Advantage/Disadvantage and DC

[Witty Username]

So,
Rereading the ability check section and I realize something I don't understand.
When are you supposed to adjust DC, and when are you supposed to use advantage/disadvantage?

From what I can tell one is supposed to ask is this an Easy, moderate, or hard task and set accordingly. But if their are exceptional circumstances to apply advantage or disadvantage. But checks don't have a 'standard' difficulty, they are set to the specific scenario which would include those circumstances in whether it would be easy, hard or somewhere in between.

There are some, like say sneaking or spotting is set by opposition, and so advantage/disadvantage would indicate circumstances, like say the spotter is poisoned and groggy, or the sneak is wearing noisy boots.

Is that when is it intended to be used or are DMs intended to use it more broadly, setting a 'baseline' for tasks and using advantage/disadvantage to adjust them?

[Skrum]

I think about it like this: DC is about the challenge itself, adv and disadv is about the person attempting it.

Climbing an unknotted rope is DC 10. But the rope is old and wet, and has algae growing on it, making it very slippery. The DC is adjusted to 15.

Frank is trying to climb the rope. He makes the check at disadvantage because he got his hand caught in a sliding panel trap and its use is compromised.

[stoutstien]

So,
Rereading the ability check section and I realize something I don't understand.
When are you supposed to adjust DC, and when are you supposed to use advantage/disadvantage?

From what I can tell one is supposed to ask is this an Easy, moderate, or hard task and set accordingly. But if their are exceptional circumstances to apply advantage or disadvantage. But checks don't have a 'standard' difficulty, they are set to the specific scenario which would include those circumstances in whether it would be easy, hard or somewhere in between.

There are some, like say sneaking or spotting is set by opposition, and so advantage/disadvantage would indicate circumstances, like say the spotter is poisoned and groggy, or the sneak is wearing noisy boots.

Is that when is it intended to be used or are DMs intended to use it more broadly, setting a 'baseline' for tasks and using advantage/disadvantage to adjust them?

There's no hard and fast rule it just gives you two different levers to get a lot of different variances within a small range. Adv/dis it's a good execution of the roll to pick high/low idea. they just overuse it.

[Tawmis]

So,
Rereading the ability check section and I realize something I don't understand.
When are you supposed to adjust DC, and when are you supposed to use advantage/disadvantage?
From what I can tell one is supposed to ask is this an Easy, moderate, or hard task and set accordingly. But if their are exceptional circumstances to apply advantage or disadvantage. But checks don't have a 'standard' difficulty, they are set to the specific scenario which would include those circumstances in whether it would be easy, hard or somewhere in between.
There are some, like say sneaking or spotting is set by opposition, and so advantage/disadvantage would indicate circumstances, like say the spotter is poisoned and groggy, or the sneak is wearing noisy boots.
Is that when is it intended to be used or are DMs intended to use it more broadly, setting a 'baseline' for tasks and using advantage/disadvantage to adjust them?

I usually do Advantage/Disadvantage, when attempting what I consider a "passive" skill.
Someone is trying to track something through these woods - they're a druid, who lived in this woods, or familiar with the woods - I might say, "Ok. You know what kind of creatures typically wander through this woods. These tracks stand out. Go ahead and roll at Advantage to see if you can tell what made these tracks."
Where as I use DC for "action" type skills.
"This stone wall has plenty of areas to grab hold. Because of that, the DC is 10 to use Athletics to scale this cliff side."

[schm0]

So,
Rereading the ability check section and I realize something I don't understand.
When are you supposed to adjust DC, and when are you supposed to use advantage/disadvantage?

Guidance for setting DCs are found on DMG 238. In a sentence, DCs are meant to be subjective depending on the relative difficulty of the task being attempted.

Guidance for advantage and disadvantage are found on DMG 239. In a sentence, advantage and disadvantage are granted when circumstances provide a benefit or detriment to the task being attempted.

[stoutstien]

Guidance for setting DCs are found on DMG 238. In a sentence, DCs are meant to be subjective depending on the relative difficulty of the task being attempted.

Guidance for advantage and disadvantage are found on DMG 239. In a sentence, advantage and disadvantage are granted when circumstances provide a benefit or detriment to the task being attempted.

Sounds great until you realize that the DC doesn't exist until the attempt is made to begin with so they are largely interchangeable.

[Unoriginal]

Guidance for setting DCs are found on DMG 238. In a sentence, DCs are meant to be subjective depending on the relative difficulty of the task being attempted.

Guidance for advantage and disadvantage are found on DMG 239. In a sentence, advantage and disadvantage are granted when circumstances provide a benefit or detriment to the task being attempted.

Indeed.

So for example:

Decyphering a secret code could be DC 15, but the character has disadvantage because they have to do it while sustaining a conversation with someone who doesn't know that and who would disapprove if they knew.

[Witty Username]

Sounds great until you realize that the DC doesn't exist until the attempt is made to begin with so they are largely interchangeable.

Yeah that,
Moving quietly across egg shells is hard.
Moving quietly across a hard wood floor is normal, but there are egg shells on it, so roll with disadvantage.

It implies the task has a set difficulty it never told me, that I am supposed to adjust based on circumstances that I probably already did when I set difficulty.

I does make sense in context of very hard and near impossible aren't actually supposed to be used. Hard with disadvantage would in theory be the fairer way how the rules describe.

