, your DM may let you roll a Strength(Athletics) check to see if you kill it anyway." I think - I hope - we can all agree that that would be a stupid rule, especially if that was all that was written about it.

[Aimeryan]

Page 238 of the DMG:
“ It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one.

Welcome to the DM crisis.

[Ignimortis]

Welcome to the DM crisis.

I do think that 5e's insistence on making the GM do the designers' job for them in certain areas of the game is part of why the DM crisis for 5e has been ongoing for a while now.

Apparently PF2 has a lot less issue with that, and people often say that part of why they like GMing PF2 is that there's a lot of default DCs you can fall back on and CRs work entirely as advertised - there's a lot less mental overhead in preparing a session and/or making on-the-fly rulings. Of course, they're opposed by people saying that it's better to have a system where you don't consult a table of "average DC per level", etc. In short, opinions differ as they always do. But my perception is that PF2 seems to have a better GM/player ratio at the moment.

[Slipjig]

Correct. One chart is enough.



5E is designed with the expectation that all non-magical platemail for all games of every table provide AC 18. The DM can consult the armor equipment table. 5E is designed with the expectation that Fireball cast in a 3rd level spell slot will deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius for all games of every table. The DM can consult the spell description.

Yes, aspects of the game world that are almost always relevant are better defined. However, it does not include a table about Jumping, probably because the ability to jump 21' instead of 20' comes up during a vanishingly small % of game sessions.

If requiring the DM to adjudicate things like this is a deal-breaker, maybe 5e just isn't a good fit for you.

[Ignimortis]

Yes, aspects of the game world that are almost always relevant are better defined. However, it does not include a table about Jumping, probably because the ability to jump 21' instead of 20' comes up during a vanishingly small % of game sessions.

If requiring the DM to adjudicate things like this is a deal-breaker, maybe 5e just isn't a good fit for you.
If the ability to jump 21' instead of 20' was better defined (and, by that, the ability to jump 30 or 40 feet were also better-defined), I'd be using it every single session. Some of my best experiences were with warriors who could jump 30+ feet automatically and used that capability tactically all the time. Same with other unusual movement modes. When I was playing a monk, my ability to run on walls came up every session, because I knew it would work and used it often. Same character also constantly used his 26+ passive Perception to get information, also because I knew it would work and thus reminded the GM about it often. When abilities just work, they're much more likely to come up and be used proactively.

[Pex]

Category Error.

Page 238 of the DMG:
“ It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table.”….

“ If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.”


Consulting the AC value of Hide Armor is inherently different than establishing a DC for an ability check or Saving Throw. “Sometimes, you’ll even want to change established DCs.”…DM Fiat…them’s the rules…by RAW.

I know that it was done on purpose. The point is 5E does have defined rules for things of universal intent across all tables so the idea they should have done so for skill use is not an outrageous thought. 5E on purpose having lack of defined skill use rules is not a defense of it by its own existence as that is the point of contention.


Yes, aspects of the game world that are almost always relevant are better defined. However, it does not include a table about Jumping, probably because the ability to jump 21' instead of 20' comes up during a vanishingly small % of game sessions.

If requiring the DM to adjudicate things like this is a deal-breaker, maybe 5e just isn't a good fit for you.

And yet the Jump spell exists allowing a ST 15 character to jump 45 ft without a dice roll, which includes the ability to jump 20 ft without a dice roll, so it would be nice to know how to handle a 15 ST character wanting to jump 20 ft without the Jump spell.

If jumping was a formula DC = 10 + 1 per 1 ft more than your ST score, then a 20 ST jumping 21 ft would be DC 11. If jumping was a table:

DC 12: Jump up to 5 ft more than your ST score
DC 15: Jump between more than 5 ft to 10 ft more than your ST score
Jumping more than 10 ft more than your ST score is not possible without magic.

Then a ST 20 character wanting to jump 21 ft would be DC 12.

There wouldn't be any issue. Everyone would know. What we have now is DM make it up so I either make it or fall to my doom based on who is DM that day regardless of having the same relevant statistics for my character.

[schm0]

There wouldn't be any issue. Everyone would know. What we have now is DM make it up so I either make it or fall to my doom based on who is DM that day regardless of having the same relevant statistics for my character.

I think the crux of this issue is a philosophical one. You, as a player, believe you deserve to know the exact DC.

In my opinion, you don't need to know the DC. There's no roll in the game that requires you to know that. What you need to know is what your character knows.

So what does your character know? Your character knows it's possible, but it'll be hard to achieve. That's what I'd tell my players. If you want to metagame off that, you know it's somewhere in the range of 20. Might be 18, might be 21. Or maybe your character looks at that jump distance and says, "Yeah, that's practically impossible." So you know the DC is really, really high. Like, somewhere around 30 high.

But the exact number? That stays behind the screen, IMHO.

I say, roll the dice. Find out what happens. Success is great. But failure can be fun, too. It's what creates exciting moments like this (https://youtu.be/hfelvdfz_OA?t=140).

[Pex]

I think the crux of this issue is a philosophical one. You, as a player, believe you deserve to know the exact DC.

In my opinion, you don't need to know the DC. There's no roll in the game that requires you to know that. What you need to know is what your character knows.

So what does your character know? Your character knows it's possible, but it'll be hard to achieve. That's what I'd tell my players. If you want to metagame off that, you know it's somewhere in the range of 20. Might be 18, might be 21. Or maybe your character looks at that jump distance and says, "Yeah, that's practically impossible." So you know the DC is really, really high. Like, somewhere around 30 high.

But the exact number? That stays behind the screen, IMHO.

I say, roll the dice. Find out what happens. Success is great. But failure can be fun, too. It's what creates exciting moments like this (https://youtu.be/hfelvdfz_OA?t=140).

I know the DC of every spell that requires a saving throw, every class ability that requires a saving throw is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency bonus. I know the AC of all non-magical platemail is AC 18. I know that every Fireball cast from a 3rd level spell slot will do 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius. I know that every longsword one-handed upon a hit will do 1d8 damage. I know that if I have 15 ST I can jump over all 10 ft wide pits to my heart's content without a die roll. The idea that I get to know how things work is not a preposterous thing in 5E.

[schm0]

I know the DC of every spell that requires a saving throw, every class ability that requires a saving throw is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency bonus. I know the AC of all non-magical platemail is AC 18. I know that every Fireball cast from a 3rd level spell slot will do 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius. I know that every longsword one-handed upon a hit will do 1d8 damage. I know that if I have 15 ST I can jump over all 10 ft wide pits to my heart's content without a die roll. The idea that I get to know how things work is not a preposterous thing in 5E.

You know all those things because they aren't determined behind the screen, though. They're not at all the same thing.

[GloatingSwine]

I know the DC of every spell that requires a saving throw, every class ability that requires a saving throw is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency bonus. I know the AC of all non-magical platemail is AC 18. I know that every Fireball cast from a 3rd level spell slot will do 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius. I know that every longsword one-handed upon a hit will do 1d8 damage. I know that if I have 15 ST I can jump over all 10 ft wide pits to my heart's content without a die roll. The idea that I get to know how things work is not a preposterous thing in 5E.

You have to remember that whilst you know these things, your character is fumbling through a quantum world where no certainties exist and they cannot predict how any of their skills and training will apply to a task before they petition the Powers That Be for permission to attempt it.

[Lucas Yew]

Watching this depressing deBate of more rUles over rulings or the opposite (and I support the forMer by my very nature btw), now I think it was a marvelous decision to jumP ship to another old simulationist system that finally became legally open last spring post-OGL-crisis...

[crayonshinchuck]

I think the crux of this issue is a philosophical one. You, as a player, believe you deserve to know the exact DC.

In my opinion, you don't need to know the DC. There's no roll in the game that requires you to know that. What you need to know is what your character knows.

So what does your character know? Your character knows it's possible, but it'll be hard to achieve. That's what I'd tell my players. If you want to metagame off that, you know it's somewhere in the range of 20. Might be 18, might be 21. Or maybe your character looks at that jump distance and says, "Yeah, that's practically impossible." So you know the DC is really, really high. Like, somewhere around 30 high.

But the exact number? That stays behind the screen, IMHO.

I say, roll the dice. Find out what happens. Success is great. But failure can be fun, too. It's what creates exciting moments like this (https://youtu.be/hfelvdfz_OA?t=140).

A character in the world would have a great deal better chance to weigh their odds than a player who knows nothing about the situation except for what the DM has explained, which may or may not include any visuals and other subtle information about the situation (for jumping over a pit, these may include the ground conditions at the launch and landing points, etc.). I would say that if you, as a DM, are not giving them the exact DC, you should be make it clear enough to them that they should be able to guess within a few points so that they can determine for their character whether the risk is worth it. This is rather open to misinterpretation, though, because different players may understand your description differently and how hard the task is from the description.

[JNAProductions]

A character in the world would have a great deal better chance to weigh their odds than a player who knows nothing about the situation except for what the DM has explained, which may or may not include any visuals and other subtle information about the situation (for jumping over a pit, these may include the ground conditions at the launch and landing points, etc.). I would say that if you, as a DM, are not giving them the exact DC, you should be make it clear enough to them that they should be able to guess within a few points so that they can determine for their character whether the risk is worth it. This is rather open to misinterpretation, though, because different players may understand your description differently and how hard the task is from the description.

I wouldn't consider that true for all tasks.
Remembering a bit of lore? That DC can stay unknown.
Arcana to activate a completely unknown artifact? Your PC won't have much clue how hard it is till they've already committed.

But for most physical tasks, agreed entirely.

[schm0]

A character in the world would have a great deal better chance to weigh their odds than a player who knows nothing about the situation except for what the DM has explained, which may or may not include any visuals and other subtle information about the situation (for jumping over a pit, these may include the ground conditions at the launch and landing points, etc.). I would say that if you, as a DM, are not giving them the exact DC, you should be make it clear enough to them that they should be able to guess within a few points so that they can determine for their character whether the risk is worth it. This is rather open to misinterpretation, though, because different players may understand your description differently and how hard the task is from the description.

A good DM provides those sorts of details to the player, and a good player knows to ask about those sorts of details before attempting a particularly risky task.

The guidelines for ability checks tell us that unusual conditions that help or hinder the task should be represented by advantage or disadvantage. For example, the DM might tell the player that their character thinks a jump across a desert chasm is moderately difficult, but it'll be harder jumping from sand, and they should inform the player up front that if they attempt the jump the check will be made at disadvantage. That's a perfectly reasonable middle ground.

I also don't really see how using the literal descriptors for DCs could be misunderstood at all. The DC chart is printed in the PHB on page 174, after all. For the type of players that are really seeking out metagame information, those descriptors will give you an approximate range (i.e. "moderate" is going to be somewhere around 15), which is more than enough to make an informed decision.

[Segev]

I think the crux of this issue is a philosophical one. You, as a player, believe you deserve to know the exact DC.

In my opinion, you don't need to know the DC. There's no roll in the game that requires you to know that. What you need to know is what your character knows.

Except that, once again, your philosophy breaks down by the fact that D&D 5e tells you, as a player, that you can definitely jump up to (say) 15 feet (if you have 15 Str), no check required. So, why is it a "feature" that you have no idea what the DC is to jump 16 feet or 20 feet, but that you know for sure you can definitely jump 15?

[Pex]

A good DM provides those sorts of details to the player, and a good player knows to ask about those sorts of details before attempting a particularly risky task.

The guidelines for ability checks tell us that unusual conditions that help or hinder the task should be represented by advantage or disadvantage. For example, the DM might tell the player that their character thinks a jump across a desert chasm is moderately difficult, but it'll be harder jumping from sand, and they should inform the player up front that if they attempt the jump the check will be made at disadvantage. That's a perfectly reasonable middle ground.

I also don't really see how using the literal descriptors for DCs could be misunderstood at all. The DC chart is printed in the PHB on page 174, after all. For the type of players that are really seeking out metagame information, those descriptors will give you an approximate range (i.e. "moderate" is going to be somewhere around 15), which is more than enough to make an informed decision.

So the solution to skill checks is "get good"? DMs who are just learning and the players who have them are feces out of luck, so sorry so sad?

[schm0]

Except that, once again, your philosophy breaks down by the fact that D&D 5e tells you, as a player, that you can definitely jump up to (say) 15 feet (if you have 15 Str), no check required. So, why is it a "feature" that you have no idea what the DC is to jump 16 feet or 20 feet, but that you know for sure you can definitely jump 15?

The mechanics for jump distance are the floor. They are the minimum amount you can jump without risking failure. Anything beyond that requires an ability check. That's how all ability checks work. Some things your character can do without risking failure, and anything beyond that, you make an ability check.


So the solution to skill checks is "get good"? DMs who are just learning and the players who have them are feces out of luck, so sorry so sad?

I don't think this is an issue of DM skill or player skill. I was just pointing out that if a player is unsure, or the DM wishes to add a variable to the equation, those things should be made apparent. Good DMs and players learn to do this very early. This is the stuff that is written about in the very first pages of the PHB, after all. And I think a table of grown adults playing a game where the goal is to have fun can be mature enough to come to those conclusions through basic conversation.

No, I think the core of this issue is concerning metagame information. For example, in your opinion, do you feel that a player deserves perfect information when performing an extraordinary long jump? What about other ability checks? Do you think every roll should be public facing? What about every stat about the creature, such as exact current hit points or AC?

If any of the answers to those questions is yes, then might just be a philosophical divide between what you want from the game, and what the game provides. There are only three solutions in such a case: you can homebrew a solution, learn to live with it, or find a new game to play.

These philosophical differences are exactly why I am up front with my players regarding my stance on metagame information. Because there are a great many players out there that prefer to have varying degrees of meta information, so I let them know exactly what is forthcoming and what isn't.

[Blatant Beast]

So the solution to skill checks is "get good"? DMs who are just learning and the players who have them are feces out of luck, so sorry so sad?

That is the solution to life…practice, work at it and get better. Some people are naturally talented, at certain things, but most people put effort in.

If 10 years in, one can not figure out “10, 15, 20” or their own preference for flavor, then politely, I am going to suggest that a lack of effort is a likely cause.

It took me decades to reach my current comfort level at DM-ing. It takes teachers time and practice to become skilled, same for pilots and surgeons.

Ultimately, though Pex, I am skeptical about the presentation of your opinion as the voice of the common gamer/reasonable person.

People are not disagreeing with the contention that the guidance in the books could be better written, but your objection about 5e design philosophy, does not appear to be solely based in desiring clarification.

Ultimately, Pex, you do not seemingly want a game that has room for DM Judgement, biases, and what-not, because you had bad experiences and do not want to have those experiences replicated.

That is entirely understandable….but a game of static DCs is not what I am interested in for D&D. I have GURPs or Traveller for that style of game.

Static DCs were often crappy in 3e, and slowed the game down. This is in addition to the silliness of Tumbling Past a Drunken man with a bag on their head, was the same target as Tumbling Past the Grandfather of Assassins.

11+ pages in, and no one in the static DC camp has elucidated on what the proposed advantages of such a change to 5e would accrue.

[InvisibleBison]

That is the solution to life…practice, work at it and get better. Some people are naturally talented, at certain things, but most people put effort in.

In order to practice and get better at being a DM, you have to actually DM games, which means the game has to work well when being run by inexperienced, unpracticed DMs. A game that only works in the best case scenario is a badly designed game.



This is in addition to the silliness of Tumbling Past a Drunken man with a bag on their head, was the same target as Tumbling Past the Grandfather of Assassins.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but this seems like a fairly poor criticism of 3e's skill system. A man with a bag on his head can't make attacks of opportunity, so there's no need to tumble past him. And if the Grandfather of Assassins is supposed to be hard to get past without being attacked, that should be reflected in some ability he has, not something built into the tumble skill.

[JNAProductions]

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but this seems like a fairly poor criticism of 3e's skill system. A man with a bag on his head can't make attacks of opportunity, so there's no need to tumble past him. And if the Grandfather of Assassins is supposed to be hard to get past without being attacked, that should be reflected in some ability he has, not something built into the tumble skill.

So, you think a Commoner with a club should be equally hard to Tumble past without AoOs as a trained guard with a spear?

Now, Pathfinder did adjust the DC based on your opponent, so it's not an astronomically hard fix or anything, but it's an issue all the same.

[Hytheter]

The real silly part is the idea that tumbling past an opponent is somehow safer than moving normally.

[Aimeryan]

I don't think this is an issue of DM skill or player skill. I was just pointing out that if a player is unsure, or the DM wishes to add a variable to the equation, those things should be made apparent. Good DMs and players learn to do this very early.

You seem to be getting mixed up between 'good' DMs and DMs having to go out of their way from the moment they pick up the book to fix the game. By your logic taken to the extreme, if the game gave the DM a blank piece of paper then 'good' DMs would be fine, while 'bad' DMs would be the problem.

There is no reason to not request more. We have a DM crisis of which a significant factor is requiring a new DM to figure out a lot of stuff on the fly because the book with the rules is basically 'you decide'. THE DM CAN ALWAYS DECIDE, thank you 5e for that! Now, how about you have some good guidance and examples?

[Blatant Beast]

In order to practice and get better at being a DM, you have to actually DM games, which means the game has to work well when being run by inexperienced, unpracticed DMs. A game that only works in the best case scenario is a badly designed game.

5e does run well, when it is shepherded by inexperienced DMs. More importantly, the accessibility of the ruleset encourages people to try to DM. I have had two friends, try their hands at DM-ing 5e. Both played 3e and 4e, and both never wanted to Referee a 3e/4e game, as the system was too complicated to keep in their heads.

The 5e resolution system only requires a DM to decide which Ability Score is going to be tested, and does not require the same amount of system mastery as either 3e or 4e. Indeed, a DM just needs to consider, 10, 15, or 20...if a die roll is determined to be needed.

An evening of fun is not usually determined by a single die roll. A missed call here or there is not a big deal, in my experience. A DM that consistently has DCs that are too hard, should realize this when they review their thoughts on how a session went. ("Hey, only the guy with Expertise had any success, should I try some lower DCs, next time?")


Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but this seems like a fairly poor criticism of 3e's skill system. A man with a bag on his head can't make attacks of opportunity, so there's no need to tumble past him. And if the Grandfather of Assassins is supposed to be hard to get past without being attacked, that should be reflected in some ability he has, not something built into the tumble skill.

Just missing the forest for the trees, :). I am on the autism spectrum, my proclivity is to interpret things literally, so I can understand how daunting, qualitative style judgments can be. The thing, of course, is one can improve one's qualitative reasoning through practice. Indeed, I would personally attest that DM-ing improved my social skills....and it was not an easy road, I assure you.

[InvisibleBison]

So, you think a Commoner with a club should be equally hard to Tumble past without AoOs as a trained guard with a spear?

I was objecting to the specific example, not to the general principle. I did say I was being pedantic.

[Blatant Beast]

There is no reason to not request more. We have a DM crisis of which a significant factor is requiring a new DM to figure out a lot of stuff on the fly because the book with the rules is basically 'you decide'. THE DM CAN ALWAYS DECIDE, thank you 5e for that! Now, how about you have some good guidance and examples?

This is a matter of subjective opinion. I think the section in the DMG that I have quoted several times in this thread, does give good advice. The section Exhorts the reader to consider if a die roll is needed, and if a die roll is needed to consider the math that is involved, and if a DM does not have the time nor the bandwidth to consider the math, then here is a chart....and if the chart is too much, here is 10, 15, and 20.

As has been conceded, I am sure the section could be better written, and provide more examples. At the start of the day, however, a DM has to be armed with enough confidence to believe they can determine what DC an Easy task is, all on their own, without external input from the books.

One can watch innumerable videos on how to swim, and psychologically, such preparation can certainly aid you in getting into the water, but ultimately learning to swim, means responding to the water conditions in real time. Each time you swim, you have to "learn the water". DM-ing is very much like this.

[Aimeryan]

As has been conceded, I am sure the section could be better written, and provide more examples. At the start of the day, however, a DM has to be armed with enough confidence to believe they can determine what DC an Easy task is, all on their own, without external input from the books.

While I wont say there are no good DC tables in the DMG (the tracking table is a good example), there are usually very few and even when they do exist they are pretty generic or vague (charisma check table, for example).

Any DM can ignore a table. No DM can see a table that doesn't exist. With experience and talent a DM might be able to imagine a consistent and balanced set of DCs and be able to refer to this mentally (or write it down) easily and quickly. An incredible DM doesn't even need to buy the books - they can just come with everything themselves and not give any money to WotC! Perhaps we should be advocating for this, hmm.

This is what we are dealing with here. If someone wants to go completely cocksure about how 'this is MY story! and these are the DCs I will use for XYZ!', they can. If someone wants the guidance of actual examples, excepting in rare cases, 5e does not deliver. It does not cater to new DMs who want to stand on rigid ground - everything is quicksand and they better learn how to navigate that quickly! Or, not DM. Which would cause a DM crisis. Which we have.

[InvisibleBison]

At the start of the day, however, a DM has to be armed with enough confidence to believe they can determine what DC an Easy task is, all on their own, without external input from the books.

Why does a DM have to be able to figure out skill DCs on their own? The game doesn't expect them to figure out monster stats or spell effects or save DCs or equipment prices or etc etc on their own. What's different about skills that makes it a bad idea for there to be a handful of examples for each skill of typical DCs?

[schm0]

You seem to be getting mixed up between 'good' DMs and DMs having to go out of their way from the moment they pick up the book to fix the game. By your logic taken to the extreme, if the game gave the DM a blank piece of paper then 'good' DMs would be fine, while 'bad' DMs would be the problem.

There is no reason to not request more. We have a DM crisis of which a significant factor is requiring a new DM to figure out a lot of stuff on the fly because the book with the rules is basically 'you decide'. THE DM CAN ALWAYS DECIDE, thank you 5e for that! Now, how about you have some good guidance and examples?

Explaining to a player that a check will be using advantage or disadvantage is something that most DMs will likely do in their first session, and hundreds of times throughout a campaign. It's covered in the PHB and again in more detail in the DMG. It's not difficult concept to understand. It's not an issue of guidance, either.

The second half of this comment just reads like hyperbole to me. DM discretion is a strength of the system, not a weakness. The DC system is simple and easy to understand. I don't think the problem is on the DM side at all. The issue at core here is philosophical: some players prefer more metagame information be made available to them, such as the DC for skill checks, and 5e doesn't offer that.

[Keltest]

Why does a DM have to be able to figure out skill DCs on their own?

Because deciding things is the entire point of having a DM?

[InvisibleBison]

Because deciding things is the entire point of having a DM?

But the game doesn't ask the DM to figure out monster stats or spell effects or save DCs or equipment prices or etc etc on their own. What's different about skills that means the DM should have to figure out skill DCs with only a minimal amount of guidance instead of a robust catalogue of examples?

[Keltest]

But the game doesn't ask the DM to figure out monster stats or spell effects or save DCs or equipment prices or etc etc on their own. What's different about skills that means the DM should have to figure out skill DCs with only a minimal amount of guidance instead of a robust catalogue of examples?

The number of moving parts. Lets say that somebody wants to swing on a chandelier. Ok, fine, the DMG says thats DC 10 acrobatics. But the chandelier is also on fire. DC20? And the character also cant use their feet well because theyre tied up. Disadvantage maybe? But theyre also carrying the gnome on their back! DC 30? Oh, but its also supposed to be an action movie type game, so drop all the DCs by 10.

Or you could just have the DM look at what theyre trying to do and make a decision, instead of trying to chart out every conceivable circumstance.

