Commonly misunderstood rules

[47Ace]

None of that is "fine parsing of semantics." The game is VERY CLEAR about the difference between attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks. Nobody argues what is what when those terms come up. Multiclassing rules are a bit complicated, and people make mistakes, yes, but again, nobody is arguing fine points of order and wording over them. The actual RAW are precise, if a bit hard to figure out without thinking about them. There's no ambiguity or weird, careful parsing needed. It's just a bit complicated.

Where people argue is over things like "Does Innured to Undeath mean that you keep the hundreds of hit points from that Gladiator you possessed with magic jar?" And while I, personally, think the answer and intent are clear, I also think arguing about it to the level of precise attempts to parse each word that I've seen is silly. Ask your DM. Get his ruling. That's where "Rulings, not Rules" is meant to be in play.

The game is also about as clear (in my opinion) about the difference between attack with a ranged weapon and ranged weapon attack but, what ever. I also feel that you are probably in the category of effectively having a degree in role playing game design and your interpretation of rulings not rules (and your rulings with regards to ranged weapon attack vs attack with a ranged weapon) are pretty reasonable. I definitely feel that the game (in particular the DMG) could have done a better job in giving less experienced DMs the support to make rulings not rules work better. That and slightly clearer rules with less to no cases of slight differences being important would have helped as well.This would probably help the consistency some people complain about and at least arm DMs with the ability to warn players about how their rules will affect players abilities well before it comes up in play.

[47Ace]

I feel like this goes back to, "we would have caught everything given unlimited playtesting, but at some point, the product has to ship."

I think 5e fares better in this sticking point better than the editions that tried to be more crunchy and legalistic. I think it's because crunchy and legalistic rules create something like Power Creep, except more like Complexity Creep as it's not necessarily power that increases. 3.5 wasn't overly crunchy until they dedicated themselves to updating it with new content and errata to keep the same level of crunch.

PF wore it slightly better for being smaller in scale and more tightly controlled.

4e probably had the right idea to fix 3e complexity creep, making everything relatively streamlined without losing rigidity, then we found it tended to quash the freedom of imagination as all options felt too similar, and choices too moot.

5e has recognized that too much rigidity in the rules limits options unless you add content, but adding content exponentially increases complexity. So instead they sacrifice some rigidity and instead offer more flexibility. This tends to make a few core mechanics more of a headache to parse, but the countee is that the flexibility of the system means incorrect parsing has less dramatic effect on gameplay, minimizing its effect.

Also, a lot of DMs like the squishiness, as it creates an opportunity to "talk shop" about how the game works at the table. I enjoy talking with my players who also DM, and comparing notes on how we interpret and refine the rules in order to create the game experience we want. Some game systems encourage that more than others.

Both of these are true. I still feel that the game could have done a far better job of helping the DMs make rulings not rules if it spend less time pretending it can do everything out of the box and more time explain what it is and is not good at out of the box. Things like clearly stating that balance assumes an average of 5-6 encounters an 2 short rest per long rest and deviating from that can cause ballance problems. Saying that more clearly that skills work poorly out of combat and unless you are looking to play a slapstick game you should call out of combat skill roles rarely and think about what failer and success mean. Giving DMs with no real world experience with magic a basic explanation of at least one complete way it interacts with the world. Like scrying has limits on how much stone and lead it can go through, how do these limit impact the spell, are all (most?) meeting rooms surrounded by stone? Is the kings quarters? Is his carriage lead lined? The power of that spell and the amount of creativity required to use it varies massively with the answer to those questions and I have no idea what the default assumption is. I have not problem with DM's changing from the default assumptions but everyine could make more informed decisions if we had a baseline.

DMs talking shop about how the games works at their table and what rules and rulings they use to do that is fantastic, I just think it would be improved if there was a better clearer baseline. That where new DMs, me, would have to spend less time reading through those discussions before they can run the game and make ruling effectively to do what they want. Its not about telling DMs what they can and can't do its about telling them the imformation about the games limits and strengths so they can make informed ruling and rulings discussions with less then a decade of experience.

[EggKookoo]

Both of these are true. I still feel that the game could have done a far better job of helping the DMs make rulings not rules if it spend less time pretending it can do everything out of the box and more time explain what it is and is not good at out of the box. Things like clearly stating that balance assumes an average of 5-6 encounters an 2 short rest per long rest and deviating from that can cause ballance problems. Saying that more clearly that skills work poorly out of combat and unless you are looking to play a slapstick game you should call out of combat skill roles rarely and think about what failer and success mean. Giving DMs with no real world experience with magic a basic explanation of at least one complete way it interacts with the world. Like scrying has limits on how much stone and lead it can go through, how do these limit impact the spell, are all (most?) meeting rooms surrounded by stone? Is the kings quarters? Is his carriage lead lined? The power of that spell and the amount of creativity required to use it varies massively with the answer to those questions and I have no idea what the default assumption is. I have not problem with DM's changing from the default assumptions but everyine could make more informed decisions if we had a baseline.