[schm0]

Sounds great until you realize that the DC doesn't exist until the attempt is made to begin with so they are largely interchangeable.

I'm fairly confident all of the adventures on my shelf contain predetermined DCs for various tasks. :)

There are some aspects of the game that have universal DCs as well, such as social interaction, etc. The DM is expected to make up DCs on the fly for everything else, though.

[stoutstien]

I'm fairly confident all of the adventures on my shelf contain predetermined DCs for various tasks. :)

There are some aspects of the game that have universal DCs as well, such as social interaction, etc. The DM is expected to make up DCs on the fly for everything else, though.

It doesn't matter if there's a list of DC because the DC does not "exist" until it's relevant to an action taken. Since we have no idea what action is going to be used it's a suggestion at best. .

If you do try to do it this way where you have a set DC and apply advantage disadvantage to that, you run into a place where the players are literally going to do the bare minimum to obtain it and then stop caring because for some reason now their actions no longer matter.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah that,
Moving quietly across egg shells is hard.
Moving quietly across a hard wood floor is normal, but there are egg shells on it, so roll with disadvantage.

It implies the task has a set difficulty it never told me, that I am supposed to adjust based on circumstances that I probably already did when I set difficulty.

I does make sense in context of very hard and near impossible aren't actually supposed to be used. Hard with disadvantage would in theory be the fairer way how the rules describe.

If it's universal to everyone attempting this task right here right now: modify the DC.

If it depends on who is attempting: apply advantage/disadvantage.

Is moving quietly on eggshells harder if the person is blinded by a spell, or poisoned by a giant spider, or wearing armor?

[stoutstien]

If it's universal to everyone attempting this task right here right now: modify the DC.

If it depends on who is attempting: apply advantage/disadvantage.

Is moving quietly on eggshells harder if the person is blinded by a spell, or poisoned by a giant spider, or wearing armor?

the most important question is how aware is the creature that is setting the criteria of what quiet is. It's like a tree falling in the woods when no one is around to hear it.

This is a good example on how having a preset DC can be tricky as choices tend to cascade into each other.

[Darth Credence]

When I am doing it, I determine what kind of check first. Then, I establish a baseline DC for the task at hand. Then, I look at surrounding circumstances for things that would adjust that DC. Then I look at the person attempting the action and see if they have any reason to have advantage or disadvantage.

Let's say that a group is attempting to cross a 50' gap. They have a 60' rope and a flying pet that can take the rope across and tie it off, but couldn't carry the PCs. They get the rope tied off on both ends, nice and tight, and they want to walk across it.

I will say, based on the plan, that they are looking at an acrobatics(dex) check. I think that just crossing a tightrope is going to require either training, natural dexterity, or a bit of luck to make it across, so I set the DC at 10. (I could easily see someone deciding this should be very easy at 5, allowing a 16 dex Tier 1 character with proficiency to make this without fail. Different tables will come to different conclusions on the numbers, and that's fine.)

It's particularly windy today, so that will increase the difficulty a bit. Maybe a +2, so the DC is at 12. (I recognize that trying to put too fine a point on it may be a waste of time, but this is my process.)

Then, I look at the PCs trying to cross. Up first is the person with proficiency in acrobatics. That is enough for me in this case to give them advantage. (I often give advantage to people with the skill proficiency if it is something that I think will be easier for someone with the proficiency but it is still possible to attempt without it. In contrast, some things like picking a lock I only allow with proficiency, so it wouldn't be advantage to have it, just a requirement of the roll.) Next up is the fighter who has a 10 dex and no proficiency. A person without any training and not naturally dextrous, I have no issue with them being less likely than a coin flip to do this, so I feel good about the number and no advantage or disadvantage. Then we get the person who has a flaw on their character sheet about how they are afraid of heights. That's going to be a disadvantage for them to cross this. Maybe they are proficient with acrobatics and it will cancel out, but if not, they're going to have a bad time.

I review, feel like this is an appropriate outcome, and say to the players - "You tie off the rope nice and taut, making it a reasonable plan to cross. Seems like this could be easy for you under ideal circumstances, although the wind is gusting and that might increase the difficulty a bit. Those of you who have some training in things like this will have an advantage over those who don't, but it is something that anyone with natural dexterity of a good helping of luck may be able to pull off. It is quite high, so if you're afraid of heights, you may want to concentrate on not looking down."

My wording there should tell the players that this is an easy task, establishing the baseline of 10. It should be a bit harder due to the wind, which at my table may indicate something between a +1 and +3 to DC - higher than that would have moved the class to moderate. They know that if they are proficient they will have advantage, and the person with a fear of heights knows that that is going to factor in as a problem. From there, they can decide who will attempt the crossing, in what order, and if they should do anything else like running a tie line to themselves and the rope.

That process takes me a few seconds if I'm surprised by what they are doing - most of the time, I'm tracking what they are saying as they plan it out, and have that all in my head when they present a plan. But I find it pretty easy to do so quickly, and I'm at least consistent enough that I've never had the players complain (keeping notes on what I have decided in the past helps).

[schm0]

It doesn't matter if there's a list of DC because the DC does not "exist" until it's relevant to an action taken. Since we have no idea what action is going to be used it's a suggestion at best. .

If you do try to do it this way where you have a set DC and apply advantage disadvantage to that, you run into a place where the players are literally going to do the bare minimum to obtain it and then stop caring because for some reason now their actions no longer matter.