[schm0]

But the game doesn't ask the DM to figure out monster stats or spell effects or save DCs or equipment prices or etc etc on their own. What's different about skills that means the DM should have to figure out skill DCs with only a minimal amount of guidance instead of a robust catalogue of examples?

A monster always works the same way. A spell always works the same way.

And if a DM creates a new monster, or a new spell, they have to figure out that stuff anyways (using guidance from the DMG).

A skill check, on the other hand, is entirely contextual and therefore subjective.

[InvisibleBison]

The number of moving parts. Lets say that somebody wants to swing on a chandelier. Ok, fine, the DMG says thats DC 10 acrobatics. But the chandelier is also on fire. DC20? And the character also cant use their feet well because theyre tied up. Disadvantage maybe? But theyre also carrying the gnome on their back! DC 30? Oh, but its also supposed to be an action movie type game, so drop all the DCs by 10.

Or you could just have the DM look at what theyre trying to do and make a decision, instead of trying to chart out every conceivable circumstance.

Making a chart for every conceivable circumstance is obviously untenable, which is why no one is advocating for it. But the fact that a chart of example DCs cannot be complete is not a reason to not have it. And having a list of examples would make the game easier for DMs, because they now have some basis for making decisions in unusual situations.



A monster always works the same way. A spell always works the same way.

And if a DM creates a new monster, or a new spell, they have to figure out that stuff anyways (using guidance from the DMG).

A skill check, on the other hand, is entirely contextual and therefore subjective.

Monsters and spells only work the same way because the rules say they do. If there was no statblock for an orc in the Monster Manual, and the DM was expected to make up whatever stats they felt were appropriate whenever the players fought some orcs, do you really think all generic orc warriors across all games would have exactly the same stats?

And skills are not entirely contextual. If I'm trying to jump a 15 foot distance, a lot of what I would have to do to accomplish that is going to be the same regardless of circumstance. Sure, maybe sometimes the ground is slippery and sometimes it isn't, maybe sometimes there's a thick fog so I can't clearly see where I'm jumping to and sometimes I can. But to me that all sounds like the task has a specific DC, and there are some circumstances that should grant advantage or disadvantage, not the task being one whose difficulty varies from situation to situation and thus cannot be known without knowing all the details of the situation.

[Saelethil]

I’m not opposed to a few more example DCs in the DMG but I think most of the problems I’ve run into in person would be reduced (or solved) by shifting the general DC examples down to
5 = Easy
10 = Moderate
15 = Difficult
Etc.
New GMs being told that an easy task is DC 10 can and has skewed the base competency of adventurers of all levels but especially at lower levels.

[Blatant Beast]

But the game doesn't ask the DM to figure out monster stats or spell effects or save DCs or equipment prices or etc etc on their own. What's different about skills that means the DM should have to figure out skill DCs with only a minimal amount of guidance instead of a robust catalogue of examples?

The game does, actually. The DMG has rules on Creature Creation rules starting around page 273. One aspect to note, the chart that is on page 274, at every almost every CR level, (until one reaches CR Level 21), a Creature's AC and their Spell Save DC are the same.

Whenever this topic comes up, it just feels like people, reflexively cite the rules being poor, and lacking examples, but often times it seems like they have not actually read the DMG, at least not actively read it.

Every version of D&D has hacks that make the system more approachable to run. Many 3e DMs, eventually stopped stating out monsters, by the book, for example. Monster Creation took too long, and 3e DM earned enough system mastery to make a decent go at it, with only a few numbers.

5e, also has hacks...AC sets all relevant skill checks, is a decent rough fix.

Spell DCS are a Formula, that all players, DM and PCs Players, are expected to know. The Armor Chart in the PHB, is mainly player facing. Honestly, the actual threat posed by Humanoids, is made more difficult by the Armor Chart as opposed to the Custom Creation rules on Page 273+ of the DMG.

The Monster Manual advises that changing the equipment in the statblock of a Humanoid Creature, generally does not effect it's CR, but Orcs wearing Plate Mail vs Hide Armor makes a pretty noticeable difference.

Ultimately, if one expects all things to be determined, and pre-determined, before even attempting to DM, you will never start to DM....might as well just write a novel.

[Blatant Beast]

I’m not opposed to a few more example DCs in the DMG but I think most of the problems I’ve run into in person would be reduced (or solved) by shifting the general DC examples down to
5 = Easy
10 = Moderate
15 = Difficult
Etc.
New GMs being told that an easy task is DC 10 can and has skewed the base competency of adventurers of all levels but especially at lower levels.

There is a several page rumination on when to even call for a die roll, in the DMG. I would agree, in a game, in which a DM calls a roll for even trivial things, one should probably lower the DCs. An alternative style is to call for a die rolls more rarely. Phoenix Phyre, in this thread, gave a good account of that style of DM-ing.

Could that section of the DMG be expanded upon and improved? Of course....

[PhoenixPhyre]

The game does, actually. The DMG has rules on Creature Creation rules starting around page 273. One aspect to note, the chart that is on page 274, at every almost every CR level, (until one reaches CR Level 21), a Creature's AC and their Spell Save DC are the same.

Whenever this topic comes up, it just feels like people, reflexively cite the rules being poor, and lacking examples, but often times it seems like they have not actually read the DMG, at least not actively read it.

Every version of D&D has hacks that make the system more approachable to run. Many 3e DMs, eventually stopped stating out monsters, by the book, for example. Monster Creation took too long, and 3e DM earned enough system mastery to make a decent go at it, with only a few numbers.

5e, also has hacks...AC sets all relevant skill checks, is a decent rough fix.

Spell DCS are a Formula, that all players, DM and PCs Players, are expected to know. The Armor Chart in the PHB, is mainly player facing. Honestly, the actual threat posed by Humanoids, is made more difficult by the Armor Chart as opposed to the Custom Creation rules on Page 273+ of the DMG.

The Monster Manual advises that changing the equipment in the statblock of a Humanoid Creature, generally does not effect it's CR, but Orcs wearing Plate Mail vs Hide Armor makes a pretty noticeable difference.

Ultimately, if one expects all things to be determined, and pre-determined, before even attempting to DM, you will never start to DM....might as well just write a novel.

One note (and I agree with you on this) is that AC and spell DC and even attack value are arbitrary. Generally, those values are set for monsters using a formula. But there isn't any rule that says they must be. Using the formula or fixed values from the PHB for AC is entirely a matter of convenience, not rule.

There is no rule that says that monster parameters are set the same way PC parameters are set. Once set, they act the same way. But where do the values come from? DMs are explicitly authorized to make them whatever they want them to be.

So no, if you're facing a monster described as "wearing plate armor", you do not know with total certainty that their AC is 18. There's a pretty good guess, but there are lots of possible confounds.

As to the bold section, I've noticed a lot of people claiming that rules are poor or non-existent...when what they really mean is they don't like the rules which are presented. The conflation of "things that <speaker> doesn't like" and "things that are objectively bad" continues apace, it seems.

[InvisibleBison]

The game does, actually. The DMG has rules on Creature Creation rules starting around page 273. One aspect to note, the chart that is on page 274, at every almost every CR level, (until one reaches CR Level 21), a Creature's AC and their Spell Save DC are the same.

That is not what I'm talking about when I say the game doesn't expect the DM to figure out monster stats. What I meant is that the game provides lots of pre-made monster stats, and no one thinks that's a problem, even though the exact same arguments that are being brought to bear against example skill DCs could be brought to bear against pre-made monster stats.



Ultimately, if one expects all things to be determined, and pre-determined, before even attempting to DM, you will never start to DM....might as well just write a novel.

Nobody is saying that everything needs to be pre-determined. We're just saying the game would be better if it had more and more specific guidelines about how to set skill DCs.

[Keltest]

That is not what I'm talking about when I say the game doesn't expect the DM to figure out monster stats. What I meant is that the game provides lots of pre-made monster stats, and no one thinks that's a problem, even though the exact same arguments that are being brought to bear against example skill DCs could be brought to bear against pre-made monster stats.

They already have a guideline though: the 5-10-15-20 etc... table. You can pick a DC 20 lock from the table the same way you can pick a CR 10 monster from the manual.

[InvisibleBison]

They already have a guideline though: the 5-10-15-20 etc... table. You can pick a DC 20 lock from the table the same way you can pick a CR 10 monster from the manual.

Sure, and in many situations that works fine. But it doesn't help the DM figure out what DC to use if they don't know how difficult a task should be. A few example situations for each skill with a description of how difficult they are, and perhaps why they are that difficulty, would be useful for helping new DMs learn how to determine how to set DCs.

[Keltest]

Sure, and in many situations that works fine. But it doesn't help the DM figure out what DC to use if they don't know how difficult a task should be. A few example situations for each skill with a description of how difficult they are, and perhaps why they are that difficulty, would be useful for helping new DMs learn how to determine how to set DCs.

The DM always knows how difficult a task should be, because its based on their opinion. A DM can be unreasonable. They cannot be wrong, except on purpose.

[InvisibleBison]

The DM always knows how difficult a task should be, because its based on their opinion. A DM can be unreasonable. They cannot be wrong, except on purpose.

So what happens when the DM doesn't have an opinion about how hard a task should be?

[Keltest]

So what happens when the DM doesn't have an opinion about how hard a task should be?

Then they form an opinion.

Really though, why do you need an answer to that question? You surely understand what it is a DM does. Why is the skill DC the thing tripping you up, its not like its the only call the DM has to make.

[InvisibleBison]

Then they form an opinion.

Based on what? And what's wrong with having a section in the book that helps them form an opinion?


Really though, why do you need an answer to that question? You surely understand what it is a DM does. Why is the skill DC the thing tripping you up, its not like its the only call the DM has to make.

What's tripping me up is the bizarre aversion some people have to having a section in the DMG that provides guidance to the DM about how to set skill DCs.

[Keltest]

Based on what? And what's wrong with having a section in the book that helps them form an opinion?



What's tripping me up is the bizarre aversion some people have to having a section in the DMG that provides guidance to the DM about how to set skill DCs.

There already is a section! Anything more would just be a variation of the same with extra words. How hard the DM wants something is going to vary by table, tone and context. The DMG can't teach you how to have an opinion, it just assumes that if youre going to be the decision maker for the group, youre on board with the idea of having to make decisions.

[Pex]

The mechanics for jump distance are the floor. They are the minimum amount you can jump without risking failure. Anything beyond that requires an ability check. That's how all ability checks work. Some things your character can do without risking failure, and anything beyond that, you make an ability check.



I don't think this is an issue of DM skill or player skill. I was just pointing out that if a player is unsure, or the DM wishes to add a variable to the equation, those things should be made apparent. Good DMs and players learn to do this very early. This is the stuff that is written about in the very first pages of the PHB, after all. And I think a table of grown adults playing a game where the goal is to have fun can be mature enough to come to those conclusions through basic conversation.

No, I think the core of this issue is concerning metagame information. For example, in your opinion, do you feel that a player deserves perfect information when performing an extraordinary long jump? What about other ability checks? Do you think every roll should be public facing? What about every stat about the creature, such as exact current hit points or AC?

If any of the answers to those questions is yes, then might just be a philosophical divide between what you want from the game, and what the game provides. There are only three solutions in such a case: you can homebrew a solution, learn to live with it, or find a new game to play.

These philosophical differences are exactly why I am up front with my players regarding my stance on metagame information. Because there are a great many players out there that prefer to have varying degrees of meta information, so I let them know exactly what is forthcoming and what isn't.

Skill use is both DM and Player facing. A player is entitled to know the capability of his character. If he knows he can jump 15 ft he knows if he can jump 16 ft and not jump 30 ft. That max X ft he knows he can jump where X + 1 ft he can't is where the skill rules should come in with the die roll being the randomizer. The player gets to decide if wants to try based on the number he needs to roll. The player is entitled to know this as much as he knows the DC of his class abilities, the plus number to his attack roll, his hit points, his AC, and every other statistic about his character.

As for monsters, PCs know things players don't. That's where the Knowledge check comes in, to see if the PC knows stuff about the creature he is facing. Even without the knowledge check, if he missed when hitting AC 16 but hits when hitting AC 17 he knows the AC of the monster he's facing. The PC is right there facing the thing. PCs are allowed to know things.

[Keltest]

Skill use is both DM and Player facing. A player is entitled to know the capability of his character. If he knows he can jump 15 ft he knows if he can jump 16 ft and not jump 30 ft. That max X ft he knows he can jump where X + 1 ft he can't is where the skill rules should come in with the die roll being the randomizer. The player gets to decide if wants to try based on the number he needs to roll. The player is entitled to know this as much as he knows the DC of his class abilities, the plus number to his attack roll, his hit points, his AC, and every other statistic about his character.

As for monsters, PCs know things players don't. That's where the Knowledge check comes in, to see if the PC knows stuff about the creature he is facing. Even without the knowledge check, if he missed when hitting AC 16 but hits when hitting AC 17 he knows the AC of the monster he's facing. The PC is right there facing the thing. PCs are allowed to know things.

No? Thats not at all how skill checks work. Players declare what they want to do, the DM decides if a die roll is necessary, and if so, assigns a DC to it. The DC doesnt even exist until the player decides they do the thing.

[InvisibleBison]

There already is a section! Anything more would just be a variation of the same with extra words.

No, more would be more, as in more useful and more helpful. You can't really think "ask yourself, 'Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate, or hard?'" is equivalent to providing an couple of examples of easy, moderate, and hard tasks for each skill. The former is only useful for someone who already has a sense for how difficult things adventurers do are and just needs help translating that familiarity into 5e's intended range of numbers, ie an experienced DM. The latter is also useful for someone who doesn't have that sense, ie a new DM.



How hard the DM wants something is going to vary by table, tone and context.

That's true, but it's perfectly possible for the skill section to discuss this as well.



The DMG can't teach you how to have an opinion, it just assumes that if youre going to be the decision maker for the group, youre on board with the idea of having to make decisions.

The DMG absolutely can teach you how to have an opinion. By laying out a bunch of examples, it can show the intended default style of D&D, and by explicitly telling you what it's doing and how to do things differently it can show you how changing the numbers produces a different style. This allows a new DM to make an informed decision about what sort of game they want to run and actually produce that sort of game, instead of making them just guess and hope they get decent results.

[Segev]

The mechanics for jump distance are the floor. They are the minimum amount you can jump without risking failure. Anything beyond that requires an ability check. That's how all ability checks work. Some things your character can do without risking failure, and anything beyond that, you make an ability check.

Why is the floor so rigidly defined? Doesn't that fly in the face of the same reasoning that justifies the lack of definition of how much further a given Strength(Athletics) check result can carry you? Shouldn't the floor also be up to the DM, if jumping distances are an area where the DM needs to have that kind of freedom to make the numbers do whatever he wants, to the point that a DM who doesn't have a clue should just randomly make something up and hope it doesn't ruin the game experience for anyone?

[Pex]

The DM always knows how difficult a task should be, because its based on their opinion. A DM can be unreasonable. They cannot be wrong, except on purpose.

That's where my character is Tarzan or George of the Jungle based on who is DM that day despite having the same relevant game statistics. What is Easy for one DM is Hard for another so my character build is irrelevant. Everything else about the game is consistent across tables. I want the same for skill use. Let the DC be X for a task across everywhere just like DCs, ACs, spell effects, weapon damage, monster stats, etc. My ability to do that task will be based on my choices for my character. If I want to jump 20 ft having only 15 ST, I should be able to do so regardless of who is DM by the rules saying how that works. Those same rules tell me, regardless of who is DM, what my AC is wearing plate mail, how much damage I do using a great sword, the saving throw DC of my spells, and other minutiae of character statistics.

[schm0]

Monsters and spells only work the same way because the rules say they do. If there was no statblock for an orc in the Monster Manual, and the DM was expected to make up whatever stats they felt were appropriate whenever the players fought some orcs, do you really think all generic orc warriors across all games would have exactly the same stats?

This is largely an irrelevant hypothetical, and you pointed out precisely why: all monsters in the MM work the same way at every table, the same as spells in the PHB do. They are not the same as contextual DCs in any way.


And skills are not entirely contextual. If I'm trying to jump a 15 foot distance, a lot of what I would have to do to accomplish that is going to be the same regardless of circumstance. Sure, maybe sometimes the ground is slippery and sometimes it isn't, maybe sometimes there's a thick fog so I can't clearly see where I'm jumping to and sometimes I can. But to me that all sounds like the task has a specific DC, and there are some circumstances that should grant advantage or disadvantage, not the task being one whose difficulty varies from situation to situation and thus cannot be known without knowing all the details of the situation.

Long jumps do work the same way, until you want to make an extraordinary leap. From that point, we rely on skill checks, because risk is involved. There is a point where things are left up to the dice, like all skills. You can tell there is a dragon in front of you, but it takes a Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine if it's an illusion. There is a chance you fail to recognize an illusion, just as there is a chance you can fail at an extraordinary jump. You can hear the person telling you they didn't murder the barmaid in the alley, but it's a Wisdom (Insight) check to determine if it's a lie or not.

Like all skill checks, whether it is jumping, detecting an illuision, or sussing out a lie, they do not require the player to know the exact DC needed in order to succeed.


Skill use is both DM and Player facing. A player is entitled to know the capability of his character. If he knows he can jump 15 ft he knows if he can jump 16 ft and not jump 30 ft. That max X ft he knows he can jump where X + 1 ft he can't is where the skill rules should come in with the die roll being the randomizer. The player gets to decide if wants to try based on the number he needs to roll. The player is entitled to know this as much as he knows the DC of his class abilities, the plus number to his attack roll, his hit points, his AC, and every other statistic about his character.

And here is the philosophical divide I was talking about. You believe the player is entitled to precise metagame knowledge when it comes to skills, and the game does not offer that.


As for monsters, PCs know things players don't. That's where the Knowledge check comes in, to see if the PC knows stuff about the creature he is facing. Even without the knowledge check, if he missed when hitting AC 16 but hits when hitting AC 17 he knows the AC of the monster he's facing. The PC is right there facing the thing. PCs are allowed to know things.

Absolutely not. The PCs do not know what AC is, or that there are rolling of dice, or any other metagame information. The player can determine this information through metagaming and recording each hit, but the PC doesn't have any metagame information whatsoever, they are just trying their darndest to hit the thing.

EDIT: cleared up some confusing language

[Keltest]

That's where my character is Tarzan or George of the Jungle based on who is DM that day despite having the same relevant game statistics. What is Easy for one DM is Hard for another so my character build is irrelevant. Everything else about the game is consistent across tables. I want the same for skill use. Let the DC be X for a task across everywhere just like DCs, ACs, spell effects, weapon damage, monster stats, etc. My ability to do that task will be based on my choices for my character. If I want to jump 20 ft having only 15 ST, I should be able to do so regardless of who is DM by the rules saying how that works. Those same rules tell me, regardless of who is DM, what my AC is wearing plate mail, how much damage I do using a great sword, the saving throw DC of my spells, and other minutiae of character statistics.

And they also tell you what your bonuses are. 5e is swingy, but it isnt so swingy that somebody deliberately trying to be Tarzan ends up as George of the Jungle. If you have +15 to athletics, it doesnt matter if the DC is 5, 10 or 15, you automatically beat it, and have a pretty solid shot of beating 20 and 25 too.

[InvisibleBison]

This is largely an irrelevant hypothetical, and you pointed out precisely why: all monsters in the MM work the same way at every table, the same as spells in the PHB do. They are not the same as contextual DCs in any way.

It's a hypothetical, but it's not irrelevant. Skill DCs and monster stats are not fundamentally different in any respect, it just happens that the books contain definite monster stats and (for the most part) don't contain definite skill DCs. All the arguments you're bringing against the books containing definite skill DCs are just as good against the books containing definite monster stats, but you don't seem to think the books containing definite monster stats is a problem. Why is that? Why are skills contextual but orc warriors and fireballs aren't?

[Keltest]

It's a hypothetical, but it's not irrelevant. Skill DCs and monster stats are not fundamentally different in any respect, it just happens that the books contain definite monster stats and (for the most part) don't contain definite skill DCs. All the arguments you're bringing against the books containing definite skill DCs are just as good against the books containing definite monster stats, but you don't seem to think the books containing definite monster stats is a problem. Why is that? Why are skills contextual but orc warriors and fireballs aren't?

Because fireballs are player generated, and orc warriors would be incredibly time consuming to generate whole cloth. Making a skill DC is as simple as picking a number between one and 30, and if you really want, can be even more simplified to be a multiple of 5.

[Segev]

Because fireballs are player generated, and orc warriors would be incredibly time consuming to generate whole cloth. Making a skill DC is as simple as picking a number between one and 30, and if you really want, can be even more simplified to be a multiple of 5.

Sure. But what does that translate to in terms of extra jumping distance, and why is it critical that this extra amount be so variable by DM and table, but the minimum distance be rigidly fixed by a standardized rule?

[Keltest]

Sure. But what does that translate to in terms of extra jumping distance, and why is it critical that this extra amount be so variable by DM and table, but the minimum distance be rigidly fixed by a standardized rule?

I don't understand the question. Its a skill check, so its the purview of the DM. But theres a certain minimum capability that players need to function, like crossing small gaps and stuff, so theres a flat amount based on str.

[Segev]

I don't understand the question. Its a skill check, so its the purview of the DM. But theres a certain minimum capability that players need to function, like crossing small gaps and stuff, so theres a flat amount based on str.

Why is it so critical that players have that rigidly defined? Why not just have the whole thing be a skill check, if the importance of DM variance and judgment is so high?

Why would a stated formula for how much further you can jump with a skill check be so horribly out of place next to the rigid stated formula for the minimum distance?

[Keltest]

Why is it so critical that players have that rigidly defined? Why not just have the whole thing be a skill check, if the importance of DM variance and judgment is so high?

Why would a stated formula for how much further you can jump with a skill check be so horribly out of place next to the rigid stated formula for the minimum distance?

Because its a player ability, and they don't have any authority to just make up how far they can jump. The standard part is much more important. You could just cut the possibility for going longer entirely and be fine.

[schm0]

Why is the floor so rigidly defined? Doesn't that fly in the face of the same reasoning that justifies the lack of definition of how much further a given Strength(Athletics) check result can carry you? Shouldn't the floor also be up to the DM, if jumping distances are an area where the DM needs to have that kind of freedom to make the numbers do whatever he wants, to the point that a DM who doesn't have a clue should just randomly make something up and hope it doesn't ruin the game experience for anyone?

Heroes are heroic, and movement is key to combat. There needs to be a floor that both allows players to know when they'll need to attempt a skill check, and when they can just automatically leap.
I don't see how that is contradictory in any way.

And of course, the DM can change anything at any time to whatever they want. But we're talking about the RAW, which is what most people use, regardless of experience level. Whether or not the rules "ruin" anything is subjective.

[schm0]

It's a hypothetical, but it's not irrelevant. Skill DCs and monster stats are not fundamentally different in any respect, it just happens that the books contain definite monster stats and (for the most part) don't contain definite skill DCs.

That's objectively false. Skill DCs are subjective. Monster stats are written in black and white.


All the arguments you're bringing against the books containing definite skill DCs are just as good against the books containing definite monster stats, but you don't seem to think the books containing definite monster stats is a problem. Why is that? Why are skills contextual but orc warriors and fireballs aren't?

Spells are player facing. Skill DCs and monster stats are not. They are literal opposites.

[InvisibleBison]

That's objectively false. Skill DCs are subjective. Monster stats are written in black and white.