So would a hypothetical 6th edition benefit from more of a separation of mechanics and setting? We have two questions here: what can scrying see through, and how widespread is awareness of that limitation? One is a mechanical question and the other is more setting-dependent. You might not find many lead-lined chambers in a low-magic setting, but they might be routine in a high-magic setting.

[Tanarii]

Things like clearly stating that balance assumes an average of 5-6 encounters an 2 short rest per long rest and deviating from that can cause ballance problems. Saying that more clearly that skills work poorly out of combat and unless you are looking to play a slapstick game you should call out of combat skill roles rarely and think about what failer and success mean.

In the DMG for both. And sure enough, when DMs haven't read the DMG you get adventuring day balance issues and poorly working skills.

Giving DMs with no real world experience with magic a basic explanation of at least one complete way it interacts with the world. Like scrying has limits on how much stone and lead it can go through, how do these limit impact the spell, are all (most?) meeting rooms surrounded by stone? Is the kings quarters? Is his carriage lead lined? The power of that spell and the amount of creativity required to use it varies massively with the answer to those questions and I have no idea what the default assumption is. I have not problem with DM's changing from the default assumptions but everyine could make more informed decisions if we had a baseline.

This I don't recall being in the DMG world or adventuring building sections. They are an area of the DMG where I don't measure up to my own advice of reading the DMG as a DM. I do recall a small blurb about levels of magic, but I don't recall it went into a discussion with examples of specific spells. The AD&D DMG most had a whole section with discussions of specific spells.

[47Ace]

So would a hypothetical 6th edition benefit from more of a separation of mechanics and setting? We have two questions here: what can scrying see through, and how widespread is awareness of that limitation? One is a mechanical question and the other is more setting-dependent. You might not find many lead-lined chambers in a low-magic setting, but they might be routine in a high-magic setting.

Definitely, even just suggesting such a limit would help. Also, at least in my opinion low magic and high level casters don't go together. My main complaint with that point is that the game sets DMs lose to create magical worlds with no solid advice on how to deal with magic, or how adventures work but they are not quite as bad with that. It's like reviving a caveman frozen in ice and sending them off to run a corporation without telling them any more they money exist. Yeah that's a bit of an exaggeration.

In the DMG for both. And sure enough, when DMs haven't read the DMG you get adventuring day balance issues and poorly working skills.

This I don't recall being in the DMG world or adventuring building sections. They are an area of the DMG where I don't measure up to my own advice of reading the DMG as a DM. I do recall a small blurb about levels of magic, but I don't recall it went into a discussion with examples of specific spells. The AD&D DMG most had a whole section with discussions of specific spells.

I think they still could have been clearer about those things and potential downsides of not following them. There are some other things and Xanathars helped with a bit but, I still feel it could have over all been better though I don't think you are fundamentally disagreeing with me here.

[Segev]

The game is also about as clear (in my opinion) about the difference between attack with a ranged weapon and ranged weapon attack but, what ever. I also feel that you are probably in the category of effectively having a degree in role playing game design and your interpretation of rulings not rules (and your rulings with regards to ranged weapon attack vs attack with a ranged weapon) are pretty reasonable. I definitely feel that the game (in particular the DMG) could have done a better job in giving less experienced DMs the support to make rulings not rules work better. That and slightly clearer rules with less to no cases of slight differences being important would have helped as well.This would probably help the consistency some people complain about and at least arm DMs with the ability to warn players about how their rules will affect players abilities well before it comes up in play.

Yeah, the DMG fails hardcore at most of its proposed function. It's probably the weakest book in the entire edition, in terms of meeting its goals. (And I am not particularly fond of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, feeling that it was slim on useful content compared to, say, Volo's Guide.)

It really needs a LOT more advice on how to adjudicate at the table. More closing of decision loops, more examples of finding intent in the RAW and of how to feel out judgment calls. I appreciate the compliment on my ruling ability, but I will point out that to this DAY I have trouble figuring out how to set ability check DCs on the fly, because they're so badly lacking in examples of what, precisely, the game expects to be "easy" or "hard."

[Pleh]

to this DAY I have trouble figuring out how to set ability check DCs on the fly, because they're so badly lacking in examples of what, precisely, the game expects to be "easy" or "hard."