I'm not sure what definition you are using for the word exist, but it's much different than the one in my dictionary. :smallsmile: Everything printed in any adventure is a "suggestion" if you want to look at it that way. Nobody is disputing the existence of Rule 0.

As for your example, that's how ability checks are run RAW: the players tell you they want to attempt something, you determine it requires an ability check, you set the DC, and apply advantage or disadvantage as circumstances demand, the player rolls accordingly, and you narrate the outcome.

[stoutstien]

I'm not sure what definition you are using for the word exist, but it's much different than the one in my dictionary. :smallsmile: Everything printed in any adventure is a "suggestion" if you want to look at it that way. Nobody is disputing the existence of Rule 0.

As for your example, that's how ability checks are run RAW: the players tell you they want to attempt something, you determine it requires an ability check, you set the DC, and apply advantage or disadvantage as circumstances demand, the player rolls accordingly, and you narrate the outcome.

Ok look at this way. You have a large heavy object that needs to be moved to block a hole before the chamber the party in floods.
The way that you're describing it means that anybody attempting to help after advantage is achieved is useless. This leaves a massive gap between a task that might be possible with advantage and a task that's automatically achieved.

So there's no reason for the relatively weak rogue to grab a lever and try to pry it up so the big dude(s) can get a better grip or the wizard to try to use <spell X> to reduce friction or slow the water down to make the task less urgent. It's just a dice roll now.

[Blatant Beast]

Advantage/Disadvantage easily canceling each other is also an intended feature of the mechanic.
The idea is, instead of a DM spending time on calculating Circumstance Bonus and Malus, the DM can quickly decide if the check has Advantage, Disadvantage, or is just a straight roll because both a bonus and a malus are present in the circumstances.

The rule is meant to lead to a speedy resolution. Looking up/considering the plus and minus of each contributing factor to the overall circumstances of a check, is not as speedy....and 5e wants to be fast.

[schm0]

Ok look at this way. You have a large heavy object that needs to be moved to block a hole before the chamber the party in floods.
The way that you're describing it means that anybody attempting to help after advantage is achieved is useless. This leaves a massive gap between a task that might be possible with advantage and a task that's automatically achieved.

So there's no reason for the relatively weak rogue to grab a lever and try to pry it up so the big dude(s) can get a better grip or the wizard to try to use <spell X> to reduce friction or slow the water down to make the task less urgent. It's just a dice roll now.

Well, for starters, lifting and carrying things isn't a ability check, it's determined by your strength score. So advantage doesn't really apply here. Two people can lift their combined lifting capacity, anything more and they can't lift it, RAW.

If a task that requires an ability check can be easily achieved by everyone working together, or some other similar circumstance, then sure, no roll should be required. But in general, yes, the rules do not allow for the stacking of advantage for simplicity's sake. I don't know if that addresses what you were trying to say or not.

[stoutstien]

Well, for starters, lifting and carrying things isn't a skill check, it's determined by your strength score. So advantage doesn't really apply here. Two people can lift their combined lifting capacity, anything more and they can't lift it, RAW.

If a task that requires an ability check can be easily achieved by everyone working together, or some other similar circumstance, then sure, no roll should be required. But in general, yes, the rules do not allow for the stacking of advantage for simplicity's sake. I don't know if that addresses what you were trying to say or not.

Skill checks don't exist at all in 5e. They're all ability checks that you can apply skills to when it's relevant so I don't understand what that has to do with anything. Also skills have no direct interaction with advantage/disadvantage. Some DMs might let combining skills to apply advantage but that's a different subject.

You'll notice I didn't even mention how they moved it because I don't know and that is what's going to determine the DC if one is needed at all.


The rules for lifting and carrying is the starting point not a hard cap unless you're going to say that the same weight that you can barely pick off the ground is the same weight that you can pick up put over your head and carry across the room. That's one of those massive gaps I was talking about where you have a task that seems unnecessarily polarized when you have a perfectly functional system to prevent it.

**Then you have things like the often forgotten block and tackle in the adventuring gear that have no rules on how to set it up but also allow you to quadruple this value. Seeing how it's adventuring gear there has to be some way to actually use it on an adventure but you still need to find a way to set it up and attach the load.

Would you let the party potentially flip an extremely heavy object onto a set of ball bearings to roll it if the floor is flat enough?**

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds great until you realize that the DC doesn't exist until the attempt is made to begin with so they are largely interchangeable.
Not true. If you run the prepublished adventures you will find DCs already determined before the players ever get there.

I do something similar with traps and locked doors, and locked chests. The DC is already in my notes. For improvised actions, though, you sometimes have to derive a DC on the spot.

Also, the DC for a contest or opposed check is clearly defined by the opposing roll.

[Sorinth]

There isn't really a standard/best way to handle it, I tend towards taking into account any external circumstances when setting the DC and save the advantage/disadvantage for character related bonuses/penalties that come from background, backstory, race, religion, or features/spells that they use. But that's assuming that those things don't provide an auto-success, which for background/backstory stuff I tend to favour. Also what success/failure look like should also influence the DC.

Best advice is to talk to your playgroup about what their expectations are if any, play it as best you can, review things after the session (With or without the players), and adjust as needed with any big changes to how you handle things being discussed with the players. Repeat until you find what best fits you and your table.

[stoutstien]

Not true. If you run the prepublished adventures you will find DCs already determined before the players ever get there.