Skill DCs are subjective because the game doesn't have fixed skill DCs written in the books, not because skill DCs must inherently be subjective. Making skill DCs subjective - or at least, making them as totally subjective as they are - was a decision that didn't have to go the way it did. You can't justify things being the way they are by asserting that they are the way they are.

[Keltest]

Skill DCs are subjective because the game doesn't have fixed skill DCs written in the books, not because skill DCs must inherently be subjective. Making skill DCs subjective - or at least, making them as totally subjective as they are - was a decision that didn't have to go the way it did. You can't justify things being the way they are by asserting that they are the way they are.

If they put out tables, those DCs would still be subjective, we would just have the opinions of the writers too. I guarantee you every DM would have their own strong opinion about the usefulness of the DCs in the book if they went that route.

[schm0]

Skill DCs are subjective because the game doesn't have fixed skill DCs written in the books, not because skill DCs must inherently be subjective. Making skill DCs subjective - or at least, making them as totally subjective as they are - was a decision that didn't have to go the way it did. You can't justify things being the way they are by asserting that they are the way they are.

Nobody is claiming anything must be any specific way. I'm simply talking about the RAW for 5e.

[InvisibleBison]

If they put out tables, those DCs would still be subjective, we would just have the opinions of the writers too. I guarantee you every DM would have their own strong opinion about the usefulness of the DCs in the book if they went that route.

Yes, having a selection of example DCs would not remove subjectivity from the process of setting DCs. I'm not arguing that it would, or that doing so is a good idea. I'm arguing that having some example DCs would make it easier for DMs to set DCs by providing guidance to DMs who are unsure how difficult the thing their PCs are trying to do is.



Nobody is claiming anything must be any specific way. I'm simply talking about the RAW for 5e.

This is a discussion about whether or not the game would be better if it was different from how it currently is. If you don't have an opinion about that, why are you participating in the discussion?

[stoutstien]

I mean even if I did agree that a DC chart could be useful, the absolute last person(s) I would trust multi make one would be WoTC.
Just look at the stuff they do set numbers to. They can't decide if Prof bonuses are built into the value of not and failed to update DC when transferring stuff from past editions.

That chart would be worse than a waste of space.

[Segev]

If they put out tables, those DCs would still be subjective, we would just have the opinions of the writers too. I guarantee you every DM would have their own strong opinion about the usefulness of the DCs in the book if they went that route.

For jumping, specifically, we don't seem to have much in the way of argument over whether "strength score in feet" is good enough or too good or whatnot. We have all the question over how much further than that you should be able to expect to go with a skill check. If the existence of a formula for the minimum distance is okay, it would've been fine to have a formula for the extension of that distance, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean even if I did agree that a DC chart could be useful, the absolute last person(s) I would trust multi make one would be WoTC.
Just look at the stuff they do set numbers to. They can't decide if Prof bonuses are built into the value of not and failed to update DC when transferring stuff from past editions.

That chart would be worse than a waste of space.
I agree with all of this.

[Aimeryan]

The answer still missing from this thread is to the question: 'why not?'

We have established that in general a DM can do what they want. We have established that if there are no examples, no guidance, a DM can do what they want. We are attempting to establish that this remains true in the specific case of there being examples, there being guidance - so I would like an answer as to why that would not be the case?

Failing this answer, there is no answer to 'why not?'. If you turn up to a party and there are four different selections of food on the table and you only like three type, should you request the fourth type be removed from the table because it doesn't suit you? Or, should you just ignore it and leave that food type to those that do? Now, if you were literally allergic and it had health consequences there is your reason. But if it is just because your not interested in it? How dare you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The answer still missing from this thread is to the question: 'why not?'

We have established that in general a DM can do what they want. We have established that if there are no examples, no guidance, a DM can do what they want. We are attempting to establish that this remains true in the specific case of there being examples, there being guidance - so I would like an answer as to why that would not be the case?

Failing this answer, there is no answer to 'why not?'. If you turn up to a party and there are four different selections of food on the table and you only like three type, should you request the fourth type be removed from the table because it doesn't suit you? Or, should you just ignore it and leave that food type to those that do? Now, if you were literally allergic and it had health consequences there is your reason. But if it is just because your not interested in it? How dare you.

Time and page space spent "systematizing' something that isn't systematic is time and page space wasted. Worse, it sets hard expectations. Ones that DMs have to un-do. And if those tables are bad (as are every single example presented in the entirety of 3e and 4e), that's worse than useless.

[Keltest]

The answer still missing from this thread is to the question: 'why not?'

We have established that in general a DM can do what they want. We have established that if there are no examples, no guidance, a DM can do what they want. We are attempting to establish that this remains true in the specific case of there being examples, there being guidance - so I would like an answer as to why that would not be the case?

Failing this answer, there is no answer to 'why not?'. If you turn up to a party and there are four different selections of food on the table and you only like three type, should you request the fourth type be removed from the table because it doesn't suit you? Or, should you just ignore it and leave that food type to those that do? Now, if you were literally allergic and it had health consequences there is your reason. But if it is just because your not interested in it? How dare you.

Its about management of expectations. When that table is in there, the DM becomes discouraged from deviating from it even if they disagree with it (and this being 5e, people WILL disagree with it). Especially if its a player facing table like people allegedly want, it goes from being strictly a DM call to the DM breaking the rules that the players were expecting to use. It turns the DM into the bad guy for doing their job.

[schm0]

This is a discussion about whether or not the game would be better if it was different from how it currently is. If you don't have an opinion about that, why are you participating in the discussion?

You said: "Skill DCs are subjective because the game doesn't have fixed skill DCs written in the books, not because skill DCs must inherently be subjective."

To which I said: "Nobody is claiming anything must be any specific way."

My opinion is that the skill system DCs are just fine RAW and however one feels about it is just a matter of preference.

[schm0]

If the existence of a formula for the minimum distance is okay, it would've been fine to have a formula for the extension of that distance, too.

In your opinion, do you think jumping should be separate mechanic from the rest of the Athletics skills? If so, why?

[Pex]

And they also tell you what your bonuses are. 5e is swingy, but it isnt so swingy that somebody deliberately trying to be Tarzan ends up as George of the Jungle. If you have +15 to athletics, it doesnt matter if the DC is 5, 10 or 15, you automatically beat it, and have a pretty solid shot of beating 20 and 25 too.

Two different games, two different DMs.

Game 1
Playing a warlock, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We saw goblins approaching and wanted a more secure place to fight. I wanted to swim a moat, climb a pile of rocks, climb a wall of a Keep to reach a window to climb through. DM said ok. I do it. We defend against the goblins in the Keep.

Me Tarzan!

Game 2
Playing a monk, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We're traveling through a forest. We hear noise up ahead. I wanted to climb a tree to look over yonder in hopes of seeing what is causing the noise. The DM asks for an Athletics check. He even tells me the DC. It's 20. I do not roll a 20 failing to climb a tree.

Me George of the Jungle!

[Keltest]

Two different games, two different DMs.

Game 1
Playing a warlock, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We saw goblins approaching and wanted a more secure place to fight. I wanted to swim a moat, climb a pile of rocks, climb a wall of a Keep to reach a window to climb through. DM said ok. I do it. We defend against the goblins in the Keep.

Me Tarzan!

Game 2
Playing a monk, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We're traveling through a forest. We hear noise up ahead. I wanted to climb a tree to look over yonder in hopes of seeing what is causing the noise. The DM asks for an Athletics check. He even tells me the DC. It's 20. I do not roll a 20 failing to climb a tree.

Me George of the Jungle!

... Climbing already has rules my dude. You climb at half speed if you dont have an explicit climb speed. In both games, you climb at a rate of 15' per turn. If the DM is requiring a DC to walk on a cobbled road without tripping, that is the DM being a jerk and ignoring the system entirely, not a fault of the lack of DC tables, which would not help here anyway.

[stoutstien]

Two different games, two different DMs.

Game 1
Playing a warlock, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We saw goblins approaching and wanted a more secure place to fight. I wanted to swim a moat, climb a pile of rocks, climb a wall of a Keep to reach a window to climb through. DM said ok. I do it. We defend against the goblins in the Keep.

Me Tarzan!

Game 2
Playing a monk, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We're traveling through a forest. We hear noise up ahead. I wanted to climb a tree to look over yonder in hopes of seeing what is causing the noise. The DM asks for an Athletics check. He even tells me the DC. It's 20. I do not roll a 20 failing to climb a tree.

Me George of the Jungle!

Per the rules climbing does call for a DC to begin with so since they aren't following the rules now how would a chart help?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Two different games, two different DMs.

Game 1
Playing a warlock, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We saw goblins approaching and wanted a more secure place to fight. I wanted to swim a moat, climb a pile of rocks, climb a wall of a Keep to reach a window to climb through. DM said ok. I do it. We defend against the goblins in the Keep.

Me Tarzan!

Game 2
Playing a monk, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We're traveling through a forest. We hear noise up ahead. I wanted to climb a tree to look over yonder in hopes of seeing what is causing the noise. The DM asks for an Athletics check. He even tells me the DC. It's 20. I do not roll a 20 failing to climb a tree.

Me George of the Jungle!


... Climbing already has rules my dude. You climb at half speed if you dont have an explicit climb speed. In both games, you climb at a rate of 15' per turn. If the DM is requiring a DC to walk on a cobbled road without tripping, that is the DM being a jerk and ignoring the system entirely, not a fault of the lack of DC tables, which would not help here anyway.


Per the rules climbing does call for a DC to begin with so since they aren't following the rules now how would a chart help?

Not to mention that those two different comparisons aren't even the same scenario, even slightly! So there is exactly zero rational reason they should have the same DC! Even with a DC table.

1. Swim (unspecified) moat + climb (unspecified) wall. Sure, if a check is even needed, those are both probably Strength (Athletics) checks. But not necessarily the same DC as each other.
2. Climb an (unspecified) tree. Clearly Strength (Athletics) (assuming that we're even doing a check for that).

Climbing a tree =/= swimming a moat =/= climbing a wall. And any table that would assign the same DC to all three of those is definitionally a bad table, because it conflates things that are not similar. That, or it's at so low of a level of granularity as to be useless.

Which leads to another point. Per the DMG, the preferred set of DCs is 3: 10, 15, 20, with DCs 5, 25, and 30 being theoretically possible but disfavored. Those gonna be some super vague tables.

[Pex]

Climbing

PHB Pg 182
"At the DM's option climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handhols requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check."

No DC given. No say on difficulty of check. It's the DM's option. He's free to give a DC or none at all just do it.

PHB Pg 175
Athletics. Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations . . . Examples include the following activities:

You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.

No DC given. No say on difficulty of check. It's the DM's option. He's free to give whatever DC he wants.

Both DMs are following the rules. The rules are the DM makes it up.


Not to mention that those two different comparisons aren't even the same scenario, even slightly! So there is exactly zero rational reason they should have the same DC! Even with a DC table.

1. Swim (unspecified) moat + climb (unspecified) wall. Sure, if a check is even needed, those are both probably Strength (Athletics) checks. But not necessarily the same DC as each other.
2. Climb an (unspecified) tree. Clearly Strength (Athletics) (assuming that we're even doing a check for that).

Climbing a tree =/= swimming a moat =/= climbing a wall. And any table that would assign the same DC to all three of those is definitionally a bad table, because it conflates things that are not similar. That, or it's at so low of a level of granularity as to be useless.

Which leads to another point. Per the DMG, the preferred set of DCs is 3: 10, 15, 20, with DCs 5, 25, and 30 being theoretically possible but disfavored. Those gonna be some super vague tables.

I agree. I wouldn't expect the DCs of those things to be the same. That's why a table would have different DCs for those examples to show the different difficulty levels possible for an Athletics check.

[crayonshinchuck]

Climbing

PHB Pg 182
"At the DM's option climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handhols requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check."

No DC given. No say on difficulty of check. It's the DM's option. He's free to give a DC or none at all just do it.

PHB Pg 175
Athletics. Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations . . . Examples include the following activities:

You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.

No DC given. No say on difficulty of check. It's the DM's option. He's free to give whatever DC he wants.

Both DMs are following the rules. The rules are the DM makes it up.



I agree. I wouldn't expect the DCs of those things to be the same. That's why a table would have different DCs for those examples to show the different difficulty levels possible for an Athletics check.

So then it seems that just for the Athletics skill, we would at least need charts for jumping (DCs and definitions of how much further you go with a success), climbing (example DCs for slope, availability of handholds, etc.) and swimming (DCs for different distances and water conditions such as waves, temperature, etc.). That is just for three aspects of one skill, that probably has many more uses. Then there are all the other skills that would need charts for (seemingly) at least three or four common uses of those skills, factoring in variables that affect difficulty.

I really don't think most folks are against some example guidance, but the practical difficulty of actually providing such guidance is prohibitive. We started talking about jump distance in this thread, but we are already finding numerous other situations where a chart could be useful for athletics alone. Some other DMs may be interested in more advice for animal handling or history or nature. How do you propose effectively providing sufficient guidance without producing an entire book the size of the full DMG?

I think this is the problem that most of the posters arguing against charts are seeing, it is just entirely impractical or impossible to provide something that would be useful other than for a few very narrow situations. Yes, it seems easy to make a chart for extra jump distance, but then what about all the other skills and situations?

[Pex]

So then it seems that just for the Athletics skill, we would at least need charts for jumping (DCs and definitions of how much further you go with a success), climbing (example DCs for slope, availability of handholds, etc.) and swimming (DCs for different distances and water conditions such as waves, temperature, etc.). That is just for three aspects of one skill, that probably has many more uses. Then there are all the other skills that would need charts for (seemingly) at least three or four common uses of those skills, factoring in variables that affect difficulty.

I really don't think most folks are against some example guidance, but the practical difficulty of actually providing such guidance is prohibitive. We started talking about jump distance in this thread, but we are already finding numerous other situations where a chart could be useful for athletics alone. Some other DMs may be interested in more advice for animal handling or history or nature. How do you propose effectively providing sufficient guidance without producing an entire book the size of the full DMG?

I think this is the problem that most of the posters arguing against charts are seeing, it is just entirely impractical or impossible to provide something that would be useful other than for a few very narrow situations. Yes, it seems easy to make a chart for extra jump distance, but then what about all the other skills and situations?

The DMG has two DC tables for NPC Reactions based on initial attitude towards the PC. The DMG has two tables to represent object hardness and hit points, with the hit points further expanded based on whether the object is fragile or resistant. Xanathar has several pages dedicated to tool use and their respective DC tables. D&D 3E had pages of DC tables they could adapt to 5E numbers if they so choose. Personal opinion subtract 5 from each number and apply Advantage/Disadvantage where they adjust DC based on circumstances. A hypothetical 5E Athletics table can be:

Athletics
DC 10: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example
DC 15: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example
DC 20: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example
DC 25: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example

Examples would be more likely to happen in a typical game based on decades of D&D experience of reoccurring themes.

It's not impossible. They just choose not to, which I think is a mistake.

[Telok]

So what can my character do with a 25 medicine check? Why do you never prioritize the medicine prof? Why have I never in all of 5e seen a character trained in medicine and never played at a table where a single medicine check was called for?

Because all the "medicine skill" stuff is in in the magic chapter. Treating wounds, disease, poison, exhaustion, frostbite, heat stroke, etc., its all magic. Doors? Knock, passwall, misty step, etc. Climbing, balancing, and falling? Flight, spider climb, feather fall, misty step, levitate, etc. Social stuff? Dominate, zone of truth, suggestion, etc. Jumping? Spell for that. Investigation? Spells for that. Perception? Spells again. So what can my character do with a 25 medicine check?

Thats where your precious page count went that prevents D&D having a meaningful skills system. Thats why players prefer to use magic instead of rolling checks. Thats why I saw a DM sticking to medium = average = normal dc 15 checks have their game fall apart. Thats why the barbarian in the last campaign I played got magic wings, the fighter got winged boots, the sorcerer got a flying broom, and on and on until everyone in the party magically flew before the end of tier 2. Thats why all our "know stuff" checks that worked were all Sending spells. Thats why nobody I've ever played 5e with has tried jumping over their strength in feet. Because the ability to do that got put in a spell.

So what can my character do with a 25 medicine check? Why should I care about anything but athletics/acrobatics to deal with grappling? Why does nobody talk about characters with +8 or +9 being any good at anything? Why is it all aimed at getting +15 before level 10? Because thats the minimum for something to be useful?

So what can my character do with a 25 medicine check? Whatever the DM says. Which is nothing because my DMs aren't making up house rules and dc tables and new uses for medicine prof. They use whats in the books which is very very little.

[Segev]

The DMG has two DC tables for NPC Reactions based on initial attitude towards the PC. The DMG has two tables to represent object hardness and hit points, with the hit points further expanded based on whether the object is fragile or resistant. Xanathar has several pages dedicated to tool use and their respective DC tables. D&D 3E had pages of DC tables they could adapt to 5E numbers if they so choose. Personal opinion subtract 5 from each number and apply Advantage/Disadvantage where they adjust DC based on circumstances. A hypothetical 5E Athletics table can be:

Athletics
DC 10: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example
DC 15: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example
DC 20: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example
DC 25: Jump example/Climb Example/Swim Example

Examples would be more likely to happen in a typical game based on decades of D&D experience of reoccurring themes.

It's not impossible. They just choose not to, which I think is a mistake.

Honestly, the jump example doesn't even need to be there. There is a section of rules on jumping, which includes the fact that a Strength(Athletics) roll might let you jump further than the hard number the rules provide a formula for. Just include a formula that says how far beyond that minimum you can go based on the result of that check; no need for a table or anything.

[Blatant Beast]

Game 2
Playing a monk, ST 10, not proficient in Athletics. We're traveling through a forest. We hear noise up ahead. I wanted to climb a tree to look over yonder in hopes of seeing what is causing the noise. The DM asks for an Athletics check. He even tells me the DC. It's 20. I do not roll a 20 failing to climb a tree.

Me George of the Jungle!

You made a weak, non-athletic monk. You, literally are George of the Jungle.

No table of set DCs is going to stop that PC from sucking. Don’t Dump stat Strength on monks folks…has Baldur’s Gate 3 taught you nothing?

To sum up:

Fear of the imaginary,( perhaps of imagination itself), wants charts and set DCs.
They think DMs must chose creatures out of the books, and use those statblocks without change.
They think in terms of skill checks, despite skill checks not existing in 5e, (there are ability checks).
They want limits, boundaries, pre-made structures.
They do not want the limitless.
They may not want 5e, since the Ability Check is the foundation of the game.

[Pex]

Honestly, the jump example doesn't even need to be there. There is a section of rules on jumping, which includes the fact that a Strength(Athletics) roll might let you jump further than the hard number the rules provide a formula for. Just include a formula that says how far beyond that minimum you can go based on the result of that check; no need for a table or anything.

Oh certainly. I wouldn't mind a formula either. The idea is to show that it is possible, not definitive of how it must be done. I don't need any more specifics than that unless and until WOTC decides to pay me as a game designer.

You made a weak, non-athletic monk. You, literally are George of the Jungle.

No table of set DCs is going to stop that PC from sucking. Don’t Dump stat Strength on monks folks…has Baldur’s Gate 3 taught you nothing?

To sum up:

Fear of the imaginary,( perhaps of imagination itself), wants charts and set DCs.
They think DMs must chose creatures out of the books, and use those statblocks without change.
They think in terms of skill checks, despite skill checks not existing in 5e, (there are ability checks).
They want limits, boundaries, pre-made structures.
They do not want the limitless.
They may not want 5e, since the Ability Check is the foundation of the game.


Yet my warlock with the same statistics was climbing castle walls without even a die roll. He was Tarzan.

Also another good point. What can I do with a DC 25 Medicine check?

[Aimeryan]

The two main answers I got to my question can be summarised as follows:

Bad example tables would be worse than nothing.
DMs who do their own thing would be made into bad guys.


For number 1, I disagree for several reasons. Firstly, a new DM has little chance of coming up with a better set of DCs than the designers of the game. Secondly, experienced DMs who are able to come up with better (as in, more fun - likely as a vector of balance) can do so - nothing stops them, in fact, the book can explicitly point this out (and does already implicitly already). Thirdly, we can hold WotC to account for bad examples and push for better ones - but we need some in the first place to do this. Fourthly, this is kind of putting the cart before the horse - we don't know that WotC would come up with bad examples.

For number 2, again I disagree, although this one is always going to be a group dynamic. Firstly, the rules would be in the DMG - so the players wont be aware of them if new. Secondly, the likely reason to veer away from them once not new is if they aren't working well, so why would you get flak for that? Thirdly, the book can explicitly say that these are only WotC's guidance and DMs are encouraged to make their own decisions. Fourthly, any DM already deals with this in literally every other part of the game - so, why charbroil over it here?

[Zhorn]

Fourthly, this is kind of putting the cart before the horse - we don't know that WotC would come up with bad examples.
Well we do have their Jump action presented in the UA2022 - Cleric and Revised Species (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/cleric-and-revised-species/tr8jAj5cc33uQixi/UA-2022-ClericandSpecies.pdf), so it really depends on how swingy you like your jump distances to if you want to judge that as good or bad (personally not a fan).

[stoutstien]

There are numerous examples of bad DCs.

30s everywhere for strength checks (sometimes it has athletics sometimes they don't depending purely on who edited the book) but based on the description most, if not all ,shouldn't even be a DC 20. "But it's a Magically locked door so it needs to be harder to break down because magic..."

The issue is they are used door/barrier as pacing gates and didn't want a strong PC to wario past it even if that exactly what should happen.

Manacles are a flat 20 strength check but only a 15 dex(slight of hand with thieves tools).

[InvisibleBison]

There are numerous examples of bad DCs.

There are numerous examples of bad challenge ratings, too, but no one is saying that monsters shouldn't have CRs.

[Keltest]

There are numerous examples of bad challenge ratings, too, but no one is saying that monsters shouldn't have CRs.

I mean... lots of people say its a useless number, so...

[kazaryu]

There are numerous examples of bad DCs.

30s everywhere for strength checks (sometimes it has athletics sometimes they don't depending purely on who edited the book) but based on the description most, if not all ,shouldn't even be a DC 20. "But it's a Magically locked door so it needs to be harder to break down because magic..." how does the description "its magically locked" translate in your head to " yeah that shouldn't even be dc 20" some useless ass magic if it doesn't even raise the DC to the point that basically anyone can't break through it within a couple of attempts.


The issue is they are used door/barrier as pacing gates and didn't want a strong PC to wario past it even if that exactly what should happen. yeah man, those silly wizards and their *checks notes* magic to reinforce the primary weakness of their defensive structures. wild that such magic would exist. i mean seriously, its not like magically sealed doors are ubiquitous in the genre or anything. psh. no, all doors should be super easy to break through.


Manacles are a flat 20 strength check but only a 15 dex(slight of hand with thieves tools).

I, for one, am shocked to learn that the game would make it harder to brute force your way through a device specifically designed to not be brute forced than it is to bypass that same device using a tool specifically designed to bypass that device. what were the devs even thinking.

[stoutstien]

There are numerous examples of bad challenge ratings, too, but no one is saying that monsters shouldn't have CRs.

CR is used as a rough estimate used in the first 2 steps of setting up an encounter where DC is used as the threshold that is determined at the last step before action resolution.

Completely different design areas.

[Darth Credence]

For those arguing for tables: how much needs to be in the tables for it to be worthwhile?

There are tables for persuasion skill checks in the social interaction section of the DMG, which has three levels for three different attitudes, giving 0, 10, and 20 examples. If those tables do not help give a DM some guidance in setting DCs in general, then do we need to have tables for each check type?