I do something similar with traps and locked doors, and locked chests. The DC is already in my notes. For improvised actions, though, you sometimes have to derive a DC on the spot.

Also, the DC for a contest or opposed check is clearly defined by the opposing roll.

There's no point for them to research the blueprints for the lock and have somebody help them by keeping a lookout because the DC is not going to change and advantage only stacks once.

In the same vein that trying to pick the lock in a fashion that won't leave any marks so anyone looking wouldn't know you were there and gaining access as fast as possible are somehow equally difficult even if the goals are different.

Advantage of disadvantage takes a lot of this and makes it's a nice clean yes/no but if you stop there then your world suddenly stops making any sense. Your actions are no longer determining the likelihood of success.

[GooeyChewie]

Ok look at this way. You have a large heavy object that needs to be moved to block a hole before the chamber the party in floods.
The way that you're describing it means that anybody attempting to help after advantage is achieved is useless. This leaves a massive gap between a task that might be possible with advantage and a task that's automatically achieved.

So there's no reason for the relatively weak rogue to grab a lever and try to pry it up so the big dude(s) can get a better grip or the wizard to try to use <spell X> to reduce friction or slow the water down to make the task less urgent. It's just a dice roll now.

This scenario sounds like one where I might apply a group skill check. Fair warning, I deviate from RAW in that the book says the have everybody make the *same* check, whereas I’ll have them make different checks* based on how they are contributing. But I would apply the same principle of needing half to succeed for an overall success.

*In this case, I would probably have the big dudes go for Strength (Athletics), the Rogue go for Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) to properly place the level, and the Wizard go for Intelligence (Arcana) to make the proper adjustments to get the spell to do the thing. (I might have the Wizard auto-succeed if they are using up a spell slot, mostly because I would want to reward them for using a limited resource.)

[stoutstien]

This scenario sounds like one where I might apply a group skill check. Fair warning, I deviate from RAW in that the book says the have everybody make the *same* check, whereas I’ll have them make different checks* based on how they are contributing. But I would apply the same principle of needing half to succeed for an overall success.

*In this case, I would probably have the big dudes go for Strength (Athletics), the Rogue go for Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) to properly place the level, and the Wizard go for Intelligence (Arcana) to make the proper adjustments to get the spell to do the thing. (I might have the Wizard auto-succeed if they are using up a spell slot, mostly because I would want to reward them for using a limited resource.)

Which is a perfectly valid approach you just can't predetermine that group check because the action(s) are what determined what they would be. What you don't want to happen would be to have somebody purposely sit out on this because mathematically it's increases their chances.

*Not to mention if you try to use the left,push, drag rules and you have to determine how much everything weighs which is even more annoying than adjusting DC a few points off the cuff.*

[schm0]

Skill checks don't exist at all in 5e. They're all ability checks that you can apply skills to when it's relevant so I don't understand what that has to do with anything. Also skills have no direct interaction with advantage/disadvantage. Some DMs might let combining skills to apply advantage but that's a different subject.

Thanks, my wording was inconsistent in that one instance. I've updated my post. I am well aware of the rules, thank you. :)


The rules for lifting and carrying is the starting point not a hard cap unless you're going to say that the same weight that you can barely pick off the ground is the same weight that you can pick up put over your head and carry across the room. That's one of those massive gaps I was talking about where you have a task that seems unnecessarily polarized when you have a perfectly functional system to prevent it.

There are no RAW for lifting weight beyond your carrying capacity, so yes, RAW it is a "hard cap". Regardless, it does not use an ability check, so the example is moot.


Would you let the party potentially flip an extremely heavy object onto a set of ball bearings to roll it if the floor is flat enough?**

Probably not, since the ball bearings can't be isolated and they'd eventually roll completely under the object even if it were to work. I don't understand what this has to do with ability checks or advantage/disasdvantage, though.

[stoutstien]

Thanks, my wording was inconsistent in that one instance. I've updated my post. I am well aware of the rules, thank you. :)



There are no RAW for lifting weight beyond your carrying capacity, so yes, RAW it is a "hard cap". Regardless, it does not use an ability check, so the example is moot.



Probably not, since the ball bearings can't be isolated and they'd eventually roll completely under the object even if it were to work. I don't understand what this has to do with ability checks or advantage/disasdvantage, though.

If you need the book to tell you that you can sometimes lift more then idk what to tell you. Also seeing that one of the examples of for a strength check is pushing a statue over that doesn't fall under the pushing rules regarding to your carrying capacity the rules as written directly conflict with your statement that it's a hard cap.

[RSP]

I take into account the circumstances surrounding the attempted action relative to the characters.

For instance: it’s not just “trying to recognize a holy symbol”. That statement isn’t necessarily the extent of the info we know and the challenge of the action could be significantly different for different characters, such as:

- autopass, no roll needed, for followers of the god who uses that symbol. Followers of Tyr recognize his symbol.
- easy for those who are studied in that diety’s religion and should know of the symbol, such as acolytes of a sister diety or those of an enemy diety who likely are trained to know the relevant symbols.
- hard for someone with no training in Religion, and no background reason as to why they would have been exposed to that symbol.


This may lead to three different PCs having three different DCs for recognizing the same symbol, but, to me, it makes sense: a follower of the religion should just know their diety’s symbol (assuming it’s a regularly used one), while someone who’s never studied, or cared to learn the different holy symbols might have a more difficult time identifying who’s symbol is who’s.

[schm0]

If you need the book to tell you that you can sometimes lift more then idk what to tell you. Also seeing that one of the examples of for a strength check is pushing a statue over that doesn't fall under the pushing rules regarding to your carrying capacity the rules as written directly conflict with your statement that it's a hard cap.

I don't need the book to tell me anything, of course. As I said earlier, nobody is disputing the existence of rule 0. I'm simply talking about the RAW. And by the RAW, what I said was entirely correct.

As for pushing over a statue, that is obviously much different than pushing it along the ground, so no, I would not say they are the same.

I'm still interested to hear an example that involves an ability check that touches on what you cited earlier:


If you do try to do it this way where you have a set DC and apply advantage disadvantage to that, you run into a place where the players are literally going to do the bare minimum to obtain it and then stop caring because for some reason now their actions no longer matter.

I'm still not sure I understand what you were trying to say here.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's no point for them to research the blueprints for the lock and have somebody help them by keeping a lookout because the DC is not going to change and advantage only stacks once. There's an interesting hill to die on. Research of the blue prints would be an interesting way to deal with a lock that is hard to open, yes. Might even negate the roll entirely. I see that you are complaining about not being able to add bonuses to the moon. The advantage feature works for the whole game.


In the same vein that trying to pick the lock in a fashion that won't leave any marks so anyone looking wouldn't know you were there and gaining access as fast as possible are somehow equally difficult even if the goals are different. How you apply time pressure is situationally dependent. If you have to do it fast, or perceive that, you might even accrue disadvantage. (though not with the Thief archetypes fast hands ...)

Advantage of disadvantage takes a lot of this and makes it's a nice clean yes/no but if you stop there then your world suddenly stops making any sense. Your actions are no longer determining the likelihood of success.Bold part is wrong.
What you appear to be doing here is complaining that the d20 system in general, that's it's too swingy, and that you can't control everything.
Unless there is a chance to fail there is no point in rolling the dice in the first place.

[stoutstien]

There's an interesting hill to die on. Research of the blue prints would be an interesting way to deal with a lock that is hard to open, yes. Might even negate the roll entirely. I see that you are complaining about not being able to add bonuses to the moon. The advantage feature works for the whole game.

How you apply time pressure is situationally dependent. If you have to do it fast, or perceive that, you might even accrue disadvantage. (though not with the Thief archetypes fast hands ...)
Bold part is wrong.
What you appear to be doing here is complaining that the d20 system in general, that's it's too swingy, and that you can't control everything.
Unless there is a chance to fail there is no point in rolling the dice in the first place.

They're not bonuses that you can stack because the DC doesn't exist yet. That's the entire point. You only want to have one number which is determined based on the player's action rather than a predetermined value.

In other words you don't know if the task is easy or hard because you don't know what they're doing yet

[KorvinStarmast]

In other words you don't know if the task is easy or hard Nor do you need to. Play and find out. :smallwink:

[stoutstien]

Nor do you need to. Play and find out. :smallwink:

I'm viewing it from the GMs point of reference. You can't set a DC before you know what they are doing.

**The players should definitely have a pretty darn good idea if something is easy or hard before they even ask. If not the GM failed and should feel bad.**

[Sigreid]

I set the base difficulty on the idea of how likely a competent but bog standard commoner would be to succeed. Once set, the base DC for that task does not change as long as the task doesn't change. Advantage or Disadvantage are applied when something outside the task itself modifies the challenge of the task.

[Darth Credence]

I set the base difficulty on the idea of how likely a competent but bog standard commoner would be to succeed. Once set, the base DC for that task does not change as long as the task doesn't change. Advantage or Disadvantage are applied when something outside the task itself modifies the challenge of the task.

Something I hadn't mentioned before - I do not set DCs to what a commoner can do, and my players know this. PCs are special - just being a PC is effectively a +5 to all skill rolls for me and I set DCs accordingly. If the odds of a commoner sinking a free throw in basketball are about 50%, then I would set the DC for that at 5 for an athletics(Dex) check. They should hit that shot a lot more than a commoner, even if they have a 10 dex and no proficiency, IMO (commoners just don't roll, they get narrated). I completely understand others doing it differently.

Also to follow on that - skilled commoners will auto-succeed at the things they are skilled at, even if it is something that would still require a roll from a PC with proficiency. A PC does the things they do over a broad range, and not all the time. A professional commoner does basically the same thing day in and day out, and so should be better than even a skilled PC at doing that same thing.

[Sigreid]

Something I hadn't mentioned before - I do not set DCs to what a commoner can do, and my players know this. PCs are special - just being a PC is effectively a +5 to all skill rolls for me and I set DCs accordingly. If the odds of a commoner sinking a free throw in basketball are about 50%, then I would set the DC for that at 5 for an athletics(Dex) check. They should hit that shot a lot more than a commoner, even if they have a 10 dex and no proficiency, IMO (commoners just don't roll, they get narrated). I completely understand others doing it differently.

Also to follow on that - skilled commoners will auto-succeed at the things they are skilled at, even if it is something that would still require a roll from a PC with proficiency. A PC does the things they do over a broad range, and not all the time. A professional commoner does basically the same thing day in and day out, and so should be better than even a skilled PC at doing that same thing.

Fair enough. My way if doing it is basically a response to the DC race I often saw in 3.x where to "keep a challenge" DCs seemed to keep pace with skill point investment, basically making it feel like you never actually got better, numbers just get higher.