Would creating a table that had DC scores for additional leap distances, in categories based on terrain type and time pressure, do it for jumping, and would it help out anywhere else? Say they have the same thing as for social reactions, where it says in ideal conditions (defined, of course), a DC 0 is strength +2, DC 10 is strength +5, and DC 20 is strength +10, and the same kind of thing for going through difficult terrain or if it is in combat?

Since the existing tables for setting social DCs are clearly not enough to help with setting other DCs, it seems unlikely that having a table for setting jump DCs will help in setting medicine DCs or sleight-of-hand DCs. Maybe a jump table will help in figuring out other athletics DCs, or perhaps you could give examples that cover every type under that roll - like an athletics check in ideal conditions can do 10% more than baseline at 10, 20% at 15, and 30% at 20, so you cover jumps and lifting heavy things. Of course, if someone decides they need to see how far they can throw a javelin or put a shot, you don't have a percentage to help out. You could take the javelin and say that it is distance beyond long range, if you decide that long range is the farthest one can throw it (and everyone in the world can throw it that far), but I have no idea what the baseline would be for putting shot. It is something that either I have to come up with a DC entirely on my own, or they would have to put in a table specifically for that activity. Since that activity would be incredibly rare, I cannot see anyone deciding it should be in a book, which means that there are absolutely, 100% going to have to be some things that the DM will just need to figure out what to have as a DC.

Last questions - what if WotC put out a splat book called the Big Book of Skills, which contained 200 pages of tables and guidance, talking about various things each of the skills can do and recommended DC settings, on sale for $40? Would you buy that book and go by the tables inside it? If it had ten pages on strength, focusing on straight strength checks and athletics checks, including a formula for setting DCs that took into account the terrain and time constraints?

[GloatingSwine]

For those arguing for tables: how much needs to be in the tables for it to be worthwhile?


What can be expected to be achieved with moderate and hard checks. Calibrated to produce a set of physics outside of combat which are consonant with what the strongly systematised combat engine demands the characters be able to perform, where it relates to their physical and biological properties like jumping.

[Darth Credence]

What can be expected to be achieved with moderate and hard checks. Calibrated to produce a set of physics outside of combat which are consonant with what the strongly systematised combat engine demands the characters be able to perform, where it relates to their physical and biological properties like jumping.

So a table exists that tells you what can be accomplished with a DC0, DC10, and DC20 social check. This sounds like you cannot use that table to give you an idea of what can be done with checks of other types, and you want something specific to those checks. Do you want a table for every possible thing one can do? Should there be a table that lines out how far you can put a shot? (Or, ultimately, do you just want a table for jumping and this is not about skills in general, but jumping in particular? If that is the case, why jumping, and not lifting, breaking down doors, picking locks, or the like?)

It seems to me that you are either asking for an example chart, which exists, or you are asking for charts that lay out how pretty much everything works. Which goes back to the last question - would you be willing to buy a book that has tables for all of the possibilities?

[Zhorn]

It's more to the point that the PHB specifies that an athletics check can be used to jump further, but give no guidance on how much further any check result is worth.
We are specifically talking about DCs for jumping because the books are mentioning something it does not provide.

The responses of saying 'just use the generic DC table of 10,15,20' is entirely unhelpful because again there is no metric of what those values mean for a jump's distance.
Is a medium difficulty 15 ft total? 1.5x STR score? + 1x STR mod? +2 ft? +5 ft? Double distance?

[Keltest]

It's more to the point that the PHB specifies that an athletics check can be used to jump further, but give no guidance on how much further any check result is worth.
We are specifically talking about DCs for jumping because the books are mentioning something it does not provide.

The responses of saying 'just use the generic DC table of 10,15,20' is entirely unhelpful because again there is no metric of what those values mean for a jump's distance.
Is a medium difficulty 15 ft total? 1.5x STR score? + 1x STR mod? +2 ft? +5 ft? Double distance?

They mean whatever you want them to mean. The point is to get you, the DM, to make a decision about what you want at your table.

[Dr.Samurai]

As I said before, the guidance given on how to determine if something is hard or medium or easy is to measure it against whether a PC has a positive modifier, proficiency, or both. This gives the wrong impression on how to handle DCs for ability checks.

[Darth Credence]

It's more to the point that the PHB specifies that an athletics check can be used to jump further, but give no guidance on how much further any check result is worth.
We are specifically talking about DCs for jumping because the books are mentioning something it does not provide.

The responses of saying 'just use the generic DC table of 10,15,20' is entirely unhelpful because again there is no metric of what those values mean for a jump's distance.
Is a medium difficulty 15 ft total? 1.5x STR score? + 1x STR mod? +2 ft? +5 ft? Double distance?

Can you take the DC table for tracking and apply it to other things like jumping? There is a table in the Running the Game section of the DMG for that, too. It gives a 10-15-20 example there - tracking on snow for a 10, dirt for a 15, and bare rock for a 20. Can you look at that and say, well, tracking someone through snow seems like something most people could do, and it's a 10, and I think most people could stretch an extra couple of feet out above a normal jump, so we'll say that a DC 10 is adding 2 feet? Or are we back to we need a table for everything?

And if we need a table for everything, is anyone willing to pay to buy a book full of such tables?

[Keltest]

As I said before, the guidance given on how to determine if something is hard or medium or easy is to measure it against whether a PC has a positive modifier, proficiency, or both. This gives the wrong impression on how to handle DCs for ability checks.

I disagree. If youre considering putting a DC 30 check against a level 2 party, you need to consider that this becomes actually impossible instead of nearly impossible, and should just cut to the chase of saying "you cant do this".

[Segev]

For those arguing for tables: how much needs to be in the tables for it to be worthwhile?

There are tables for persuasion skill checks in the social interaction section of the DMG, which has three levels for three different attitudes, giving 0, 10, and 20 examples. If those tables do not help give a DM some guidance in setting DCs in general, then do we need to have tables for each check type?

Would creating a table that had DC scores for additional leap distances, in categories based on terrain type and time pressure, do it for jumping, and would it help out anywhere else? Say they have the same thing as for social reactions, where it says in ideal conditions (defined, of course), a DC 0 is strength +2, DC 10 is strength +5, and DC 20 is strength +10, and the same kind of thing for going through difficult terrain or if it is in combat?

Since the existing tables for setting social DCs are clearly not enough to help with setting other DCs, it seems unlikely that having a table for setting jump DCs will help in setting medicine DCs or sleight-of-hand DCs. Maybe a jump table will help in figuring out other athletics DCs, or perhaps you could give examples that cover every type under that roll - like an athletics check in ideal conditions can do 10% more than baseline at 10, 20% at 15, and 30% at 20, so you cover jumps and lifting heavy things. Of course, if someone decides they need to see how far they can throw a javelin or put a shot, you don't have a percentage to help out. You could take the javelin and say that it is distance beyond long range, if you decide that long range is the farthest one can throw it (and everyone in the world can throw it that far), but I have no idea what the baseline would be for putting shot. It is something that either I have to come up with a DC entirely on my own, or they would have to put in a table specifically for that activity. Since that activity would be incredibly rare, I cannot see anyone deciding it should be in a book, which means that there are absolutely, 100% going to have to be some things that the DM will just need to figure out what to have as a DC.

Last questions - what if WotC put out a splat book called the Big Book of Skills, which contained 200 pages of tables and guidance, talking about various things each of the skills can do and recommended DC settings, on sale for $40? Would you buy that book and go by the tables inside it? If it had ten pages on strength, focusing on straight strength checks and athletics checks, including a formula for setting DCs that took into account the terrain and time constraints?

The social DC tables are actually all I need for social DCs. So other examples like that for the other skills would generally be what I'm asking for. Alternatively, more subsystems that use the skill system and explain DCs would be good; rather than "by skill," it'd be "by task within this subsystem," if we treat the social DCs as being part of a social subsystem, for example.

The jumping thing should have a formula, because they give us a formula for minimum distance. I wouldn't go with a table, there, myself. But if a table is what they went with, it'd be something, at least.

And I'd probably buy such a book, yes, because even if I didn't "go by it," it would be a good reference for things that I don't have a better idea, myself, for. Or a starting point for modifying things. At least seeing it and saying, "Wow, that's nonsense," would give me an idea where I actually think it should be. And if I look at it and shrug, and say, "Seems as good as anything, to me," I'll use it.

[InvisibleBison]

For those arguing for tables: how much needs to be in the tables for it to be worthwhile?

What I think would be useful would be to have a chart showing two or three examples of easy, moderate, and hard tasks for each of the listed applications of a skill. Also, some text explaining how these are just guidelines, and they're not supposed to be complete; the DM uses them by finding whichever example task is most similar to whatever the PCs are trying to do, and set the DC at the corresponding difficulty (unless they feel it should be something else).

Also, I think the extant social skill tables are fine.



Last questions - what if WotC put out a splat book called the Big Book of Skills, which contained 200 pages of tables and guidance, talking about various things each of the skills can do and recommended DC settings, on sale for $40? Would you buy that book and go by the tables inside it? If it had ten pages on strength, focusing on straight strength checks and athletics checks, including a formula for setting DCs that took into account the terrain and time constraints?

I don't think my desired solution would be anywhere near as large as 200 pages. By my count, there are at most 51 listed applications of skills (assuming each kind of sneaking mentioned under Stealth gets a table of its own, which it probably wouldn't, since Stealth works best as an opposed check, and that the social skills all use a duplicate of the existing tables). If you can fit eight tables on one page, which might be possible, that only requires 8 1/2 pages of tables; even with half as many tables per page it's only 17.



They mean whatever you want them to mean. The point is to get you, the DM, to make a decision about what you want at your table.

If I'm going to buy/use a book, it needs to offer me something worthwhile compared to not doing so. I don't need a book to tell me I can do whatever I want; I already know I can do whatever I want. I would like a book that actually provides some help in figuring out how to set skill DCs, because then I can spend less mental effort doing so when running the game, which lets me do a better job of doing other things.

[Keltest]

If I'm going to buy/use a book, it needs to offer me something worthwhile compared to not doing so. I don't need a book to tell me I can do whatever I want; I already know I can do whatever I want. I would like a book that actually provides some help in figuring out how to set skill DCs, because then I can spend less mental effort doing so when running the game, which lets me do a better job of doing other things.

Then I suggest you buy a module, since thats what theyre for. The DMG doesnt tell you where to place monsters either, or what kind of terrain you should use, or how many NPCs you should have the PCs meet, or what their personalities should be in a given situation.

[Dr.Samurai]

Then I suggest you buy a module, since thats what theyre for.
Not at all.

Expecting guidance in something called The Dungeon Master's Guide is not unreasonable.

[NichG]

I disagree. If youre considering putting a DC 30 check against a level 2 party, you need to consider that this becomes actually impossible instead of nearly impossible, and should just cut to the chase of saying "you cant do this".

Egh, the way this channels things into 'putting a check against the party' is definitely a downside for me. It gets too much into 'the only solutions are things the DM anticipated'. Like, lets say I put a 30ft chasm into this game with a level 2 party, thinking 'well okay they can go around but it'll take longer, if they climb down and up its like this, and maybe there are other clever things they could do'. Then someone might want to say 'I've got a 17 Strength, could I jump this? How about if I have someone cast Guidance on me? What if I also get Advantage from somewhere? What if we fell a 15ft tree and have it stick 5ft out over the gap and I jump from there?'.

If I'm thinking in terms of setting DCs only as deciding the immediate results with a particular mental likelihood I have in mind, I'm not creating a space where people can reason about ways to change their odds and turn something impossible into something possible. So the purpose of putting a number to a nearly impossible thing isn't 'well imma go roll and take that 10% chance I don't die!', its in communicating to players exactly how much they're going to need to do to turn that 10% chance into a 60% chance, and what sorts of things would influence those chances. You could do that without systematizing things, at least if your players are persistent enough to ask those sorts of what if questions after you've said 'you can't do this', but I think thats easier when you're coming from a mindset where you're not just spit-balling a DC but you have some idea of how you got there, which this sort of framing doesn't exactly encourage.

[Keltest]

Not at all.

Expecting guidance in something called The Dungeon Master's Guide is not unreasonable.

Sure, and you get it. If you want it to pick the DCs for you in specific situations, thats more than just guidance.

[schm0]

If I'm going to buy/use a book, it needs to offer me something worthwhile compared to not doing so. I don't need a book to tell me I can do whatever I want; I already know I can do whatever I want. I would like a book that actually provides some help in figuring out how to set skill DCs, because then I can spend less mental effort doing so when running the game, which lets me do a better job of doing other things.

This is fascinating to me. I can't think of anything easier for me at the table than thinking of a DC off the top of my head. For me, it's entirely intuitive and takes less a second on average. It would take me much longer to open up a book and consult a table.

Is this really a mental workout for you and other DMs? I'm sincerely curious. What do you find trips you up in this process?

[InvisibleBison]

Sure, and you get it. If you want it to pick the DCs for you in specific situations, thats more than just guidance.

I don't see how. Consider the following example:
DM: I don't know what DC this skill check should be. I'll look in the DMG for guidance.
DMG: You should set skill check DCs to be whatever you think they should be.
DM: Okay, I still don't what DC this skill check should be.

How exactly has this DM received guidance from the DMG?



This is fascinating to me. I can't think of anything easier for me at the table than thinking of a DC off the top of my head. For me, it's entirely intuitive and takes less a second on average. It would take me much longer to open up a book and consult a table.

Is this really a mental workout for you and other DMs? I'm sincerely curious. What do you find trips you up in this process?

No, coming up with skill checks is not a big deal for me, but I'm an experienced player and DM. Skill tables are very much intended to help new DMs avoid such traps as "I don't think I could do that, so it's DC 20", "The PCs are badasses, so everything is DC 10", "The first thing they try is DC 25, the second thing is DC 20, the third and subsequent are DC 15" or such like.

[Keltest]

No, coming up with skill checks is not a big deal for me, but I'm an experienced player and DM. Skill tables are very much intended to help new DMs avoid such traps as "I don't think I could do that, so it's DC 20", "The PCs are badasses, so everything is DC 10", "The first thing they try is DC 25, the second thing is DC 20, the third and subsequent are DC 15" or such like.

If the table is having fun, then its neither a trap nor wrong. The DMG cannot tell you what method is the best fit for your table.

[InvisibleBison]

If the table is having fun, then its neither a trap nor wrong. The DMG cannot tell you what method is the best fit for your table.

Sure, but it's far from guaranteed the players (or the DM!) would be having fun in any of those examples. Assuming that you right doesn't actually make you right.

[NichG]

This is fascinating to me. I can't think of anything easier for me at the table than thinking of a DC off the top of my head. For me, it's entirely intuitive and takes less a second on average. It would take me much longer to open up a book and consult a table.

Is this really a mental workout for you and other DMs? I'm sincerely curious. What do you find trips you up in this process?

Speaking for myself at least, its not that its a mental workout, its that the point of buying any RPG materials is to get inspiration and mental frameworks for how to abstract the world that I may not have thought of. I don't need to pay $30 for something that says 'just do what you want' - I can come up with that myself for free, thank you very much. An empty thing isn't necessarily bad, but why buy it?

Like, these days I basically write systems from scratch or heavily modify a few starting points for pretty much all of the things I run. I know how to do that and it isn't a big deal. For an RPG book to be worth buying to me, it has to really go beyond those things I do know how to do myself already, or it has to be contributing a lot of significant and evocative ideas. The last such book I bought was, I think, 7th Sea 2ed, which introduced an idea to me about rolling once *per scene* and then having the roll give you a non-refreshing pool of resources you could use to buy off bad things or pay to unlock opportunities during the scene, with examples of what those bad things and opportunities could be. Could a table of DCs be to that level? Well, maybe - I found the epic DCs in 3e to be pretty inspiring even if I would put the numbers in different places, because they gave *specific* examples of things one might imagine doing with legendary levels of skill that created an image of what that kind of mythology might look like as a whole, with people jumping on clouds or sliding through walls of force or just constantly being aware of the surface thoughts of everyone around them.

[Pex]

This is fascinating to me. I can't think of anything easier for me at the table than thinking of a DC off the top of my head. For me, it's entirely intuitive and takes less a second on average. It would take me much longer to open up a book and consult a table.

Is this really a mental workout for you and other DMs? I'm sincerely curious. What do you find trips you up in this process?

My first time DMing 5E, after 2 hours of play I was so sick and tired of having to think up a DC number for everything the players wanted to do I stopped trying. I just tell them to roll; I have no DC. If they get a low number, fail. If they get a high number, succeed. If it's middle-ish then I bother to break it down to low middle fail high middle succeed. Even now mentally in my head everything is DC 15 except for specific cases when they come up are too obvious should be 10 or 20. It is mentally tiring to think up numbers every 5-10 minutes.

In 3E the more common formulas and DCs that always came up I could memorize. For those that were not memorized and not often used I have the skill tables right there for me for a quick check. Not to say we need to go back to the 3E skill system, just the point of the DC tables existing.

[Keltest]

Sure, but it's far from guaranteed the players (or the DM!) would be having fun in any of those examples. Assuming that you right doesn't actually make you right.

Ok, but the DMG cant tell the DM how to adjust to fix that either. The DM will simply have to experiment and guess until they find what works at their table.

[Theodoxus]

Wow, there is a lot of negativity around folks who think differently.

I'm in the crowd that's never really had a problem assigning DCs on the fly. But I can certainly empathize with those that do and desire a bit more crunch; Law; rigidity; assistance; whatever you want to call it.

Instead of trying to wish up things that we know will never happen (a 200 page book of "DCs for Dummies") - why not provide actual concrete assistance? At least then those who are asking for help can determine if it's useful or not.

So, for instance, Keltest's pointing to modules isn't a bad start. Sure, it's a bit of a pain looking up DCs in a paper module - but if you keep a spreadsheet, when you find one, jot it down. Heck, it's possible this or something like it is floating around the net (and there's nothing stopping us from creating a thread - so of like the build threads or other useful guides for classes):
"Dungeoncrawl Extremo! | Page 3 | DC 13 Wisdom (Perception) Check | for spotting a hidden key under a loose rock |"
"Hoard of the Spiderking! | Page 10 | DC 22 Strength (Athletics) Check | for pushing open the massive granite door that seals off the treasure room|

Second, anyone have a good formula they're using for jump distance? (Or even an ok formula? a bad one that could use a review?) I just use total distance needed to jump as the DC. The minimum distance they make is their strength score. Since jump triples your minimum distance, I say non-magical jumping has a max of x2 your strength. So, an 8 Strength George of the Jungle can jump a max of 16', and it's a DC 16 attempt. (if the chasm is only 15', it's only a DC 15 attempt). With a -1 Str mod, and probably not being proficient, George isn't going to have an easy time of making that jump, but it certainly isn't as impossible as trying to jump 20' (though a running start certainly helps!)

Lastly, I get not wanting to do developer work for free. I really do. But this isn't the right forum for expressing those views. Help your fellow gamers out, and write nasty tweets to WotC about having to do their work for them. Heck, link GiantitP, maybe get some more fresh blood for the boards :)

Or whine more... that's fine too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, but the DMG cant tell the DM how to adjust to fix that either. The DM will simply have to experiment and guess until they find what works at their table.

Yeah. My level of trust in the ability to diagnose and fix problems is roughly inversely proportional to the degree of separation between the actor and the problem. The DMG is at the furthest possible remove from the problem and has no ability to adapt to feedback for any individual case. Thus, it can only be generic and expecting it to solve your problems is a pipe dream for any but the most generic problem.

This is not to say that the DMG is perfect in this regard. It could use worked, specific, narrative examples of play and making these decisions, including examples of thought process. And more clarity around what it really expects and does not expect (and what it expects will not happen).

Those would be very useful. Bland, rarely applicable tables to wade through? Not so much, at least for me.

[Dr.Samurai]

So, for instance, Keltest's pointing to modules isn't a bad start. Sure, it's a bit of a pain looking up DCs in a paper module - but if you keep a spreadsheet, when you find one, jot it down. Heck, it's possible this or something like it is floating around the net (and there's nothing stopping us from creating a thread - so of like the build threads or other useful guides for classes):
"Dungeoncrawl Extremo! | Page 3 | DC 13 Wisdom (Perception) Check | for spotting a hidden key under a loose rock |"
"Hoard of the Spiderking! | Page 10 | DC 22 Strength (Athletics) Check | for pushing open the massive granite door that seals off the treasure room|
Two points:

1. I appreciate your posts!

2. Thank you for pointing this out, because I did not read that into Keltest's post. But now that you mention it, flipping through modules can give a sense of what the designers, at least, consider certain challenges to be. As a substitute for actual guidance in the DMG I think this falls short because "purchase modules so you can read through them and pluck out skill check DCs" seems unreasonable. But if you already have access to them, and are running them, this is a good idea.

[schm0]

No, coming up with skill checks is not a big deal for me, but I'm an experienced player and DM. Skill tables are very much intended to help new DMs avoid such traps as "I don't think I could do that, so it's DC 20", "The PCs are badasses, so everything is DC 10", "The first thing they try is DC 25, the second thing is DC 20, the third and subsequent are DC 15" or such like.

The counterpoint here is that none of those approaches are necessarily wrong, as long as they align more or less to the relative difficulty put forth in the DC table.


Speaking for myself at least, its not that its a mental workout, its that the point of buying any RPG materials is to get inspiration and mental frameworks for how to abstract the world that I may not have thought of. I don't need to pay $30 for something that says 'just do what you want' - I can come up with that myself for free, thank you very much. An empty thing isn't necessarily bad, but why buy it?

Interesting. I can see the difference, that's for sure. Where you see emptiness, I see freedom and ease of play. But it's also ok to want different things in a game. Thank you for sharing.


My first time DMing 5E, after 2 hours of play I was so sick and tired of having to think up a DC number for everything the players wanted to do I stopped trying. I just tell them to roll; I have no DC. If they get a low number, fail. If they get a high number, succeed. If it's middle-ish then I bother to break it down to low middle fail high middle succeed. Even now mentally in my head everything is DC 15 except for specific cases when they come up are too obvious should be 10 or 20. It is mentally tiring to think up numbers every 5-10 minutes.

I assume things like a city guard at level 3 is the same DC for the Bard to persuade at higher levels (assuming proficiency and ASIs in Charisma), that sort of thing? If so, I'll be honest... it sounds like you're using the DC system as intended, just subconsciously.

[Keltest]

Two points:

1. I appreciate your posts!

2. Thank you for pointing this out, because I did not read that into Keltest's post. But now that you mention it, flipping through modules can give a sense of what the designers, at least, consider certain challenges to be. As a substitute for actual guidance in the DMG I think this falls short because "purchase modules so you can read through them and pluck out skill check DCs" seems unreasonable. But if you already have access to them, and are running them, this is a good idea.

I mean, if youre only getting the module just to pick out the DCs and such, thats obviously not good value, but a module is literally an entire pre-planned adventure, specifically there to assist DMs who don't feel up to making their own whole cloth.

If I'm flippant about it, its because ive made this same point like seven times across multiple threads, usually to the same people. The product is literally made specifically to solve these problems until you feel comfortable solving them yourself.

[Theodoxus]

Two points:

1. I appreciate your posts!

2. Thank you for pointing this out, because I did not read that into Keltest's post. But now that you mention it, flipping through modules can give a sense of what the designers, at least, consider certain challenges to be. As a substitute for actual guidance in the DMG I think this falls short because "purchase modules so you can read through them and pluck out skill check DCs" seems unreasonable. But if you already have access to them, and are running them, this is a good idea.