For commoners doing what they do? The village blacksmith never rolls to make a horse shoe unless there's a really unusual challenge involved and it matters if he fails. I.e. if the players need shoes for 4 horses and the blacksmith only has an hour to make them, he's rolling.

[Pex]

The difficulty of a thing doesn't change based on the person doing it. One person can have a better chance of succeeding than another, but the task itself remains itself. Change the DC if an added anomaly changes the nature of the task. Apply Advantage/Disadvantage if an added anomaly changes the person doing the task.

Climb a knotted rope with Athletics. DC is X
Bob with Athletics +3 climbs the rope. DC is X
Frank with Athletics +7 climbs the rope. DC is X
The rope is not knotted and has a slippery substance on it. DC is Y > X
Bob has Water Walk cast on him for Reason and comes across the not knotted and slippery substance rope and wants to climb it. While technically not walking and the slippery substance is not pure water asks the DM can it help. DM likes the logic behind it and says yes. DC is Y > X Bob rolls with Advantage.
Franks want to climb the same rope but is wearing full plate, has a full backpack, and the halfling is sitting on his shoulders. DC is Y > X Franks rolls with Disadvantage.

[stoutstien]

Fair enough. My way if doing it is basically a response to the DC race I often saw in 3.x where to "keep a challenge" DCs seemed to keep pace with skill point investment, basically making it feel like you never actually got better, numbers just get higher.

For commoners doing what they do? The village blacksmith never rolls to make a horse shoe unless there's a really unusual challenge involved and it matters if he fails. I.e. if the players need shoes for 4 horses and the blacksmith only has an hour to make them, he's rolling.

One of those dirty little secrets about 5e is NPCs don't need to make any ability check unless its contested by a PC. You can use dice but it doesn't have and real function.

It's like rolling for weather vs picking it flat out or random mob tables. Since you're the one who determined if the dice are used it's not really a choice even if it feels that way.

There's also access wonderful protection from NPCs randomly doing something completely insane just because the dice say so like snapping chains.

[Darth Credence]

Fair enough. My way if doing it is basically a response to the DC race I often saw in 3.x where to "keep a challenge" DCs seemed to keep pace with skill point investment, basically making it feel like you never actually got better, numbers just get higher.

For commoners doing what they do? The village blacksmith never rolls to make a horse shoe unless there's a really unusual challenge involved and it matters if he fails. I.e. if the players need shoes for 4 horses and the blacksmith only has an hour to make them, he's rolling.

Yeah, not much effective difference between our methods - mine is just to explicitly make PCs better than a commoner. And I agree wholeheartedly on the blacksmith bit - yes, a professional would still be rolling if there were unusual circumstances like a time constraint. It would be rare, and only if I'd rather see a random outcome than narrate one I choose. I guess the better way to phrase it for me would be that a professional doing their job is going to succeed at it unless there is an unusual constraint, in which case there is the possibility of failure that may be resolved through ability checks. (Although I will admit I have no idea how long it takes to make horseshoes and don't know that I would have immediately thought that an hour wasn't enough time if it hadn't been pointed out :smallbiggrin: )

[RSP]

The difficulty of a thing doesn't change based on the person doing it.

So knowing a Mystra holy symbol as a Cleric of Mystra with the Acolyte Background, in which you were a priest of Mystra, is the same DC as the PC who grew up in the wild, never exposed to the symbol in their life?

So is it DC 15 for the priest of Mystra to know Mystra’s symbol or is it auto pass for the hermit to know it, though they’ve never seen it or heard of Mystra before?

[greenstone]

I think about it like this: DC is about the challenge itself, adv and disadv is about the person attempting it.

Climbing an unknotted rope is DC 10. But the rope is old and wet, and has algae growing on it, making it very slippery. The DC is adjusted to 15.

Frank is trying to climb the rope. He makes the check at disadvantage because he got his hand caught in a sliding panel trap and its use is compromised.

QFT.

Another way of describing it is be that the DC is intrinsic to the task and the adv/disadv is intrinsic to the character.

[Pex]

So knowing a Mystra holy symbol as a Cleric of Mystra with the Acolyte Background, in which you were a priest of Mystra, is the same DC as the PC who grew up in the wild, never exposed to the symbol in their life?

So is it DC 15 for the priest of Mystra to know Mystra’s symbol or is it auto pass for the hermit to know it, though they’ve never seen it or heard of Mystra before?

There is no DC if there's no need to roll. It is different than someone's modifier allows them to succeed a DC check on a Natural 1. Technically there is a roll; you just don't have to do it physically rolling the clackity clack math rock on the table to know it will succeed. The hermit will have the same DC as a cleric of Red Knight, but the cleric will have a better chance of knowing due to a higher modifier than the hermit on knowledge religion. The DM might impose disadvantage to the hermit for being so isolated, but the DC is still the same as the Red Knight cleric. The DM might say the hermit can't roll at all, no DC, because there's no way he could have obtained the knowledge depending on campaign circumstances. The DC exists only when there's a fail/succeed chance. Game Math makes it moot if there's still a roll but the modifier will succeed on a 1 or fail on a 20 anyway.

[lesser_minion]

So knowing a Mystra holy symbol as a Cleric of Mystra with the Acolyte Background, in which you were a priest of Mystra, is the same DC as the PC who grew up in the wild, never exposed to the symbol in their life?

So is it DC 15 for the priest of Mystra to know Mystra’s symbol or is it auto pass for the hermit to know it, though they’ve never seen it or heard of Mystra before?

For this to be an ability check, you'd want to know what might happen (a PC recognises the symbol) and why it might happen (either because it's the holy symbol of their deity, or because it's the holy symbol of their friend's deity). If the why is different, then it's not the same check.

That said, I'm pretty sure Pex's point was more that you shouldn't start handing out advantage/disadvantage or manipulating DCs because of things the rules already cover -- being a bard shouldn't reduce the DC required to sing a song, for example.

[Sigreid]

One of those dirty little secrets about 5e is NPCs don't need to make any ability check unless its contested by a PC. You can use dice but it doesn't have and real function.

It's like rolling for weather vs picking it flat out or random mob tables. Since you're the one who determined if the dice are used it's not really a choice even if it feels that way.

There's also access wonderful protection from NPCs randomly doing something completely insane just because the dice say so like snapping chains.

Handle it how you want, but I'm playing a game, not writing a novel, so if there's a chance of failure that has an effect, I'm letting the mechanics mechanic.

[Blatant Beast]

Handle it how you want, but I'm playing a game, not writing a novel, so if there's a chance of failure that has an effect, I'm letting the mechanics mechanic.

Either method, is officially sanctioned.
While you may not be writing a book, anyone participating in a D&D game is involved in a shared storytelling experience.

Imagine an action film in which twenty minutes of screen time is taken up, watching someone poorly change a tire on a getaway car. I can imagine some people would consider that not a great use of screentime.

[KorvinStarmast]

Another way of describing it is be that the DC is intrinsic to the task and the adv/disadv is intrinsic to the character.
The character and the situation on the latter (per the CH1 and CH7 discussion of adv/disadv).

[schm0]

Another way of describing it is be that the DC is intrinsic to the task and the adv/disadv is intrinsic to the character.

Advantage and disadvantage should be for circumstantial benefits. The DMG recommends the following:


DMG 239: Consider granting advantage when...

Circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge.
Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success.
A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task.
Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success.



I tend to agree with this advice. Ability scores, proficiency, expertise, and other class abilities can all augment a check, and those are things that are intrinsic to the character. Those things should already factor into the modifiers, not grant advantage or disadvantage.

[Sigreid]

Either method, is officially sanctioned.
While you may not be writing a book, anyone participating in a D&D game is involved in a shared storytelling experience.

Imagine an action film in which twenty minutes of screen time is taken up, watching someone poorly change a tire on a getaway car. I can imagine some people would consider that not a great use of screentime.

Unless that's why the cops catch them and now the failure to quickly change the tire is important to the story. But, yeah, a table can do it however works for them. Even way back when D&D started, the rules were guidelines to help people play together and it was never expected that every table would play exactly the same way.

[stoutstien]

Handle it how you want, but I'm playing a game, not writing a novel, so if there's a chance of failure that has an effect, I'm letting the mechanics mechanic.

But you are the GM. You put the NPC there, determined it's abilities, and gave it the task. Why would you suddenly decide the last step should be random?

"Just a second guys. I got to roll 142 charisma checks to handle the trading that's going on behind you that's completely irrelevant to anything that you want to do"

[Sigreid]

But you are the GM. You put the NPC there, determined it's abilities, and gave it the task. Why would you suddenly decide the last step should be random?

"Just a second guys. I got to roll 142 charisma checks to handle the trading that's going on behind you that's completely irrelevant to anything that you want to do"
Because if I'm rolling it's most likely because the player has driven an action from the NPC that is outside his normal do it every day routine where his success or failure impacts what happens with or to the PCs. In other words, his success or failure drives or alters decisions and plans from the players.

[stoutstien]

Because if I'm rolling it's most likely because the player has driven an action from the NPC that is outside his normal do it every day routine where his success or failure impacts what happens with or to the PCs. In other words, his success or failure drives or alters decisions and plans from the players.

So you roll with the out come is contested when dealing with the PCs...which is exactly what I said.

[Sigreid]

So you roll with the out come is contested when dealing with the PCs...which is exactly what I said.
Clearly we are mostly just having near miss communication.

[stoutstien]

Clearly we are mostly just having near miss communication.

Yea I'm seeing that as well lol.

What I was getting at that using a commoner as a measurement for DC has a pretty large pitfall as they don't make ability checks unless the PCs are around. It's like a proximity effect.

[Sigreid]

Yea I'm seeing that as well lol.

What I was getting at that using a commoner as a measurement for DC has a pretty large pitfall as they don't make ability checks unless the PCs are around. It's like a proximity effect.
There's that communication thing again. That was just my short hand for saying I set DCs based on the chance a person with no positive or negative modifiers to the roll would be able to succeed at the task.

[stoutstien]

There's that communication thing again. That was just my short hand for saying I set DCs based on the chance a person with no positive or negative modifiers to the roll would be able to succeed at the task.

Ah DC as comparisons with nil as the start point. Makes sense if you are running semi static DCs for ability checks.

[MoiMagnus]

So,
Rereading the ability check section and I realize something I don't understand.
When are you supposed to adjust DC, and when are you supposed to use advantage/disadvantage?

From what I can tell one is supposed to ask is this an Easy, moderate, or hard task and set accordingly. But if their are exceptional circumstances to apply advantage or disadvantage. But checks don't have a 'standard' difficulty, they are set to the specific scenario which would include those circumstances in whether it would be easy, hard or somewhere in between.