1) Thanks!

2) Totally agree, which is why I think it'd be nifty to do as a thread. I doubt many people here have access to every. single. module for 5E, especially conversions of earlier works. And I also doubt most would be willing to do the work of scouring through them - but if we could get a few onboard that would collate that kind of data, that would be a boon, no? Heck, it'd be interesting (to me at least) to see what kind of variation module editors have for similar tasks. (Hopefully not a lot, but...)

[Darth Credence]

Wow, there is a lot of negativity around folks who think differently.

I'm in the crowd that's never really had a problem assigning DCs on the fly. But I can certainly empathize with those that do and desire a bit more crunch; Law; rigidity; assistance; whatever you want to call it.

Instead of trying to wish up things that we know will never happen (a 200 page book of "DCs for Dummies") - why not provide actual concrete assistance? At least then those who are asking for help can determine if it's useful or not.



OK, sure, I guess a book of DC tables is clearly a ridiculous thought. Several people (including me) would be willing to buy it, but it's nice to know that you took it as a ridiculous question that was designed to somehow insult those that want a table of DCs. Boy, no way would WotC ever decide to publish a splat book that would cost very little to make but could be sold for $40 or more a pop.

[Theodoxus]

OK, sure, I guess a book of DC tables is clearly a ridiculous thought. Several people (including me) would be willing to buy it, but it's nice to know that you took it as a ridiculous question that was designed to somehow insult those that want a table of DCs. Boy, no way would WotC ever decide to publish a splat book that would cost very little to make but could be sold for $40 or more a pop.

Way to not read the rest of my post, I guess? I certainly wasn't trying to insult anyone. At worst, I guess the takeaway would be 'don't ask WotC to create a book for you by posting a request somewhere they'd likely never read about it.' If you've already submitted your request to them, bully!

I still stand by what I said though. Instead of wishing up something, why aren't people actually providing ideas and processes of what they do (outside of the few who refuse to be unpaid interns on the sly).

[Darth Credence]

Way to not read the rest of my post, I guess? I certainly wasn't trying to insult anyone. At worst, I guess the takeaway would be 'don't ask WotC to create a book for you by posting a request somewhere they'd likely never read about it.' If you've already submitted your request to them, bully!

I still stand by what I said though. Instead of wishing up something, why aren't people actually providing ideas and processes of what they do (outside of the few who refuse to be unpaid interns on the sly).

I absolutely read the rest of your post. I noted that you ask why people aren't providing concrete assistance. I did, giving an idea of how I would take what is already listed in a table and apply it to something else. There are a number of people who have made a suggestion of how they do jump distance in this thread as well.

The takeaway you put out there is that those that are making suggestions that are not your cup of tea are either idiots for making the suggestion or purposefully trolling the people who want suggestions. You specifically called out another poster as having a stupid idea that shouldn't even be here. You have now doubled down on that, saying that I must not actually be reading things when I took that very personal statement personally.

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean, if youre only getting the module just to pick out the DCs and such, thats obviously not good value, but a module is literally an entire pre-planned adventure, specifically there to assist DMs who don't feel up to making their own whole cloth.

If I'm flippant about it, its because ive made this same point like seven times across multiple threads, usually to the same people. The product is literally made specifically to solve these problems until you feel comfortable solving them yourself.
But an adventure is a completely different thing so I appreciate your frustration but this isn't apples to apples. Yes, there are DCs in modules, so someone can go there and look at them, but no, if you want guidance on DCs I don't think it follows that you need to buy modules and run them.

Modules would only be guidance anyways. Just because so and so author sets the DC to push over a book shelf full of books at X, doesn't mean you'll agree with that. But at least seeing these numbers and contexts helps provide some framework for another DM.

____________________

Separate thought but... I'm honestly surprised at all of the pushback on this (even though we've been having these conversations forever lol). There is a huge 3rd party industry that provides everything from Lore, to Monsters, to Maps, to Backgrounds, to Magic Items, to Trinkets, to Subsystems, to Traps, etc. and no blinks an eye. We're okay if someone isn't good at coming up with lore, or balancing magic items, or drawing maps.

But skills checks? Skill Checks is this one area where it's like "No, you must do it yourself!". Is it really that difficult dumb dumb?

And there is this thought that the variance between tables is so vast when it comes to skill checks that no sample DCs can be useful and therefore worth the effort. Like climbing a slippery wall during a rainstorm is going to be DC 5 at my table, and DC 67 at another table. See! It's too different, don't try!

Sure lol.

And for the record, I would totally buy a Robilar's Complete Manual of DCs.

[Keltest]

But an adventure is a completely different thing so I appreciate your frustration but this isn't apples to apples. Yes, there are DCs in modules, so someone can go there and look at them, but no, if you want guidance on DCs I don't think it follows that you need to buy modules and run them.

Modules would only be guidance anyways. Just because so and so author sets the DC to push over a book shelf full of books at X, doesn't mean you'll agree with that. But at least seeing these numbers and contexts helps provide some framework for another DM.

I dont... what? What other context are you having to make DCs up for except in the context of running an adventure? And you are now arguing against the literal exact thing you were asking for!

[Dr.Samurai]

I dont... what? What other context are you having to make DCs up for except in the context of running an adventure? And you are now arguing against the literal exact thing you were asking for!
No I'm not. I don't understand exactly what the confusion is. Context doesn't require an entire adventure. The DC for climbing a wall might want to know if it's slippery, are there handholds, is there in an incline, anyone attacking you. So if any of those exist in the example in the adventure, that's helpful. But you don't need the entire adventure for that.

And I'm saying that this is guidance. It is helpful as added context for DMs. I don't see why this can't find a home somewhere in a DMG. Like... someone might look at the module and think "I think that's too high for that, so I'll lower it by 2 points." And they can do the same if the samples were in the DMG.

[Theodoxus]

Separate thought but... I'm honestly surprised at all of the pushback on this (even though we've been having these conversations forever lol). There is a huge 3rd party industry that provides everything from Lore, to Monsters, to Maps, to Backgrounds, to Magic Items, to Trinkets, to Subsystems, to Traps, etc. and no blinks an eye. We're okay if someone isn't good at coming up with lore, or balancing magic items, or drawing maps.

But skills checks? Skill Checks is this one area where it's like "No, you must do it yourself!". Is it really that difficult dumb dumb?

And there is this thought that the variance between tables is so vast when it comes to skill checks that no sample DCs can be useful and therefore worth the effort. Like climbing a slippery wall during a rainstorm is going to be DC 5 at my table, and DC 67 at another table. See! It's too different, don't try!

Sure lol.

And for the record, I would totally buy a Robilar's Complete Manual of DCs.

Yeah, that was actually something I was thinking about, but it took me 45 minutes to write my original post and I lost that thought somewhere in the middle... I too find it odd that there are crutches everywhere for DMs, from books to websites to forums like this, that provide crunch and help and ideas for every aspect of the game. You have monsters that have built in DCs for attack riders and DCs for lore; you have websites that provide exploration and social updates for every module ever, you have oodles and oodles of sites dedicated to new magic (items). But go searching for a table of DCs and you get a bunch of help along the lines of "Imagine the task at hand, how hard is it to pull off, figure out how that would correspond to a scale from 10 to 20 and there you go!"

But the issue isn't what DC should doing X be. The issue is 'how do you determine how hard something should be in the first place?' I have practical experience with climbing. I know that climbing up a dry ladder is easier than a wet ladder... but are both too easy to roll? Well, I've seen videos of people slipping off ladders... so no? but they weren't heroic types, so yes? And then climbing a tree. That was sinch when I was 10 and weighed 70 lbs... Now, as a 52 year old, 250 lb. man? I shudder at the thought. But I'm not a heroic type... so yes? And that's stuff I have actual lived experience with.

How hard is it to sail a catamaran? I don't know. Never done it, but looks really difficult, DC 25! Wait, what if it's in rough seas... oh shoot, I guess 40! So I come here, ask "Hey, I live in a land locked state, and never been on a sail boat, much less a double hulled one. How hard, if you're trained, is it to sail a Catamaran?"
And then get hit with slings and arrows about how dumb I am because I have to ask, since the books give zero Fs about guidance.

I'd be fine if the DMG provided just a smidge of guidance, like instead of a binary yes/no, pass/fail, there was a formula that worked for everything.
Jump might just be however much your roll on your Str Mod+d20+PB, is how far you jump. Unlucky rolls might be described as something distracting, poor aerodynamics, etc.
A Lore check might just be 1 fact per 5 points you get on your Int Mod+d20+PB, (this does create some work on the DMs part, as they'd need to have some lore already for the thing in question, but the DM also gets to determine which of the X number of things to know, the Y roll gets). Unlucky rolls here just means that the thing is too esoteric that the PC has know or little knowledge of it.
Perception: I use an opposed check every time, for everything already. A loose floorboard that has a static DC of 14 in a module, I'll roll anyway. It's possible that some wandering creature knocked the board up, making the DC much smaller. Or, perhaps a piece of furniture was moved on top of it, making it much harder. A Simple d20+(1/4 Party level) works fine, I've found.

But every skill could be given a formula like this, then the individual DM would have some guidance that wasn't written in stone, just playdoh, to use as they wished.

[Saelethil]

Second, anyone have a good formula they're using for jump distance? (Or even an ok formula? a bad one that could use a review?) I just use total distance needed to jump as the DC. The minimum distance they make is their strength score. Since jump triples your minimum distance, I say non-magical jumping has a max of x2 your strength. So, an 8 Strength George of the Jungle can jump a max of 16', and it's a DC 16 attempt. (if the chasm is only 15', it's only a DC 15 attempt). With a -1 Str mod, and probably not being proficient, George isn't going to have an easy time of making that jump, but it certainly isn't as impossible as trying to jump 20' (though a running start certainly helps!)

My general formula is:
10 - a few additional feet
15 - base jump distance x 1.5
20 - double base jump distance
30 - triple base jump distance

[Sindeloke]

I really don't think most folks are against some example guidance, but the practical difficulty of actually providing such guidance is prohibitive. We started talking about jump distance in this thread, but we are already finding numerous other situations where a chart could be useful for athletics alone. Some other DMs may be interested in more advice for animal handling or history or nature. How do you propose effectively providing sufficient guidance without producing an entire book the size of the full DMG?

I mean, if you got exhaustive in this way, you might end up producing a volume of content equal to, say, the spells chapter of the PHB. It would likely be referenced to a similar degree; players interested in particular skills would become very familiar with there particular section and the DM could offload that concern to them, DMs could look up specific things during prep if they had a particular challenge planned, and have a general sense of the whole thing that would help them create an effect on the fly; a lot of it wouldn't see regular use but would still be helpful as examples and if someone wanted to do something niche. Personally I can't understand how that could possibly be considered unreasonable, since we're talking about the mechanics that handle two entire pillars of the game, and the idea that 2/3 of your playtime should receive less consideration than stuff that multiple classes will never use is really weird.

BUT.

We could also look at this from completely the opposite direction: we could come at it from the idea that starting with the action and not the DC is backward to begin with.

Think about it. When you pick a monster to set up against your party, you don't say "well these are unskilled raider orcs. They're roaming marauders with no industry, so everything they have is stolen and poorly cared for. That means rusty chain mail, stitched up hide, and rotting wooden shields. They're poorly fed and don't have healthcare of any kind. That probably adds up to maybe 13 AC, and 15 hp." Nobody has ever done that. You don't say "here are the orcs, this is how I described them, so given that fiction, the mechanics are probably X or so." You do it the opposite way. You say "my players are level 1, and an appropriate challenge for level 1 characters is a handful of CR 1/4 creatures, so I'll throw some orcs at them." If, for some reason, you wanted really powerful, dangerous orcs that were fit to fight a level 10 party, you'd go look at what a CR 10 monster looks like and reskin one or modify the base orc to fit. Then, if you need the fiction to make sense, you ask yourself, well why does this orc have AC 17? And then you choose to describe him with shining, well-wrought rune-covered halfplate, or whatever.

If we really need skills to be incoherently freeform, why not just make them fundamentally the same? In other words, don't put your characters in front of a raging, rapid-filled river and then decide that the DC for something like that is probably 20 because it's nasty and deadly. Put your level 10 characters in front of a river, and then decide that it must be raging and full of rapids because an appropriate DC for a level 10 character is 20, and a dc 20 river is probably raging and full of rapids. If your character wants to climb a tree to fight some kobolds, it must be a sturdy with evenly-spaced branches DC 6 because an encounter with kobolds is an easy encounter. If your character wants to climb a tree to fight some ice devils, it must be an ichor-covered, icy murder-plant DC 22 because an encounter with ice devils is a high-level challenge.

Then all the DMG has to do is tell us what DC is considered appropriate for what level of character, and DMs can adjust the environment of an encounter both beforehand and on-the-fly to match. That's like a 2-inch table and you're done.

(Although I think in this scenario, we'd also benefit strongly from a quick reference table for what type of effects are appropriate at any given level/DC as well, in case a player wants to try a stunt. This would be extremely helpful for spell design, as well, since for some reason the only guidance the DMG gives on those is damage ranges. Something like "obscuring an X radius area is appropriate at 1st level if you spend a resource like a spell slot, or at 6th level at-will." Then if you want to make a spell that obscures stuff, you know it can be 1st level, and if your player asks if they can kick up a cloud of dust by swinging their hammer in the sand, that should be a DC 12 of some kind because that's the DC for a tier 2 effect, and if you want to make a magic item that makes a continual cloud of fog you can safely give it to them at level 6 and know you're unlikely to break anything.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Think about it. When you pick a monster to set up against your party, you don't say "well these are unskilled raider orcs. They're roaming marauders with no industry, so everything they have is stolen and poorly cared for. That means rusty chain mail, stitched up hide, and rotting wooden shields. They're poorly fed and don't have healthcare of any kind. That probably adds up to maybe 13 AC, and 15 hp." Nobody has ever done that.


Uh...be careful with generalizations. That basically describes what I do regularly, if not every combat of every session. I use printed stat blocks as templates to create the actual ones, and values vary tremendously on either side of the stock values. And even when I do use the stat blocks straight, I always audit them to make sure they make sense with the fictional scenario, which often leads to changes. And always for thematic, not mechanical reasons. Heck, I've run many encounters, including with bosses, where there was no fixed stat block at the point combat began.

Furthermore...this is exactly how it's supposed to run. Formalized stat blocks are a convenience, not a requirement or expectation.

[Darth Credence]

We could also look at this from completely the opposite direction: we could come at it from the idea that starting with the action and not the DC is backward to begin with.

Think about it. When you pick a monster to set up against your party, you don't say "well these are unskilled raider orcs. They're roaming marauders with no industry, so everything they have is stolen and poorly cared for. That means rusty chain mail, stitched-up hide, and rotting wooden shields. They're poorly fed and don't have healthcare of any kind. That probably adds up to maybe 13 AC, and 15 hp." Nobody has ever done that. You don't say "here are the orcs, this is how I described them, so given that fiction, the mechanics are probably X or so." You do it the opposite way. You say "my players are level 1, and an appropriate challenge for level 1 characters is a handful of CR 1/4 creatures, so I'll throw some orcs at them." If, for some reason, you wanted really powerful, dangerous orcs that were fit to fight a level 10 party, you'd go look at what a CR 10 monster looks like and reskin one or modify the base orc to fit. Then, if you need the fiction to make sense, you ask yourself, well why does this orc have AC 17? And then you choose to describe him with shining, well-wrought rune-covered halfplate, or whatever.

If we really need skills to be incoherently freeform, why not just make them fundamentally the same? In other words, don't put your characters in front of a raging, rapid-filled river and then decide that the DC for something like that is probably 20 because it's nasty and deadly. Put your level 10 characters in front of a river, and then decide that it must be raging and full of rapids because an appropriate DC for a level 10 character is 20, and a dc 20 river is probably raging and full of rapids. If your character wants to climb a tree to fight some kobolds, it must be a sturdy with evenly-spaced branches DC 6 because an encounter with kobolds is an easy encounter. If your character wants to climb a tree to fight some ice devils, it must be an ichor-covered, icy murder-plant DC 22 because an encounter with ice devils is a high-level challenge.

Then all the DMG has to do is tell us what DC is considered appropriate for what level of character, and DMs can adjust the environment of an encounter both beforehand and on-the-fly to match. That's like a 2-inch table and you're done.

(Although I think in this scenario, we'd also benefit strongly from a quick reference table for what type of effects are appropriate at any given level/DC as well, in case a player wants to try a stunt. This would be extremely helpful for spell design, as well, since for some reason the only guidance the DMG gives on those is damage ranges. Something like "obscuring an X radius area is appropriate at 1st level if you spend a resource like a spell slot, or at 6th level at-will." Then if you want to make a spell that obscures stuff, you know it can be 1st level, and if your player asks if they can kick up a cloud of dust by swinging their hammer in the sand, that should be a DC 12 of some kind because that's the DC for a tier 2 effect, and if you want to make a magic item that makes a continual cloud of fog you can safely give it to them at level 6 and know you're unlikely to break anything.)

I think this is good, but only for part of the issue, and may be a part of why the discussion doesn't advance.

For planned challenges, this is absolutely what I do. If the party is going to have something that is worthy of being called an "encounter", then I will plan out beforehand what it is they are running into, and be able to have something appropriate. If they are traveling overland, and they have to cross a river that I have not already fully planned out, then I will either have them just cross the river, or I will describe the river in such a way to match what should be a doable challenge for their level. If I want it to be a struggle, then I will make it something that will require an average person of their level to roll an 11 or better on a skill they are proficient in with a stat they have a +1 in. If they are going to swim the river at level 5, that means the DC would be a 15, and I will describe the river as raging enough that it is appropriate to a DC 15. Someone with an 18 strength and athletics proficiency is going to have an easier time doing it, someone with an 8 strength and no proficiency is going to have it rough, but add in some advantage by having stronger swimmers drag ropes across to give weaker swimmers a line, and the party probably makes it. If I want the Wildlings who try to go over the ice wall to have to be very good to survive, then I might make it so that they have to roll a 15 or even a 20 to have a shot, while planning for a number of ways that the number can be lowered, like with appropriate equipment for the climb. I just kind of assumed that is how everyone does it when they are planning out the encounter in advance.

But I think a lot of this discussion is more about when the DM has to come up with something on the fly because a character chose to do something unexpected. I have, in the past, described a yawning chasm, and thrown in that the torchlight reflects off of the cave walls on the opposite side, causing sparkling flashes to appear in the corner oof their eyes as they walk along. One player asks if they can tell what is reflecting. Well, this was fluff of description, so I went with, "it's far enough away that you can't tell in the torchlight." Next thing out was that the fighter wanted to leap across the chasm and try to find out. OK, but there isn't a place to land - just cave walls. Fine, can I leap across and jam my axe into the wall to hang from, and find out? It's 25' across, there is no way to run towards the edge for 10' because you are walking along a 5' ledge. OK, but can I run straight, then push off this wall to change my direction and leap that way? At this point, I figured that we were doing this, and so I said, OK,that's 7' longer than your normal jump, and you are redirecting plus trying to catch yourself with an axe. How about we say all of that adds together to be a DC 25 Athletics check, although if you at least get 20, you'll catch yourself on the wall over there, maybe lower down than you would have planned? They said, awesome, I'll roll it (they got a 2, ended up falling to the bottom, but survived the fall, and the stuff was quartz crystals in the rock).

I have been assuming, and perhaps I shouldn't have, that everyone was talking about a case like the second one. If some of us are thinking what I am, and some of us are talking about preplanned stuff, then we have a fundamental miscommunication.

I do note that you have said that it may help to have a quick reference table for stunts, but that is where we end up with the bloat issue. A stunt that may occur would be someone wanting to dive across a doorway and fire off a crossbow bolt at a static target while doing so. And we could have a reference for that. Listed in a table as "Shoot ranged weapon while jumping - DC15." And when the player says they want to shoot a longbow doing that, you get a DC 15 roll. Then the next person wants to do it with a hand crossbow, and says it should be easier than with a long bow. Yeah, it probably should be, so the table now needs "Shoot one-handed ranged weapon while jumping - DC12." Then hope no one argues it would be easier with a short bow than a long bow. And then you get the person who says they want to jump and shoot a crossbow, and the DM looks up "Jump and shoot" and sees nothing there, and doesn't keep looking for "shoot while jumping", so the table failed them. Easy enough to resolve, with some cross-referencing, but it takes up space. And when someone wants to swing on a rope and shoot, is that the same thing? Can we get away with "shooting while off the ground" as the entry for all of them? I would think there is a difference in the ability to do it, and it might even be argued that the rope swinging is acrobatics instead, so it would need a different set-up.

I have no issues with tables, I just see how it wouldn't take a lot of detail before you end up with the Big Book of Skill Checks, and you are going through the index regularly to find the best fit. I actually think that's a good idea, and would probably buy such a book to cover some of the things I don't really have a frame of reference for.

Finally, never say never - I have started with the fiction and based the stats on it. Just recently added muls to the game, and had described them to the players when they saw them at a distance. Took that description and homebrewed the monsters based on it.

[Zhorn]

Second, anyone have a good formula they're using for jump distance? (Or even an ok formula? a bad one that could use a review?) I just use total distance needed to jump as the DC. The minimum distance they make is their strength score. Since jump triples your minimum distance, I say non-magical jumping has a max of x2 your strength. So, an 8 Strength George of the Jungle can jump a max of 16', and it's a DC 16 attempt. (if the chasm is only 15', it's only a DC 15 attempt). With a -1 Str mod, and probably not being proficient, George isn't going to have an easy time of making that jump, but it certainly isn't as impossible as trying to jump 20' (though a running start certainly helps!)

A few of us posted some back near the very start of the thread


A few campaigns back our table used the STR score as a flat baseline, but trying to jump further was an athletics check; where the total was applied the same way a modifier is drawn from a score. ie: roll a 18, that's a +4 to the distance in feet. Pile on the expertise, inspiration, advantage, etc and roll a 32 = that's +11
This is my preferred method still. For a non-magical jump without any other fantastical/supernatural effects it keeps the modification to the distance grounded around what the character can already do by RAW, and the formula is already from the game itself, just applied elsewhere.
Also posted a reference someone did for Foundry VTT that uses a different formula that spits out the same DC to distance modified relationship.

- The second is just a reverse engineering I saw Ichabod (ikabodo) have set up on one of the foundry discords I'm on
Athletics DC = 10 + ( Target distance - Jump score)*2
say I have a STR of 18 (jump score) and I want to jump 22 feet (target distance)
Athletics DC = 10 + (22-18)*2 = 10+8 = DC 18 Athletics check

What i particularly like about this is how it maintains a sense of consistency between characters with different STR scores
- A barbarian with 20 strength wanting to jump 1 extra foot distance for 21 ft...
- A wizard with 10 strength wanting to jump 1 extra foot distance for 11 ft...
for both that 1 extra foot is the same DC 12

compared with the oneD&D suggestion for a jump check, that +1 extra foot of distance for our barbarian would be a DC 21 and for the wizard a DC 11

Some others mentions

You can (no action) make a STR (athletics) check to long jump, DC 10 = +5 feet + 1 foot for every additional you beat the DC by. Failure just means you don't get extra distance.

my own personal made up house rule of jumping be DC 10 + 1 per 1 ft higher than your ST score
Better than nothing, though I personally think the d20 dominates a little too much in those cases.
Still preferable to the oneD&D method though.

[Blatant Beast]

No I'm not. I don't understand exactly what the confusion is. Context doesn't require an entire adventure. The DC for climbing a wall might want to know if it's slippery, are there handholds, is there in an incline, anyone attacking you. So if any of those exist in the example in the adventure, that's helpful. But you don't need the entire adventure for that.

There is an old adage about giving out fish vs teaching people how to fish.
If you have taken on the responsibility of being a DM, I would strongly recommend mastering the skill, of making decisions, and thinking through what will work.

I know that sounds a bit pompous, but honestly, the more you practice, the easier it becomes.

In the case of a wall, you decide to describe the wall as being made of partially tool shaped rocks, held together with a crumbling mortar. It sounds pretty easy to climb to you, so you assign a Strength(Athletics) check of DC 10 to climb the wall.

Then, it is just a matter of deciding if the incline, or moisture of the rocks is something that is going to make a numerical impact on the DC.

Of course the primary consideration is going to be whether you as a DM want the players to climb the wall.

Campaign style also matters, and matters significantly in terms of this process.

A Sandbox Campaign is different than a LotR..epic adventure campaign….a gritty realism campaign that wants to emphasize tough survival like situations is going to have higher environmental navigation DCs than a standard campaign, to encourage PCs to use Equipment and Tool Proficiencies, meanwhile a Wuxia style campaign is going to probably have lower DCs for jumps and such so everybody can Kung Fu fight.

I am not a genius. I’m actually just an average Joe, (at least until I pick up a guitar…no wait that is Elvis Costello)….I just put the work in, played around until I reached conclusions…and am now able to provide for myself as a DM, fish-wise.

No one is objecting to more guidance, inherently. What some of us are skeptical about is that these desired example DCs are not used as excuses for people to bring out the RAW Hammer and go Brainy Smurf on our Donkeys. (To us a Pex-ism).

“But Papa Smurf, (aka the DC Chart), always says, slick walls are DC 12 to climb, so why is climbing this wall on the Prime Material Plane of Jupiter harder, Gravity is not RAW”….and other such annoyances.

Uh...be careful with generalizations. That basically describes what I do regularly, if not every combat of every session. I use printed stat blocks as templates to create the actual ones, and values vary tremendously on either side of the stock values. And even when I do use the stat blocks straight, I always audit them to make sure they make sense with the fictional scenario, which often leads to changes. And always for thematic, not mechanical reasons. Heck, I've run many encounters, including with bosses, where there was no fixed stat block at the point combat began.

Furthermore...this is exactly how it's supposed to run. Formalized stat blocks are a convenience, not a requirement or expectation.

I do very much the same. Funny, how just one page ago I said the notion of mandatory statblock usage was going to rear it’s ugly head.

[Sindeloke]

And we could have a reference for that. Listed in a table as "Shoot ranged weapon while jumping - DC15." And when the player says they want to shoot a longbow doing that, you get a DC 15 roll. Then the next person wants to do it with a hand crossbow, and says it should be easier than with a long bow. Yeah, it probably should be, so the table now needs "Shoot one-handed ranged weapon while jumping - DC12." Then hope no one argues it would be easier with a short bow than a long bow.

Eh. To me, avoiding that kind of irrelevant granularity is the entire point of 5e. "It should be easier to do this with a hand crossbow than a longbow" is like saying "it should be easier to stealth in half-plate than splint mail." Like, sure, why not, that's probably true. They're both still just going to impose disadvantage, because the difference in a bounded accuracy system is tenths of a DC, not something the system has any interest in representing. If a player wants to argue minutiae like that with me, I've got thousands of dollars of 3.5 books collecting dust that we can swap over to, lol.

But even then I think "shoot one-handed while jumping" is still a smaller scale than I was really picturing in terms of effects. What I'm looking for is something more broad than that, like straight up "cross a hazardous area that is X times larger than your movement." Like in the long run, I don't care if you shoot a rope, or do a sick jump and lodge your axe and climb up, or yeet your halfling friend, or spend an hour using Move Earth to make the world's least plausible bridge. To me, the whole idea of a class-based game is that, for any given CR, any character can contribute, in their own specific way. So the relevant thing is the challenge itself. The means by which it is (or is not) solved is up to the players, but whether the ends are plausible should be universal and generic.

That's why I think spell effects in particular are a good baseline; if someone in the party can cast Water Breathing, for example, then we know that, for this party, "spend up to a day underwater" is a level-appropriate challenge, and every class should have some attainable, class-appropriate means to do so. So if the ranger says "what's the DC to craft some swim bladders out of these alligator guts that will hold up for a day," the answer isn't "what DC is realistic based on the equipment they have," it's "what DC is reasonably achievable at level 5." And yeah, maybe that means your guy eats dirt trying to jump across the chasm, because he wants to do something the game doesn't expect him to be able to reliably do at level 2. Maybe he's level 17 and it turns out to be trivial. But what I'm interested in is making the game feel good and play out in a conceptually consistent way, so being literal about what he actually tries is less interesting to me than making sure that he's thematically likely to achieve a given overall task. (Not to say I'd let them "just get across it" without having to provide some kind of method, as your axe-wielding friend did. Think of it like a social check; usually you wouldn't demand a player use exact words, because they don't have charisma 18, but you wouldn't let them just go "I convince him to help me" either, you'd expect them to have some kind of plan for what they're going to bring up.)

And if you look how broadly applicable that is, like, "cross a hazardous area" could mean a chasm, sure. It could also mean a field of toxic sulfur vents, or a room that's been magically altered to have weird gravity. So we're not really setting an Athletics DC. We're setting potential DCs to jump, to lodge an arrow, to use Arcana to make rope out of a Web spell, to craft a face mask that will keep toxic air out, to not get confused or disoriented by floating erratically around a room. All at the cost of one entry.

(Which yes you could poke holes in all day if you like, but this is off the cuff and free, it's a conceptual example, not necessarily a literal one).


I use printed stat blocks as templates to create the actual ones

Yes. You use them as templates. When you make up stuff off the cuff, you make it up off the basis of the examples and the math that you have internalized that have been provided for you by WotC. This is precisely the argument that we are making for DC tables.

[Segev]

I don't think my desired solution would be anywhere near as large as 200 pages. By my count, there are at most 51 listed applications of skills (assuming each kind of sneaking mentioned under Stealth gets a table of its own, which it probably wouldn't, since Stealth works best as an opposed check, and that the social skills all use a duplicate of the existing tables). If you can fit eight tables on one page, which might be possible, that only requires 8 1/2 pages of tables; even with half as many tables per page it's only 17.Agreed; I just wasn't going to argue with the description of it. Ideally, such a book would have a lengthy discussion about genres, genre conventions, and choosing DCs to emulate them, amongst other things.


This is fascinating to me. I can't think of anything easier for me at the table than thinking of a DC off the top of my head. For me, it's entirely intuitive and takes less a second on average. It would take me much longer to open up a book and consult a table.

Is this really a mental workout for you and other DMs? I'm sincerely curious. What do you find trips you up in this process?

Largely, not knowing how hard something should be.

[schm0]

Largely, not knowing how hard something should be.

What it should be is whatever you want it to be. You look at the situation, and you say "that's hard" or "that's easy" or "that's somewhere in between", etc.

Like, what is your thought process when you come across an example like this thread talks about. Let's say the player has a 15 strength, and a 20 foot gap to jump. What part do you find difficult in determining the DC?

[Theodoxus]

Depends on your own experience, like I noted. I did long jumps in middle and high school. I did standing high jumps too. I know from experience (though they're ~40 year old memories at this point) what it takes to hurl yourself 10+ feet across, or 5+ feet straight up. I would suspect most of us have similar PE experiences. Figuring out a DC for a jump well, is pure home brew, since the game gives us a RAW formula and nothing else other than the whisper of an idea that there might be more.

Ok, since we're talking RAW and not what we wished the skill system was like, looking over the ability checks as written, for Dex, it mentions 'control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent'. I've never done that. The closest would be using a wheelbarrow to move stones from my front yard into a backyard canyon. I was dumping them out on the rim though, so it wasn't steep by any means. I can certainly visualize trying to control a laden cart, using my memory of not tipping over the wheelbarrow as a stand in. Ok, I can probably come up with a DC that my players will accept.

'Steer a chariot around a tight turn.' Similar to the cart, more like driving a street derby car - though you have horses instead of gravity... movie magic helps here, but I think my DC would probably be off from a professional stunt driver who has had actual chariot experience.

'Pick a lock' - Never done it, certainly never a medieval style lock. Though I suspect most people think of modern locks anyway, with modern picks. I mean, the DC is based on the lock anyway, so it's pretty static, and the DM can decide if they want to make it super easy, super hard, or something in between anyway.

'Securely tie up a prisoner / wriggle free of bonds' - this seems like an opposed check. Easy enough.

'Play a stringed instrument'. Not sure why Dex is for stringed only... I went to a music conservatory and learned to play all the orchestral instruments. Woodwinds take more manual dexterity than strings. Heck, brass instruments take more than stringed... weird. But honestly, playing any instrument is far more intelligence than dexterity... rote memorization of both the musical notes and the corresponding location/finger pattern on the specific instrument matters more than how gracefully you move. As a Dex check, even Flight of the Bumblebee isn't particularly high... as an Int check, hell yeah.

Other Intelligence Checks... How hard is it to forge a document by hand? to me, that's nigh impossible. Copying someone else's lettering style; maybe in a medieval society that doesn't have an exacting science on graphology is easier to deceive... but at that point, can you actually fail?

'estimating value' - how do you put a DC on an estimate? Especially for an items value... "I say old chap, this rhinestone is totes worth 40 gold." "nah, brah, that's a shiny cobblestone, I'll give you 10 pence."
I guess as an opposed roll? Seems far more like a Charisma check at that point (those most of the Int checks feel more charisma-y.)

So again, if one doesn't have a concrete feel for how hard an ability check should be to accomplish because at best, you've seen some actor portray it but never did it yourself... shouldn't one defer to experts who have? Or at the very least, defer to the math engineers who created the engine the entire game runs on? Even if they don't know for a specific action, they have a much keener grasp (presumably) on how the system math works and what the DC should be for a character of a specific level with or without a specific skill proficiency.

[schm0]

So again, if one doesn't have a concrete feel for how hard an ability check should be to accomplish because at best, you've seen some actor portray it but never did it yourself... shouldn't one defer to experts who have? Or at the very least, defer to the math engineers who created the engine the entire game runs on? Even if they don't know for a specific action, they have a much keener grasp (presumably) on how the system math works and what the DC should be for a character of a specific level with or without a specific skill proficiency.

Your response is honestly fascinating. It is so different from my own experience. To me, skill checks are momentary mechanics that are resolved in seconds. It is difficult to imagine spending time worrying about the accuracy of such things. Do you ever think you might be overthinking things a bit? I don't say that to be rude, but that's what a lot of the thought process here reads like to me. I also say this because it seems like such a departure from the guidance in the DMG, as well.

Because for me, my entire thought process is pretty much this: "Oh, wow, ok.... that sounds really hard, but it's not that hard... let's go with 22." Sure, once in a while I might run into a sticky situation with competing factors (ok, so the goblins hid the trap in a clever way, but then again, they're goblins, etc...) but it's never going to take me more than a few seconds to arrive at a number. I have more important things to worry about, if I'm being truthful.

I guess to me, there's no such thing as a "concrete feel" when it comes to ability checks. The best we can ever do is guess.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

[Pex]

1) Thanks!

2) Totally agree, which is why I think it'd be nifty to do as a thread. I doubt many people here have access to every. single. module for 5E, especially conversions of earlier works. And I also doubt most would be willing to do the work of scouring through them - but if we could get a few onboard that would collate that kind of data, that would be a boon, no? Heck, it'd be interesting (to me at least) to see what kind of variation module editors have for similar tasks. (Hopefully not a lot, but...)

This was done two years ago or so. It doesn't solve anything for me though. It doesn't matter what common ground we can find in all the modules. They'll never be used in whatever games I play because the DMs I play don't care what strangers on the internet they're not even aware of think about skill DCs. It's not a published work to reference. It's fine here as a thought exercise for those who are interested in doing it again. The fact that it's not still around making the rounds in all gaming forums and talk of the town house rules of real games shows it was worthless then and worthless now. It's certainly won't change anyone's mind here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. You use them as templates. When you make up stuff off the cuff, you make it up off the basis of the examples and the math that you have internalized that have been provided for you by WotC. This is precisely the argument that we are making for DC tables.

Only out of convenience. I've been doing it since before I had a DMG or MM. In fact, I was doing it in 4e as well, during my first session. It's not particularly hard. Same with DCs. Once you realize that there isn't a right answer, really, it's actually quite trivial. And these days most of my monsters are fully custom and don't use WotC's borked math at all.

But what you said no one does, we now have multiple people saying that they exactly do. So yeah.

Not only that, but the skill DC math is even easier. Is it something you, personally, want to have everyone have a 50/50 shot at at worst? DC 10. Hard for a regular guy but 50/50 for someone ok at it? DC 15. Hard unless you're a specialist? DC 20.

Note that there's no calculations, no calibrating this task vs other tasks. There is no universal right answer, because it's dependent on your players like and dislikes, the tone of the adventure, the exact details of the situation, etc. And even more, there's a big chance the exact DC won't matter at all. If they roll below 10, that's a no regardless. If they roll above 20, that's a yes, regardless. And most things are 15 or below, so really a 15+ is a yes in most circumstances. And DC 20 stuff is usually pretty easy to separate from DC 15-. So the difference only matters if they roll between a 11 and a 14.

[Telok]

If they roll below 10, that's a no regardless. If they roll above 20, that's a yes, regardless.

I've played with a couple of those DMs. Sucks ass. They're all novices. Your +9 bonus to something you spent an expertise on doesn't matter because you rolled a 8, but if you'd used a first level spell instead it would have worked. One of them also assumed that because the word "bard" showed up on the character sheet that it was some sort of horny goofball minstrel who 'went to bard school' despite the character wearing plate and tanking charisma. Been there, not going back.

And the thing about collecting dcs from the adventures was done too, on this very board in the first year or so of 5e. It got shouted down because apparently all the official modules have crap dc setting that doesn't apply to anything because you can never know the exact placement of all the pebbles in a handful of gravel or something yet thats too exact and the skill system isn't calibrated to that level of detail so the dcs are obviously wrong.

While I agreed the module dcs were crap its because they had things like dc 10 acrobatics checks to walk on a gentle slope covered in gravel, having a check to bribe someone after giving them the bribe they asked for, a roll to check a corpse's pockets to find a letter, or a "roll every round for several rounds to not fall in lava" thing. Not because they were mysteriously both too specific and too vague at the same time. And yeah, go check, I have a vague recollection that the average dc across everything at the time was around 15. Which matches the DMG making 15 the default normal dc.

I still don't know what a +10 medicine bonus does. No wonder nobody takes that one.

[Gurgeh]

I've played with a couple of those DMs. Sucks ass. They're all novices. Your +9 bonus to something you spent an expertise on doesn't matter because you rolled a 8, but if you'd used a first level spell instead it would have worked.
I think PhoenixPhyre's "fail below ten, pass above twenty" is intended to include bonuses from ability scores, proficiency, etc. (because otherwise - yes, you might as well just flip coins for everything)

[GloatingSwine]

So again, if one doesn't have a concrete feel for how hard an ability check should be to accomplish because at best, you've seen some actor portray it but never did it yourself... shouldn't one defer to experts who have? Or at the very least, defer to the math engineers who created the engine the entire game runs on?

And this is really the thing.

How hard a task seems to an earth-human is completely irrelevant because D&D humans, even ones on an absolute baseline of proficiency, are clearly not like us. We return to the crossbow, a totally average individual who has never seen a heavy crossbow before can pick it up and start firing it about ten to twenty times faster than a trained human from our world (once every six seconds vs once every one or two minutes which is the rate they were used in battles).

So the task should fall to the people who chose, through the mechanics they did firmly systematise, to at least present the way the entities they have created fit into the physics they have created.

I would go further and to say that any task that a character could do which refer only to the properties of their own body should have DCs visible to the players because they represent the physics of the world their characters are part of and should intuitively know. A character knows roughly how far they can jump if they try really hard, just as we know that about our own bodies, anything circumstantial like terrain is supposed to be a source of advantage/disadvantage or a tradeoff offered (like "you can make that but you'll land prone") not a modification to the DC.

DCs where the character is unaware of some feature of the task until they attempt it remain in the realm of the DM.

[Slipjig]

You made a weak, non-athletic monk. You, literally are George of the Jungle.

No table of set DCs is going to stop that PC from sucking. Don’t Dump stat Strength on monks folks…has Baldur’s Gate 3 taught you nothing?
While it's true that a character with low STR and no Athletics probably shouldn't have been the designated tree climber, a 20 DC on that is absurd.

A 20 DC is something where someone who is not only naturally talented (high stats) but is also a trained expert (proficiency/expertise) is going to fail a significant amount of the time. Climbing a tree is something regularly and safely achieved by small children.

[Blatant Beast]

Yes. You use them as templates. When you make up stuff off the cuff, you make it up off the basis of the examples and the math that you have internalized that have been provided for you by WotC. This is precisely the argument that we are making for DC tables.

Nah, I have not internalized the numbers. If anything I tend to either port elements in from other RPG systems, or make thing ups out of whole cloth.

5e is a robust system, in part because it is easily modified, and generally lacks super fine tuned elements that require finesse to use. An Adult Green Dragon and Adult Black Dragon, (might be young adult catergory, away from books), have a differing CR level, but almost identical statistics.

5e is not so granular a system, that a small variance renders the system, or a part of the system unusable. To use an analogy, 5e is the AK-47 that one keeps in your gun locker, rarely cleans, and still fires when you decide to use it.

Unlike many internet participants that seek an adrenaline inducing argument, and are not so concerned with a conversation of listening and responding….I actually want to really engage. Perhaps instead of presuming what others think, or making assumptions…why don’t we just ask each other?

Strikes me as more productive.



I still don't know what a +10 medicine bonus does. No wonder nobody takes that one.

My inaugural 5e Campaign, (that just wrapped up), ran for close to 10 years of real time, and a player had the Medicine skill.

A lack of pre-made use examples, also means a lack of pre-made use restrictions.

The player treated the skill like a puzzle, and enjoyed trailblazing what she could do with the skill. I, as the DM, derived much pleasure in watching a friend get creative, and come up with some clever uses for an option most consider garbage and just ignore.

Analyzing creatures for weakness, using the Medicine Skill to stabilize Dying Creatures without a Healer’s Kit, or actually restoring Hit Points with high Wisdom(Medicine) die roll, determining cause of death and other CSI style feats of wonder. The limits of the skill are what a group decides.

If you decide the Medicine skill does nothing, then it does nothing. One, does not have to decide that, however.


While it's true that a character with low STR and no Athletics probably shouldn't have been the designated tree climber, a 20 DC on that is absurd. Climbing a tree is something regularly and safely achieved by small children.

That judgement depends upon the actual tree in question, does it not?
The smallish Oak Tree in a local park, is probably trivial to climb, but what about a Redwood tree? What is the DC to climb a tree covered in spiny, spike like thorns, covered in ants?

The word “Tree” could mean so many different things, we need more information to discuss the appropriate DC inteligently.

Honestly, the image of George of the Jungle swinging from the top of a Rain Forrest canopy is just plain wrong…look at the hunting practices of indigenous tribes in the Amazon or Daintree Rainforests.

In either case, the issue that Pex described in that post, in my mind ultimately boils down to miscommunication between the DM and the Players, in terms of expectations.

[GloatingSwine]

That judgement depends upon the actual tree in question, does it not?
The smallish Oak Tree in a local park, is probably trivial to climb, but what about a Redwood tree? What is the DC to climb a tree covered in spiny, spike like thorns, covered in ants?


As far as 5e is concerned none of them have DCs unless someone's been painting grease on them and made them slippery.

[Blatant Beast]

Right, and one does not need a pre-determined list of Tree Climbing DCs based of tree type, because what matters is the description the DM gave, and the context of the climbing.

Given no time restraints, PCs with climbing spikes, can, (in my judgement), climb a Redwood tree, no die roll required.

If the DM describes a regular, smallish oak tree, I as a player would absolutely question why the DC to climb it was determined to be DC 20.

The DC is not matching the description, and I would want to seek clarification to what I am imagining. D&D is a game of the inter-subjective, dialogue is needed and required.

It is fine to ask a DM: “Wait, why is the DC so high?”, and it is perfectly fine for a DM to alter a DC after consultation/rumination.

Game style also matters. A Gritty Realism game, might look more like the film the Revenant, while a game that wants to be super heroes might have a more MCU feel, and a Wuxia game might have fight scenes inspired by the fight on immensely tall Bamboo trees in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

One positive behind the generalist design of 5e rules, is one system can cover a bunch of different themes, without adding oddles of optional rules components, (ala GURPs or 3e).

I do not think people try to repurpose Call of Chthulu’s rules to play a campaign that is meant to be representing a whimsical, Fairy Realm, for example.

People do use 5e to represent Horror games and Whimsical Disney like games, and that is due to the broad nature of the rule design.

More specificity, either limits 5e to a defined theme, or would require a big book of DC lists, (which would be incomplete, because a small group of designers will not imagine and quantify everything that can be imagined).

WotC, probably, would produce a big book of DCs if they thought it would sell well.

The overarching question is there a sufficient desire for such a product amongst D&D fan base as a whole?

I certainly do not know, but my fear is one loses flexibility, due to the obsession over RAW that often permeates online D&D discussions.

[GloatingSwine]

Right, and one does not need a pre-determined list of Tree Climbing DCs based of tree type, because what matters is the description the DM gave, and the context of the climbing.

Given no time restraints, PCs with climbing spikes, can, (in my judgement), climb a Redwood tree, no die roll required.


A PC with no special equipment can climb a surface which is not either slippery or entirely lacking in handholds at 1/2 their movement rate or 1/3 in difficult terrain. That's how Climbing works in 5e. Every PC is a practiced free climber no matter their class, proficiencies, or attributes. (Remember when I said that how difficult a task is to a real world human has no bearing on D&D characters)

So unless someone has been at this redwood with a plane and sander or pot of grease they just climb it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think PhoenixPhyre's "fail below ten, pass above twenty" is intended to include bonuses from ability scores, proficiency, etc. (because otherwise - yes, you might as well just flip coins for everything)

Yeah. It's "is the total, including all bonuses and maluses less than 10/greater than 20". Which is how the word "roll" is used throughout D&D. It's why we have to specify "natural" for a 20 to be a critical hit on an attack roll.

[Telok]

A lack of pre-made use examples, also means a lack of pre-made use restrictions.
...
If you decide the Medicine skill does nothing, then it does nothing. One, does not have to decide that, however

So you made up a bunch of rules for using the skill? Why? Weren't the existing rules enough to make it useful? If you think a lack of direction is better than examples then shouldn't all the skills and tools be written with the absolute minimum possible information on what they're about?

Generally I think all the 5e skills need are a little 3x3 grid of columns: grim, heroic, superheroic, and rows: dc 10, 15, 20. Put a single sentence of what sort of thing can happen in each square, do that for each skill and call it good. Then you could likely remove several chunks of text from the skill section too, to make room in the book for more spells. By going with a single general example for each cell you get a spread of examples that are explicitly inclusive rather than printed as though they are exclusive like the current set up, and they're varied across game style so people don't have to be afraid of seeing dc lists they don't like.

[Pex]

Right, and one does not need a pre-determined list of Tree Climbing DCs based of tree type, because what matters is the description the DM gave, and the context of the climbing.