There are some, like say sneaking or spotting is set by opposition, and so advantage/disadvantage would indicate circumstances, like say the spotter is poisoned and groggy, or the sneak is wearing noisy boots.

Is that when is it intended to be used or are DMs intended to use it more broadly, setting a 'baseline' for tasks and using advantage/disadvantage to adjust them?

While the DMG lack guidance on that, I believe this is one of the situations where we should simply follow the maths.

Since advantages/disadvantages don't stack with each others, an advantage is a circumstantial bonus that is redundant with being helped, while a disadvantage is a circumstantial bonus that is fully compensated by being helped. On the other hand, modifying the DC will stack with everything.

The other factor is variance. A disadvantage means that luck is unlikely to save you, an advantage means that bad luck is unlikely to screw you. On the other hand, outside of extreme outliers, changing the DC will keep the result mostly up to lady luck (unless the players get advantages/disadvantage from other sources, of course).

[Pex]

Either method, is officially sanctioned.
While you may not be writing a book, anyone participating in a D&D game is involved in a shared storytelling experience.

Imagine an action film in which twenty minutes of screen time is taken up, watching someone poorly change a tire on a getaway car. I can imagine some people would consider that not a great use of screentime.

Depends on the writing and acting. One famous tv sit-com had the whole episode take place with the characters waiting in line for a Chinese restaurant.

:smallyuk::smallbiggrin:

[Blatant Beast]

Depends on the writing and acting. One famous tv sit-com had the whole episode take place with the characters waiting in line for a Chinese restaurant.

:smallyuk::smallbiggrin:

Famously, not an action movie, however.
The idea that I was expressing some minor disagreement with was the notion that if a mechanic was applicable to the NPC Blacksmith being asked to some emergency horse-shoeing for the PCs, then it should be applied.

I think it is fine for narrative flow, to not apply some mechanics, at times.

A DM is on a solid rules footing either way they chose to rule.

[RSP]

being a bard shouldn't reduce the DC required to sing a song, for example.

Agreed that being a Bard shouldn’t matter, but there’s a difference in difficulty in say doing a performance of a song you’ve rehearsed multiple times a day for a month, and trying to do a performance in which you’re singing a song you e never even heard before.

Either situation could be described as a challenge to “sing a song”, but I’d say performing something you’ve prepared and practiced is much different than trying to perform something on the spot without experiencing it before.

[Witty Username]

The difficulty of a thing doesn't change based on the person doing it. One person can have a better chance of succeeding than another, but the task itself remains itself. Change the DC if an added anomaly changes the nature of the task. Apply Advantage/Disadvantage if an added anomaly changes the person doing the task.


I do think there is some wiggleroom with that, what is the task vs what is the person.
Tools are references are one thing that springs to mind.

Two people lost in the woods where one has a trail map implies one has advantage (or disadvantage but we will get to that).
But you could frame it as one is following a map, and one is not and so are doing easier or harder tasks.

Like say recognizing a holy symbol on sight vs finding its meanings in a local library.

--
My personal take is adv/dis should probably be used sparingly. Since a lot of PC facing effects use it.
People make a big deal of how flanking devalues reckless attack, and this seems to warrant similar concerns.
also, at least my personal thing, many things seem at least reasonable to affect the DC.

Take for example lifting something above your weight class, one's strength is definitely a component of that, but things like lift twice your usual would be 'the same even if that has a different scope.'

[lesser_minion]

Agreed that being a Bard shouldn’t matter, but there’s a difference in difficulty in say doing a performance of a song you’ve rehearsed multiple times a day for a month, and trying to do a performance in which you’re singing a song you e never even heard before.

Either situation could be described as a challenge to “sing a song”, but I’d say performing something you’ve prepared and practiced is much different than trying to perform something on the spot without experiencing it before.

If they're both singing in the same environment, then that sounds like a contest, in which case your main tools for favouring whoever had rehearsed more would be advantage and disadvantage. That said, they'd have to have rehearsed that song for that specific performance. Just practicing songs in general is already covered by proficiency and expertise.

[rel]

I determine the need for a roll and DC based on the action being performed and the character performing it.
Disadvantage comes from the surrounding environment and complicating circumstances.
Advantage generally comes from PC abilities, gear, tactics, and player cleverness. It's not something I apply unbidden as a GM.

[RSP]

If they're both singing in the same environment, then that sounds like a contest, in which case your main tools for favouring whoever had rehearsed more would be advantage and disadvantage. That said, they'd have to have rehearsed that song for that specific performance. Just practicing songs in general is already covered by proficiency and expertise.

Not referring to this as a contest: just in general showing how what could be labeled as “singing in public” could be vastly different challenges depending on the character.

If it were a challenge though, again, I’d say it’s two different DCs (and possibly different ability checks altogether). For instance, if one character is performing a song they’ve rehearsed countless times over the last month, and the other character is needing to listen to the first performance, and then perform the same song but the first time they’re hearing it is when the previous character performed it. That isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison on what each is doing and, to me at least, needs more nuance in the checks then just “one character has advantage” or whatnot.

But I’m just offering examples how different characters could have different DCs for performing what could otherwise be described as the “same challenge”. And some times, what appears the same challenge may not even be a challenge for one of the characters. For instance, if you have the Entertainer background, you get lodging for free, and a positive disposition amount townsfolk when recognized; yet a Bard may still need to roll for such things.