Given no time restraints, PCs with climbing spikes, can, (in my judgement), climb a Redwood tree, no die roll required.

If the DM describes a regular, smallish oak tree, I as a player would absolutely question why the DC to climb it was determined to be DC 20.

The DC is not matching the description, and I would want to seek clarification to what I am imagining. D&D is a game of the inter-subjective, dialogue is needed and required.

It is fine to ask a DM: “Wait, why is the DC so high?”, and it is perfectly fine for a DM to alter a DC after consultation/rumination.

Game style also matters. A Gritty Realism game, might look more like the film the Revenant, while a game that wants to be super heroes might have a more MCU feel, and a Wuxia game might have fight scenes inspired by the fight on immensely tall Bamboo trees in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

One positive behind the generalist design of 5e rules, is one system can cover a bunch of different themes, without adding oddles of optional rules components, (ala GURPs or 3e).

I do not think people try to repurpose Call of Chthulu’s rules to play a campaign that is meant to be representing a whimsical, Fairy Realm, for example.

People do use 5e to represent Horror games and Whimsical Disney like games, and that is due to the broad nature of the rule design.

More specificity, either limits 5e to a defined theme, or would require a big book of DC lists, (which would be incomplete, because a small group of designers will not imagine and quantify everything that can be imagined).

WotC, probably, would produce a big book of DCs if they thought it would sell well.

The overarching question is there a sufficient desire for such a product amongst D&D fan base as a whole?

I certainly do not know, but my fear is one loses flexibility, due to the obsession over RAW that often permeates online D&D discussions.

So you're telling me that as a player if I don't like the DC the DM gave I can question him on it? That will go well.

You think climbing a tree is easy. I may think climbing a tree is easy. That DM did not. He wasn't playing the game wrong. He just disagreed with you on the difficulty of climbing a tree, and he is entitled to do so. The game allows him. It is that disagreement that makes player choices irrelevant on skill use because it only depends on who is DM that day. It is the game designers' job to set the baseline of difficulty of tasks. They don't have to list every tree. They don't need to distinguish between oak and palm. They could set different DCs as examples. List a few common items for each DC number in a climb table where one line has oak tree and another has palm. If the PC wants to climb an elm tree, that's where DM adjudication comes in because DMs are not idiots and need not to see specifically elm listed on the table. They can reasonable see elm is closer to oak than palm and go with that number. If the table just said tree but pole exists as a higher DC, if the PC wants to climb a palm tree the DM can use pole DC.

However, that's all pedantry. No one is demanding a DC for every possible scenario of everything. What is being asked are examples, a few of the more common likely scenarios. The impossibility of having DCs for everything everywhere in the entire universe does not prevent having any DC tables at all.

[Keltest]

So you're telling me that as a player if I don't like the DC the DM gave I can question him on it? That will go well.

Yes, this is how social interaction works. Your DM is presumably at least kind of friendly with you and interested in your having fun along with them.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah. It's "is the total, including all bonuses and maluses less than 10/greater than 20". Which is how the word "roll" is used throughout D&D. It's why we have to specify "natural" for a 20 to be a critical hit on an attack roll.

So, the idea being that everything has a chance to fail or succeed; the difficulty isn't important, so no DC, just whether all the circumstances equate to pass or fail - including the 'luck' portion of a d20 roll.

It's definitely something that is in the realm of simplified elegance that 5E is striving for. The only thing I would possibly amend for my own table, would be a modified failure (less harsh, like not falling prone on a missed jump, knowing that the answer you're providing probably isn't correct, etc.) on an 11-14. And then a modified success (less beneficial, like making the jump but then falling prone, not being 100% certain on the veracity of the answer, etc.) on a 15-19. But that's only because I typically do the same +/- 5 from the static DC.

ETA: I should have went back to your original post on the previous page, PP, since you kinda addressed my modification. But thinking on it more, it definitely seems like the best solution in a world that lacks DC examples.

DM: "You come upon a door, it appears locked"
Player: "I use Wisdom (Investigation) to examine the door. I rolled a modified 19."
DM: "Ok, the door is heavy wood reinforced with metal bands. You notice a sliver of metal inside the locking mechanism, might be a needle, might be a broken key."
Player: "I pull out my thieves' tools and try to pull out the metal, careful to avoid getting stuck by a needle! I rolled a modified 22"
DM: "Great, with your picks, you manage to pry loose the metal bit, and it is part of a key. It clatters to the floor. The lock isn't sophisticated, so you manage to unlock it."
Player: "I gently pull the door, listening for tell tale clicks, pops or other 'trap-like' noises. Perception, modified 12"
DM: rolling a d20, determining on the fly the DC for an opposed perception check is 17.
DM: "As you tug on the door, it seems to soundlessly open. However, Todrek the Cleric's passive perception catches an odd scratching sound behind him. As you open the door, a small alcove opens on the far side of the corridor and a dart shoots out, aimed at Todrek. Tod, you have advantage on the Dex save due to noticing the attack."

That's really clever. No where is a DC needed to know how hard it is to determine the strength of the door, the difficultly of the lock, how to detect hidden traps... Still use DCs for contested rolls, but since those aren't static, you don't need to know anything other than what kind of bonus to give the roll (if any). Skill monkeys can obviously boost their bonuses to where a 20+ is almost always guaranteed, but boosting skills like that comes at a cost, so I'm ok with that too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, the idea being that everything has a chance to fail or succeed; the difficulty isn't important, so no DC, just whether all the circumstances equate to pass or fail - including the 'luck' portion of a d20 roll.


It's not even that. This is a heuristic, basically designed to speed up resolution by discarding irrelevant results and parallelize the process. So the player can start rolling before I have formally defined the DC in my head. I've already discarded all the ones that can't fail, can't succeed, or where the failure/success outcomes are absurd or uninteresting--those don't even call for a check at all.

1. No DC I will ever set will be < 10. So any check result (including all bonuses) below 10 is going to be a failure in 99.9% of cases (the only exceptions are opposed checks and Passive Perception).

2. It's really rare for me to set a DC > 20, and those aren't (IMX) cases where speed is important. So unless I've already triggered the "wow, this is not going to be normal" handler, any check result of 20+ is a success.

3. I only use DCs of 10, 15, or 20 under normal circumstances. False precision is a big bugbear--it's like giving grades out of 100 when really the actual resolution is "which of these three bins does it fit into".

3. Even DC 20 is fairly rare for me, and generally stand out as obvious cases. I'd say 80% of my DCs are either 10 or 15, somewhat evenly balanced (but with wide distributions that vary over time). So 80% of the time when I'm calling for a check, anything 15+ is a pass. And the other 20%, I know really fast that the DC will be 20. Deciding between 10 and 15 is more work.

This means I'm really only having to decide between 10 and 15 (the slow thing) in that small fraction of cases where they rolled between 10 and 14 inclusive.

Yes, this does mean that things like Reliable Talent are way more powerful--a rogue with Reliable Talent basically has auto-success in anything where it applies, since the chances of him getting a 14- are slim (it only applies with proficiency, which is 4 at that point, so they can only fail a DC 15 check if their ability modifier is flat zero and they don't have expertise). I'm totally fine with that.

I'm not trying to challenge specialists with DCs. I fully expect specialists to pass basically any binary check they do--that's the benefit of specialization. I'm setting them based on the narrative. Which is why I'm so allergic to level-based DCs--that way lies bear lore and only letting specialists participate.

---------

As for non-binary results, I'm working through stuff there (have a thread in the general forums about theory there). And a lot of my "information gathering" checks already are degrees of success--if there's no way you know anything relevant (because it's a brand new creature/etc), I'll just tell you that, no roll. Otherwise, you'll know or be able to figure out something. So generally a 10+ means you get something, with how much depending on how well you rolled and the creature/topic at hand.

Plus, I tend to funnel those through the person best suited for it narratively. The fighter from Byssia will know way more about the native fauna and flora and culture there than the wizard who only knows stuff from old books from half-way across the continent. Etc.

[Darth Credence]

So you made up a bunch of rules for using the skill? Why? Weren't the existing rules enough to make it useful? If you think a lack of direction is better than examples then shouldn't all the skills and tools be written with the absolute minimum possible information on what they're about?

Generally I think all the 5e skills need are a little 3x3 grid of columns: grim, heroic, superheroic, and rows: dc 10, 15, 20. Put a single sentence of what sort of thing can happen in each square, do that for each skill and call it good. Then you could likely remove several chunks of text from the skill section too, to make room in the book for more spells. By going with a single general example for each cell you get a spread of examples that are explicitly inclusive rather than printed as though they are exclusive like the current set up, and they're varied across game style so people don't have to be afraid of seeing dc lists they don't like.

So, something like this:
Skill: Athletics



Grim
Heroic
Superheroic


DC10
Jump an additional 10% of baseline distance
Swim across a 25' wide river with class 3 rapids
Backflip from a standing location to a ledge at the same height as base running high jump


DC15
Swim across a 25' wide river with class 3 rapids
Run up wall jump to reach a location 1.5 times the normal base high jump
Double jumping distance


DC20
Climb 100' ice wall with equipment
Double jumping distance
Swim across 50'+ width river with class 6 rapids



My tables would be "heroic", and those would be the DCs I think I would set for those tasks, the others are my guesses for what the table type would do. I tried to get in examples of different things going along, to see if that would maximize the information. And I made sure I put in some things that just show the difference in DC between the different levels, as I thought that might make it a bit more helpful.

Does that help anyone with how to assign DCs to athletics checks? Honestly, I have no idea, because I have no idea if that is directing me or if I'm just using my own judgment still. So it's a serious question - does looking at a chart like that make it easier for anyone to decide how far a character can throw a discus in a superheroic game? Or ignoring more unlikely things, does that tell anyone what the appropriate DC would be in a grim game for a 10-strength character to jump 15' (I know what I would set it at, and it would be interesting to see if that is what everyone else thinks based on the chart.)

[Segev]

I am of the opinion that we're actaully given the DC for climbing trees. Climbing is done at half your movement rate. Only things that would be "slick," or otherwise specially hard to climb, need checks. We aren't given DCs for those, though, sadly.

What it should be is whatever you want it to be. You look at the situation, and you say "that's hard" or "that's easy" or "that's somewhere in between", etc.

Like, what is your thought process when you come across an example like this thread talks about. Let's say the player has a 15 strength, and a 20 foot gap to jump. What part do you find difficult in determining the DC?
What part do you find easy? How on earth do I know how hard it is to extend a jump by 5 feet? Is it near-trivial (DC 5)? Is it nigh-impossible (DC 25)? Just how much is the possible variance in distance?

[Theodoxus]

So, something like this:
Skill: Athletics



Grim
Heroic
Superheroic


DC10
Jump an additional 10% of baseline distance
Swim across a 25' wide river with class 3 rapids
Backflip from a standing location to a ledge at the same height as base running high jump


DC15
Swim across a 25' wide river with class 3 rapids
Run up wall jump to reach a location 1.5 times the normal base high jump
Double jumping distance


DC20
Climb 100' ice wall with equipment
Double jumping distance
Swim across 50'+ width river with class 6 rapids



My tables would be "heroic", and those would be the DCs I think I would set for those tasks, the others are my guesses for what the table type would do. I tried to get in examples of different things going along, to see if that would maximize the information. And I made sure I put in some things that just show the difference in DC between the different levels, as I thought that might make it a bit more helpful.

Does that help anyone with how to assign DCs to athletics checks? Honestly, I have no idea, because I have no idea if that is directing me or if I'm just using my own judgment still. So it's a serious question - does looking at a chart like that make it easier for anyone to decide how far a character can throw a discus in a superheroic game? Or ignoring more unlikely things, does that tell anyone what the appropriate DC would be in a grim game for a 10-strength character to jump 15' (I know what I would set it at, and it would be interesting to see if that is what everyone else thinks based on the chart.)

So, using the DC-less skill system, I would go about it something like this (I haven't had a chance to really review numbers, so this is just napkin math at the moment).

Grim: DM denotes the length of the hole/chasm the PCs need to leap over. Using the RAW distances based on Str, but not having an added formula for additional distance, each PC has a maximum non-rolled distance between 8 and 20, right? So, if they needeed to jump further, you're allotting an additional 10% (Which is maximal 2'... so not particularly useful in most cases (I'd adjust to 50% personally), but be that as it may, the DM would request Strength (Athletic) checks. For Grim, I'd assess a -5 penalty to all checks; its not that the PCs are horribad at doing things, it's that it's Grimdark and luck (the mighty d20) is scarce. With decent Str scores, boosted by level, and a better than decent roll, you succeed (20+), jumping whatever additional distance we settle on.

Heroic: Would be the base roll, no modifications.

Superheroic: Add 5 to the base roll.

Throwing a discus, I'd base it off other throwing items. They're relatively aerodynamic, so would probably base it on a javelin. Now, the range wouldn't be hampered by things like accuracy and damage potential like a weapon, so spit balling it, I'd hazard to say 120' without a roll. Then up to double (20+) and 5% less distance per point below 20. That's for grim and heroic. Superheroic would be 240', up to 480'.

Then, outside of the static -5 to +5 for the genre, I would include circumstantial benefits and penalties. Appropriate gear for a task might trivialize it (climbing an ice shelf with crampons and ice axes) or reduce the challenge (using oars on a sailing ship to navigate rough waters in shoals - add +4 to the roll). Lack of gear might make it harder - only crampons or ice axes, -2 to the roll; using only the rudder to navigate the rough waters, -3, etc.) Could have multiple, stacking bonuses and penalties. Maybe you're traversing the ice shelf being chased by a yeti (-2 to account for the fear/hurried state), carrying a baby (-1 for distraction/care of not slipping), while using the appropriate gear (+5).


What part do you find easy? How on earth do I know how hard it is to extend a jump by 5 feet? Is it near-trivial (DC 5)? Is it nigh-impossible (DC 25)? Just how much is the possible variance in distance?

This is my sticking point too... and it's still an issue with 'DC-less' skill rolls, since the DM would still need to know how to adjudicate the penalties appropriately... To answer your questions about jumping though, requires houserules, since there are no codified rules outside of 'DM, make something up.' I think once those houserules are codified for your campaign, they should remain for the whole campaign (unless they're so egregious your players balk on first contact). But I suspect that as noted a lot in this thread, such houserules are going to be pretty table specific. So, while people will have their personal preferences - and we should definitely share ideas about how to go about it - I don't think there will be any 'one size fits all'. If WotC decided to ever codify, or even make that Big Book of DCs, I know individual DMs will alter the RAW to better suit their needs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But I suspect that as noted a lot in this thread, such houserules are going to be pretty table specific. So, while people will have their personal preferences - and we should definitely share ideas about how to go about it - I don't think there will be any 'one size fits all'. If WotC decided to ever codify, or even make that Big Book of DCs, I know individual DMs will alter the RAW to better suit their needs.

And not just table specific. They're situation specific, if you actually want useful granularity. How's the footing? How's the vertical clearance? What's the pressure/consequences for failing this particular jump?

In general, knowing what the DC is to make some generic jump isn't useful in context. Jumping 5 extra feet has no value per se--if the task at hand only requires 1 or require 10, knowing what 5 feet looks like doesn't help (non-linearities and such).

That's why I claim that all of this is false precision. Messing around with small value changes just doesn't matter. All that matters, in the end, is what the DM wants it to be and how the table wants it to be.

You can trivially answer all "what should the DC be" questions with a simple set of heuristics and two basic principles.

Principle 1: There are no universal right or wrong answers. Only answers that work better or worse for your particular table in these particular circumstances.
Principle 2: Things that are the same should be the same. Things that differ may have different DCs. Corollary: there are very few things that are actually the same, even if superficially they're the same.

Heuristics:
1. Is this something I, as DM, want to be done regularly by people not specialized for this? DC 10 (or auto-success).
2. Is this something I, as DM, want to require some investment to get into the sweet spot (50% chance)? DC 15.
3. Is this something I, as DM, want to require significant investment to get into the sweet spot? DC 20.
4. Is this something I, as DM, want only specialists to even have a meaningful chance at doing? DC 25.

Note that nothing in here depends on the objective facts. Different tables will end up in different places. Heck, even the same campaign may have parts where it's hard-scrabble and others where it's more "heroic". Inter-table consistency is not a design goal of 5e. In fact, it's something directly and explicitly discarded as a design goal. Embrace the diversity.

[GloatingSwine]

And not just table specific. They're situation specific, if you actually want useful granularity. How's the footing? How's the vertical clearance? What's the pressure/consequences for failing this particular jump?


If the distance is <STR in feet none of that matters, the rule on how far a character can jump does not mention any of it. A character can jump their STR in feet if they have a running start. That's the physics of the world just as much as a longsword doing 1d8 damage is.

Why do you think it suddenly goes from not mattering to mattering if the character wants to jump STR+1?

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the distance is <STR in feet none of that matters, the rule on how far a character can jump does not mention any of it. A character can jump their STR in feet if they have a running start. That's the physics of the world just as much as a longsword doing 1d8 damage is.

Why do you think it suddenly goes from not mattering to mattering if the character wants to jump STR+1?

If you think that the rules are the physics of the world, then there's no meaningful grounds for conversation. The rules are a game UI, just like the UI of Starcraft is a UI. There aren't an endless supply of marines inside that Barracks, just waiting to come out. That's an abstraction made to make the game playable. So is the entirety of the rules of D&D.

Beyond that, you clipped the part of the quote where I said that doing so was false precision and pointless granularity. As is all of this. You only need 3 values, plus two non-values. DC: Yes, 10, 15, 20, No. That's the entire necessary set. Anything beyond that is pretending you know more than you do.

[Slipjig]

So you made up a bunch of rules for using the skill? Why? Weren't the existing rules enough to make it useful?

That sounds more like the player saying, "I'd like to do X", and the DM saying, "Okay, sounds like a Medicine check!" No making up of rules required, just a half-second of thought regarding, "Which is the most appropriate skill for what the PCs are trying to do?" It's not fundamentally different from History, Religion, or Arcana in that regard.

[Segev]

And not just table specific. They're situation specific, if you actually want useful granularity. How's the footing? How's the vertical clearance? What's the pressure/consequences for failing this particular jump?

In general, knowing what the DC is to make some generic jump isn't useful in context. Jumping 5 extra feet has no value per se--if the task at hand only requires 1 or require 10, knowing what 5 feet looks like doesn't help (non-linearities and such).

Jumping 5 extra feet in "normal" circumstances gives a starting point.

The trouble is a lack of that starting point. I can start extrapolating how much harder it is with various other things inhibiting it. But I cannot determine how hard it's meant to be normally.

Note: I would still prefer a formula for this specific circumstance. I could still add to the DC...or just give Disadvantage...if circumstances warranted.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That sounds more like the player saying, "I'd like to do X", and the DM saying, "Okay, sounds like a Medicine check!" No making up of rules required, just a half-second of thought regarding, "Which is the most appropriate skill for what the PCs are trying to do?" It's not fundamentally different from History, Religion, or Arcana in that regard.

And that's exactly how it's described as in the DMG. It's not "here are buttons that do specific things, players press buttons and get results", it's "player describes intent and means and the DM translates that into fiction, using game UI pieces to resolve uncertainty if that exists." Ability checks are one set of tools DMs have to resolve uncertainty about how and if the proposed action succeeds.

All the rules are that way--they're only invoked to the degree the DM decides they're necessary to resolve an action. Most actions the characters do don't involve any rule element. That's not making things up, that's playing the game as intended.

[Aimeryan]

You can trivially answer all "what should the DC be" questions with a simple set of heuristics and two basic principles.

Principle 1: There are no universal right or wrong answers. Only answers that work better or worse for your particular table in these particular circumstances.
Principle 2: Things that are the same should be the same. Things that differ may have different DCs. Corollary: there are very few things that are actually the same, even if superficially they're the same.


The same can be said for Spell DCs, heck, spell damage. There could slash the book in half and say 'Here are a list of riders with level requirements, choose an appropriate DC. Choose an amount of damage that feels right. Flavour as you like.' WOW, so innovative! Also, incredibly lazy. But, if your fine with treating skills like this, why not, right?

For many of us, whatever argument you use for keep skills so wishywashy is going to hold the same for spells, and every other part of D&D - we want the option for them to not be wishywashy. You can always ignore what is there. Heck, you can cut the pages out if you want a lighter book.

[GloatingSwine]

If you think that the rules are the physics of the world, then there's no meaningful grounds for conversation. The rules are a game UI, just like the UI of Starcraft is a UI. There aren't an endless supply of marines inside that Barracks, just waiting to come out. That's an abstraction made to make the game playable. So is the entirety of the rules of D&D.

I think you're wildly misusing the concept if "UI" there. Especially if you want to claim that the rules aren't a set of buttons the player can use, because "a set of buttons the user can use" is what a UI is.

The rules absolutely are a model of how the world they describe works. That's why they regularly use numbers and formulas that depend on those numbers to physically define what characters, objects, spells and so on can and cannot do. The rules for a longsword says it does 1d8 slashing damage, it does not say "DM should pick an amount and type of damage they think fits the situation".

They do this because this is how players can actually play the game. They can form expectations based on these things and use those expectations to pick actions they might want to take or goals they might want to work towards.

And this is the sort of thing which absolutely should be extended to other common activities players might wish to take like jumping (as it already is to, eg, spell DCs).


Beyond that, you clipped the part of the quote where I said that doing so was false precision and pointless granularity. As is all of this. You only need 3 values, plus two non-values. DC: Yes, 10, 15, 20, No. That's the entire necessary set. Anything beyond that is pretending you know more than you do.

That's because that's not actually under contention. The contention is not that you need a fine grained set of DCs for every possible scenario, the contention is that you need to know how "10, 15, 20" convert into physical actions in the game world in a way which is consistent with the other systematised rules like combat and spellcasting. And the thread contains many examples that show that DMs are generally pretty bad at doing that, and are also using wholly the wrong mechanism for doing it (How hard do I think this is, or how hard should it be for my drama? not How hard is this for someone who has all the other guaranteed properties of a D&D adventurer?)

[Pex]

That sounds more like the player saying, "I'd like to do X", and the DM saying, "Okay, sounds like a Medicine check!" No making up of rules required, just a half-second of thought regarding, "Which is the most appropriate skill for what the PCs are trying to do?" It's not fundamentally different from History, Religion, or Arcana in that regard.

How many hit points can I cure? Can I remove the poison? The disease? Can I do CPR to bring someone dead back to life?

First expect DMs to default to never due to existence of a feat and spells. If the DM will forgo that hurdle expect DMs to demand needing hard to find and expensive components which how so unfortunate you don't have on you so can't do it now, so sorry so sad, let's go on an adventure to find one dose. Once that's done finally the DM will deign to make up a DC, 15 at least probably 20 failure means dose is ruined. If you got enough ingredient for more than one dose many are wasted but you get one dose, still too late for what you wanted it before but at least for the future.

If you're lucky, depending on who is DM that day, you will have the more lenient DMs who, because you have proficiency in Herbalism, allow you to preforage for cures to poisons and diseases. Whether it's a DC to find then roll dice for how many doses or autofind but roll for how many doses is all DM make it up. The rules say you can make healing potions, so they allow that but DC DM make it up for anything more than the basic if even allowed that.

I'm very well aware the game was designed this way on purpose, but that's the point of contention not its defense. It's still all dependent on who is DM that day not my choice on whether I want to invest in Medicine. I could take the proficiency but never get to use it because that DM says only spells can remove poisons (anti-toxin helps) and disease and never cure hit points. Take Healer feat if you want, but then I don't need to be proficient in Medicine upon taking that feat.


Yes, this is how social interaction works. Your DM is presumably at least kind of friendly with you and interested in your having fun along with them.

You're right. DMs love rules lawyers.

[Blatant Beast]

A PC with no special equipment can climb a surface which is not either slippery or entirely lacking in handholds at 1/2 their movement rate or 1/3 in difficult terrain. That's how Climbing works in 5e. Every PC is a practiced free climber no matter their class, proficiencies, or attributes. (Remember when I said that how difficult a task is to a real world human has no bearing on D&D characters)

So unless someone has been at this redwood with a plane and sander or pot of grease they just climb it.

I stated a person with climbing spikes and no time constraints could climb a giant Sequoia redwood without a die roll.

Free climbing a Giant Sequoia, would require die rolls, unless the PC was built in a fashion that it was clear they were going to succeed.

For the record, I run my game very similarly to the process the Phoenix Phyre described. Folks, two DMs read the rules, thought about them, experimented and made changes, and run 5e using the same basic process.

Either the rules work, or we have a miracle.


So you made up a bunch of rules for using the skill? Why? Weren't the existing rules enough to make it useful? If you think a lack of direction is better than examples then shouldn't all the skills and tools be written with the absolute minimum possible information on what they're about?

Sometimes, when you deploy a reductio ad absurdum the wielder looks absurd. We didn’t make up rules, the player, understanding how 5e works, got creative and played actively. We just used the existing resolution mechanisms.


Generally I think all the 5e skills need are a little 3x3 grid of columns: grim, heroic, superheroic, and rows: dc 10, 15, 20. Put a single sentence of what sort of thing can happen in each square, do that for each skill and call it good. Then you could likely remove several chunks of text from the skill section too, to make room in the book for more spells. By going with a single general example for each cell you get a spread of examples that are explicitly inclusive rather than printed as though they are exclusive like the current set up, and they're varied across game style so people don't have to be afraid of seeing dc lists they don't like.

Sigh. I will point out, AGAIN, one of the central design tenets of 5e, is the game can be run quickly, without the need to constantly refer to charts to resolve quotidian matters, or the need to memorize said charts.

You and others are basically saying, that in order to save the village, you need to burn it down, with three charts per skill as kindling.

Politely, I suggest again, that perhaps 5E’s design goals are not in sync with your own desires.



Yes, this is how social interaction works. Your DM is presumably at least kind of friendly with you and interested in your having fun along with them.

I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.😀



You're right. DMs love rules lawyers.

I do actually like Rules Lawyers, being one myself. That stated, a player describing their point of view, and explaining what they would like to do with their PC; a player that asks insightful questions, plays actively, and creatively, and tries to push the boundaries….is something that brings joy to some DMs…speaking for myself.

Nothing is better for me as a DM then being surprised by the players…a staid, predictable game is just tedium…might as well play chess.

[GloatingSwine]

I stated a person with climbing spikes and no time constraints could climb a giant Sequoia redwood without a die roll.

Free climbing a Giant Sequoia, would require die rolls, unless the PC was built in a fashion that it was clear they were going to succeed.


Only if someone had planed it smooth or greased it.

[Blatant Beast]

Only if someone had planed it smooth or greased it.

Nah, dude…Sequoia bark is smooth, and when attempting to grab it, the bark can separate from the tree, (causing you to fall).

This is precisely the type of clumsy rule hammer RAW tricks I was referring to before, as a point of concern. It is fine for a player to bring up this section of the rules:

CLIMBING, SWIMMING, AND CRAWLING
Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain) when you're climbing, swimming, or crawling. You ignore this extra cost ifyou have a climbing speed and use it to climb or a swimming speed and use it to swim. At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in rough water might require a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

But once the DM has given a plausible description for why a Strength(Athletics) check is required, that should end the discussion. The DM is clearly empowered to describe the environment, and call for checks as needed, based off that description.

You are, also, not considering other factors such as Exhaustion Saving Throws being called for due to the exertion. (Climbing tall trees even with Tree Spikes is tiring, especially when trying to move quickly).

[Keltest]

You're right. DMs love rules lawyers.

If you tell your DM you arent having fun and they respond by calling you a rules lawyer and ignoring you, then your DM is a jerk, and that isnt the fault of the system.

[Blatant Beast]

“If these rolls do not go well, tis a black mark against the DM that led them to it”…Bill Shakespeare

[Brookshw]

Only if someone had planed it smooth or greased it.

Earlier you noted a lack of handholds was sufficient to force a roll, looking at pics of these trees, they sure don't seem to have a lot of handholds. :smallsigh:

[Theodoxus]

I think the primary reason a longsword is codified as 1d8 slashing, a fireball is codified as 8d6 fire + 1d6 per spell level higher, while Intimidate, Performance, etc. are codified as 'meh, ask your DM' is because we all know that Combat is the only pillar that the game actually espouses to represent. Exploration and Social pillars just aren't (as) important to WotC.

So yes, as lot of crunch was given to the player base for combat. A lot of freedom was given to the player base (primarily DMs) for exploration and social. I tend to agree with those saying 'maybe 5E isn't the right system' because it isn't. The tools to do anything that's not combat are minimal. That's a feature folks.

I'm sure there are plenty of other games that emphasize exploration and/or social, that have the crunch you're looking for. Now, whether those systems can be modified to work with 5E, I don't know...

What would be nice is if WotC stopped giving lip service to exploration and social pillars via the skill system. It was like the devs went 'hmm, people are asking for something like 3rd Ed skills, but less fidgety. So, let's do the bare minimum, write up something that will appease the masses, provided they don't look too hard into them.' And thus, 5E "skills".

Where it becomes glaringly obvious that skills don't mesh with combat, is all the questions regarding combat movement and skills. "Can I use acrobatics to move through an allies square?" "How about an enemy, I can dance around them, right?" "Can I jump the 15' chasm?, my strength is 12." "I got grappled and tossed over the ledge, can I use athletics to grab at trees/roots on my way down?"

[Blatant Beast]

What would be nice is if WotC stopped giving lip service to exploration and social pillars via the skill system. It was like the devs went 'hmm, people are asking for something like 3rd Ed skills, but less fidgety. So, let's do the bare minimum, write up something that will appease the masses, provided they don't look too hard into them.' And thus, 5E "skills".

The only point to skills in 5e is to give players a semi customizable option to add their Proficiency modifier to a d20 check. That is it, period end of story.

We know this, because the DMG flat out says this in the Dungeon Master’s Workshop section under Skill Variants. I have used the Ability Check Proficiency option from the DMG with young children and ex-3e players that can not seem to unlearn their 3e mindset, and it made play better in my opinion.


What part do you find easy? How on earth do I know how hard it is to extend a jump by 5 feet? Is it near-trivial (DC 5)? Is it nigh-impossible (DC 25)? Just how much is the possible variance in distance?

It pains me to read this. It just reminds me of Luke telling Yoda that lifting the X-Wing is impossible. Put it in these terms, what type of movie are you making?

How Hard is it for the Black Widow to jump more than 20’? Is the Black Widow going to die from fall?

5e is not designed to tell you what type of movie to make, but given the system assumes that all Adventurers are pretty fit, capable of sprints, climbs, jumps and all sorts of really athletic feats, I would say using an Action Film like Die Hard as your guide, is a good start to help you.

What Phoenix Phyre stated in this quote is all you need, and how the system is designed:

You only need 3 values, plus two non-values. DC: Yes, 10, 15, 20, No. That's the entire necessary set. Anything beyond that is pretending you know more than you do.

[stoutstien]

Combat related features beings codified mean it's less important not more. Every swing of the sword or casting of whatever deal X damage spell is largely irrelevant and is there to keep those like rollin dice entertained. Combat is mostly procedurally at this point so you might as well make the numbers streamline because the outcome is and at the same time is super finicky with a bunch of rules and corner cases to deal with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having more (or less) rules for something doesn't mean it's more or less important. It means more (or less) scaffolding is required to play it well.

Combat is simultaneously

a) furthest from our normal experience, other than spell-casting which mostly re-uses scaffolding for other stuff or has its own specific scaffolding
b) has the tightest time boundaries with the most interacting pieces (movement, action economy, counters for things, range, hit vs damage, conditions, etc)
c) has the regular potential for loss-of-character events.
d) is opposed (character vs character)

Those three together mean that most people need lots of scaffolding to make it workable, at least at the level of detail D&D wants. Each of the pieces and their interactions have to be well-defined so that they can interact smoothly without costing tons of mental overhead. If all you wanted was a "roll Fight to see who wins the combat" (like a lot of ability checks end up being), where you have a single roll that sums up a lot of different, more granular actions and conditions, you wouldn't need any of the combat rules.

Ability checks are at the other end of the spectrum:
a) they (or their analogues) are really common in every-day life, as you could describe most of what we do with various ability checks. My job is mostly one extended set of Intelligence checks (that I regularly fail because I'm derp).
b) they have very squishy time boundaries (how long does picking a lock take?) and are mostly self-contained--each one has a clear "success/failure" piece wrapped up in each roll.
c) Don't regularly result in loss-of-character events or even loss-of-effectiveness events. They change the scenario, they don't end the game (for that character).
d) they are character vs environment--the opposed checks have set DCs, as do the ones that involve someone else (social stuff).

Thus, IMO, they need less scaffolding/support. And the definitions don't need to be as pinned down, because they're mostly self-contained events.

Rules aren't contracts, they're tools to help us because free-form is too hard.

[Segev]

It pains me to read this. It just reminds me of Luke telling Yoda that lifting the X-Wing is impossible. Put it in these terms, what type of movie are you making?

How Hard is it for the Black Widow to jump more than 20’? Is the Black Widow going to die from fall?

If I am writing a movie or a novel, then I decide the result. There is never a roll; I just dictate the results of all actions. I am not making a movie. I am running a game. I did not decide the Black Widow is going to try to jump that chasm, and thus decide ahead of time if the chasm was a width that would guarantee the result I wanted.

The athletic ability of the creatures is factored into their Strength and possible proficiency in Athletics. Not into the DC of the check. If the Black Widow has 20 strength, then she can jump 20 feet. How hard is it for her to jump that far if she has less Strength than that? I don't know! The rules don't give me anything to work with, there!

[Telok]

Having more (or less) rules for something doesn't mean it's more or less important. It means more (or less) scaffolding is required to play it well.

Oh piffle. Years ago I posted how you could trivially use the combat & monster setup to run a skill check and how you could turn entire combats into a single opposed d20+mod 'fight check'. There's nothing special about combat as a complex multi-step activity that makes you need any more or fewer rolls & details than crafting a rope bridge to cross the crevasse of instant death. You expect me to belive that thd 4-6 fights per day paradigm of 5e means a three gobbo time filler combat is somehow more dangerous and important than a climb/balance check over a 100 foot fall? That an 8th level party slapping down measly hill giant is supposed to be somehow harder to model than surviving a trek out of a giant wild-magic desert after your airship crashed?

D&D is first and foremost a fantasy squad-based dungeon fight simulator. You're spending hours slogging through "exciting" fights that have perordained outcomes just to use up enough resources so that the final fight or two might have some dramatic tension in it. Yet disarming lethal traps, arguing a jury trial, traveling a hundred miles of hellscape, or making up an hour long epic ballad to impress an emperor is "eh, i dunno, dc 15 i guess?".



Thus, IMO, they need less scaffolding/support. And the definitions don't need to be as pinned down, because they're mostly self-contained events.

Rules aren't contracts, they're tools to help us because free-form is too hard.

Hey, look, "free-form" is too hard. Yeah. For some GMs out there free-form non-combat stuff [u]is too hard[/i]. For you apparently free-form combat is too hard. But really free-form combat is super easy. Ask the players what they're doing, decide what the opposition is doing, decide the sides relative strengths, choose a number, and have someone roll a die. I've been doing it every week for the past two months. Super easy. As a plus free-form combat frees you from all sorts of stupid restrictions, you don't need pages of obviously inaccurate armor and weapon charts, it stops players from setting expectations over the GM, lets you play the game as heroic or gritty as you want, it frees the GM from players saying "but the book says i can do that with a roll", and best of all it frees you to run the game as you see fit instead of by some list of numbers in the books.

[Theodoxus]

So, some folks are asking for Exploration and Social pillars (shortened to 'skills' for sake of brevity) to be expanded like the Combat pillar currently is... and the reply is "no, let's make Combat as boring as skills."

Ok... not the take I was expecting.

[Pex]

If you tell your DM you arent having fun and they respond by calling you a rules lawyer and ignoring you, then your DM is a jerk, and that isnt the fault of the system.

Moving the goal posts. I said nothing about having fun, merely disagreeing with the DM on the proper DC of a task, i.e. how difficult it is to do it. No DM appreciates a player constantly questioning his rulings.

[Aimeryan]

Hey, look, "free-form" is too hard. Yeah. For some GMs out there free-form non-combat stuff [u]is too hard[/i]. For you apparently free-form combat is too hard. But really free-form combat is super easy. Ask the players what they're doing, decide what the opposition is doing, decide the sides relative strengths, choose a number, and have someone roll a die. I've been doing it every week for the past two months. Super easy. As a plus free-form combat frees you from all sorts of stupid restrictions, you don't need pages of obviously inaccurate armor and weapon charts, it stops players from setting expectations over the GM, lets you play the game as heroic or gritty as you want, it frees the GM from players saying "but the book says i can do that with a roll", and best of all it frees you to run the game as you see fit instead of by some list of numbers in the books.

Great post - took the words out of my mouth. If you can judge a skill check on rough umming and ahhing, quickly and consistently, then judging the relative strengths of opposing sides with the rough resources they have should be a breeze. Throw out a quick few DCs of degrees of success/failure and throw the dice. This would cut out more of the book than anything - classes could be a page at best, combat spells gone.

Not sure how much of the book would be left, but this is the argument the skill free-form crowd are using, so its right up their alley. Perhaps there should be Free-form 5e books and a Defined 5e books. In the latter, we would have what we have now, with the addition that skills are also defined like the rest of the game is in that book. The DM would be free to do their own thing in either case, its just how much of a support structure they want in front of them.

[Keltest]

Moving the goal posts. I said nothing about having fun, merely disagreeing with the DM on the proper DC of a task, i.e. how difficult it is to do it. No DM appreciates a player constantly questioning his rulings.

If youre sufficiently bothered by it that you feel the need to speak up every time theres a DC, you arent having fun, at least not when it comes to that aspect of the game, which is the actual problem to solve there. Talking to the DM like an adult is still the correct solution.

[schm0]

Great post - took the words out of my mouth. If you can judge a skill check on rough umming and ahhing, quickly and consistently, then judging the relative strengths of opposing sides with the rough resources they have should be a breeze.

The flaw with this argument is obvious, though.

Combat encounters are the medium through which a significant portion of unique character abilities and mechanics are expressed. It can take hours to resolve a single encounter. They involves hundreds of rules, which are entirely objective. They are crucial to the adventuring day and the depletion of resources. They are incredibly impactful, with the capability to the kill the PCs, hand out status effects, and generally challenge them in a tactical, strategic sense. They represent a significant portion of the adventure, often taking up the majority of a session.

In other words, they're complex.

Skill checks are universal and work the same way for everyone. They are resolved in seconds. They involve only a handful of rules, and are largely subjective. They are entirely resourceless and don't impact the adventuring day. The maximum impact of a skill check will only ever affect a single attempt to complete a single task. They represent small moments in the adventure.

In other words, they're simple.

This is a classic false equivalence.

One is difficult to determine at a glance.

The other is not (or at least, it shouldn't be.)

The complexity of these systems is largely proportional to their overall importance and impact on the game. If you want to make skill checks more complicated, the impact will be relatively small. If you want to make combat more abstract, then the impact is a fundamental change to the entire game.

[Darth Credence]

Great post - took the words out of my mouth. If you can judge a skill check on rough umming and ahhing, quickly and consistently, then judging the relative strengths of opposing sides with the rough resources they have should be a breeze. Throw out a quick few DCs of degrees of success/failure and throw the dice. This would cut out more of the book than anything - classes could be a page at best, combat spells gone.

Not sure how much of the book would be left, but this is the argument the skill free-form crowd are using, so its right up their alley. Perhaps there should be Free-form 5e books and a Defined 5e books. In the latter, we would have what we have now, with the addition that skills are also defined like the rest of the game is in that book. The DM would be free to do their own thing in either case, its just how much of a support structure they want in front of them.

Can one do so? Sure, you could create a game where combat is abstracted to a DC the DM determines and gets it out of the way. In a game that is focused on roleplaying, it might be a worthwhile thing to do. That game is not D&D. D&D, for better or worse, is about combat. To do this to D&D would be like saying that we could eliminate the entirety of a fútbol/soccer game and simply have each side do a penalty kick to determine the outcome. It would work to determine a winner, but it would not be fútbol.

[Theodoxus]

The flaw with this argument is obvious, though.

Combat encounters are the medium through which a significant portion of unique character abilities and mechanics are expressed. It can take hours to resolve a single encounter. They involves hundreds of rules, which are entirely objective. They are crucial to the adventuring day and the depletion of resources. They are incredibly impactful, with the capability to the kill the PCs, hand out status effects, and generally challenge them in a tactical, strategic sense. They represent a significant portion of the adventure, often taking up the majority of a session.

In other words, they're complex.

Skill checks are universal and work the same way for everyone. They are resolved in seconds. They involve only a handful of rules, and are largely subjective. They are entirely resourceless and don't impact the adventuring day. The maximum impact of a skill check will only ever affect a single attempt to complete a single task. They represent small moments in the adventure.

In other words, they're simple.

This is a classic false equivalence.

One is difficult to determine at a glance.

The other is not (or at least, it shouldn't be.)

It's only a false equivalence if and only if, you're looking at current state. But that's not what the discussion is about. It's seeking to make the skill system closer to robustness as the combat system. I guess the absurdity of showing the combat system through the lens of the current skill system is lost on folks.


Can one do so? Sure, you could create a game where combat is abstracted to a DC the DM determines and gets it out of the way. In a game that is focused on roleplaying, it might be a worthwhile thing to do. That game is not D&D. D&D, for better or worse, is about combat. To do this to D&D would be like saying that we could eliminate the entirety of a fútbol/soccer game and simply have each side do a penalty kick to determine the outcome. It would work to determine a winner, but it would not be fútbol.

Sure, but that's not the actual ask. What if fútbol had a rule in which the team who had possession of the ball in the other teams half the most (something easily tracked these days), was the tie-breaker, instead of getting 1 point each (or going to penalty kicks)? This is basically what the 'complex skills' folk are asking for, in a pretty bad sports analogy. Possession requires a hell of a lot more general team skill than passing the ball forward to your striker to try to get a gol. And keeping the ball in the other teams half even more so. (Personally, I think such a rule would end up generating more gols, since both teams would be pressing forward more often than just passing it in the backfield hoping to open up defense.)

The closest any version of D&D got to skills as combat, was 4Es badly executed and badly received Skill Challenges. It was a subsystem that didn't get enough love, but the IDEA of it is definitely in the right direction. Now, is it still D&D? Much like fútbol with a modified skill rule... yes, I believe it would be (certainly more so than going in the opposite direction and everything is a single roll of the die).

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, it's a false equivalence (or more precisely a category error) no matter what.

Combat is not in the same class of references as ability checks. Ability checks are atomic units used to resolve specific uncertainty about specific tasks. It's one of the basic primitives of the game. Combat is a scenario, not a mechanical unit and includes ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, definitionally (because everything is built out of those units).

So "making ability checks as complex as combat" is just a nonsense statement--that's like saying "we should make attack rolls as complex as combat." It's a 100% category error. And the difficulty people are having (or so they say) is with resolving individual checks.

You can make skill-based scenarios complex, and I frequently do. But they will involve many ability checks, and possibly attack rolls and saving throws. Each of which needs resolution and thus invokes all the problems found. It also turns everything into combat. Which means that now instead of doing a bunch of scenarios that can meld freely between combat and not-combat, everything is combat and needs all that superstructure. Which frankly sounds miserable to do all the time.

--------------

And the specific post of mine that was quoted here specifically mentioned that it's a matter of granularity. "Combat", as defined in D&D, is composed of many, very granular, interacting pieces. Some of which are ability checks. You cannot (definitionally) make a subset larger than the superset that contains it and other things. X + Y > X for any positive-definite X and Y. And X + Y >= X IFF Y = 0 (X and Y >= 0). And since negative sizes don't mean anything...it's basic logic.

So your only option if you want to make them the same is to collapse combat into a single ability check. And that's definitely something other than D&D. It's a viable system, sure. But one that is very much not D&D.

[Pex]

But D&D had more complex skill systems. 4E gave us DCs based on character level and skill challenges. 3E gave us DC tables and skill points. 2E gave us non-weapon proficiencies. One can like or not like how they worked, but skill use being more complex than just DM make it up is very much so part of D&D as combat.

[Keltest]

But D&D had more complex skill systems. 4E gave us DCs based on character level and skill challenges. 3E gave us DC tables and skill points. 2E gave us non-weapon proficiencies. One can like or not like how they worked, but skill use being more complex than just DM make it up is very much so part of D&D as combat.

A table really is not more complex than the DM making it up. Its a D20 roll either way, the only difference is which person made up the DC.

[NichG]

Complexifying the skill system wouldn't mean turning the act of making an ability check itself into a mini game. You could make the things ability checks do into smaller atoms, none of which would conclusively resolve very much on their own but designed to collectively create resolutions by shifting the scene by pieces.

E.g. instead of 'Medicine lets you cure a disease' it could be that you model a disease as multiple organs having different dysfunction and having greater or lesser costs to the patient if treated or diagnosed, with some checks identifying symptoms, different actions narrowing down which diseases are consistent with those symptoms, identifying medicinal compounds that could change functions of those organs, finding those compounds in nature, doing experiments to see if treatment will be effective, etc - all of those consuming time and/or the patient's vitality and stats, and posing lots of cases where to actually beat the disease before it kills the patient you have to make educated guesses or find ways to efficiently test multiple parallel theories at once.

Of course that's a specific model for a specific thing, and you'd likely need that to get the sort of complexity that combat has. But you could absolutely make a system for 'exploring a wild environment' with such variables as which hexes you have information about, coarse vs fine information, things you can do to make future travel through that hex easier, arranging supply lines or outposts or stockpiles to enable deeper exploration than your packs can support, predicting changes of conditions in advance so you have time to locate shelter, managing different states of exhaustion and injury and other conditions in a traveling group (if you've got a cart, maybe ignore movement penalties from up to three people but not more), linking together broad patterns observed in the region to locate promising spots for discoveries, even meta stuff like abilities that let characters change the probability distribution of treasures or ruins found if you are running procgen anyways...

[schm0]

It's only a false equivalence if and only if, you're looking at current state. But that's not what the discussion is about. It's seeking to make the skill system closer to robustness as the combat system. I guess the absurdity of showing the combat system through the lens of the current skill system is lost on folks.


The idea that the ability check mechanics need to change is not a forgone conclusion. It's a matter of preference at best and a misunderstanding of the design philosophy of 5e at worst.

I've been reading a lot of this thread and trying to understand where everyone is coming from, but to me it seems many of the folks yearning for complicated rules are just over-thinking the existing mechanics (and consequentially over-engineering a "solution").

It should not be hard to come up with a DC. Just pick a number and let the players roll. Trust your intuition. It doesn't need to be "accurate" or complicated or follow a formula.