How hard is it to pick a lock? Well, I guess that depends on who made the lock, what it's meant to secure, what it's made from, is it even designed to counter lockpicking or just keep something shut? It can't be lockpicked if it's a combination lock, but that doesn't mean you can't try to listen for the ticks as you enter the combination. How hard should that be?

I feel like this problem painted the game designers into a corner. How do you begin to recommend a difficulty without telling DMs exactly what encounters they are running? Picking a lock could be any conceivable difficulty, depending on how you set it up, so there isn't a great way to give advice on how to set that up and they opted for, "it's as hard as you think it should be."

They bypass this problem with the Monster Manual, which to some extent allows them to tell DMs what they are building their encounters with. The definitive rules for how monsters work lets them give better definition for how hard the monsters ought to be to overcome.

Maybe for skill rolls, they need a Skill Challenge book full of various challenge encounters that DMs can modify to approximate difficulty.

In order to talk about difficulty, they need to talk about more than the skill itself. They need to account for every relevant detail of context, which is the DM's job, not the rulebook's.

[Segev]

How hard is it to pick a lock? Well, I guess that depends on who made the lock, what it's meant to secure, what it's made from, is it even designed to counter lockpicking or just keep something shut? It can't be lockpicked if it's a combination lock, but that doesn't mean you can't try to listen for the ticks as you enter the combination. How hard should that be?

I feel like this problem painted the game designers into a corner. How do you begin to recommend a difficulty without telling DMs exactly what encounters they are running? Picking a lock could be any conceivable difficulty, depending on how you set it up, so there isn't a great way to give advice on how to set that up and they opted for, "it's as hard as you think it should be."

They bypass this problem with the Monster Manual, which to some extent allows them to tell DMs what they are building their encounters with. The definitive rules for how monsters work lets them give better definition for how hard the monsters ought to be to overcome.

I'd probably base it on the gp value of the lock. But again, I don't have any guidelines, so I'd be spitballing badly. Maybe they are, too, but in theory they have some design metrics in mind. Even just saying, "Your average key lock is expected to be this kind of lock, and this difficulty," would give some place to START setting DCs for other locks.

Maybe for skill rolls, they need a Skill Challenge book full of various challenge encounters that DMs can modify to approximate difficulty.

In order to talk about difficulty, they need to talk about more than the skill itself. They need to account for every relevant detail of context, which is the DM's job, not the rulebook's.

Gee, if only there were some sort of book that was a Guide for Dungeon Masters on how to run the game and design encounters.

[EggKookoo]

I'd probably base it on the gp value of the lock. But again, I don't have any guidelines, so I'd be spitballing badly. Maybe they are, too, but in theory they have some design metrics in mind. Even just saying, "Your average key lock is expected to be this kind of lock, and this difficulty," would give some place to START setting DCs for other locks.

They need to make a Monster Manual for items, with different items with mini stat blocks. You could have a Lesser Lock or an Elder Lock, or even an Ancient Lock, each with its own AC, HP, and pick DC.

I'm only kind of partly joking...

[Keltest]

I feel like theres a tendency to overthink these things. Why do you need an example for how hard a lock should be to crack? The answer is, invariably, exactly as hard as you want it to be to crack. Small town jail? Easy lock, DC 10 on the best maintained cells. Big city jail? Better materials, more usage and upkeep, DC 15. Maximum security in the same jail? Best quality cell locks they can manage, DC 20. Breaking into the king's vault? DC 25, and you need to disarm the trap as a separate check.

[Lille]

Bolded for emphasis:

They need to make a Monster Manual for items, with different items with mini stat blocks. You could have a Lesser Lock or an Elder Lock, or even an Ancient Lock, each with its own AC, HP, and pick DC.

I'm only kind of partly joking...

Elder Lock makes me think Great Old One. How about a Great Old Lock that can be a patron for a warlock, thus making them a Locklock?

[EggKookoo]

I feel like theres a tendency to overthink these things. Why do you need an example for how hard a lock should be to crack? The answer is, invariably, exactly as hard as you want it to be to crack. Small town jail? Easy lock, DC 10 on the best maintained cells. Big city jail? Better materials, more usage and upkeep, DC 15. Maximum security in the same jail? Best quality cell locks they can manage, DC 20. Breaking into the king's vault? DC 25, and you need to disarm the trap as a separate check.

I tries making this argument a few months back. My position boiled down to "a hard lock is 'hard' to pick." Then came the cries of railroading and gamism and all that fun stuff.

Bolded for emphasis:

Elder Lock makes me think Great Old One. How about a Great Old Lock that can be a patron for a warlock, thus making them a Locklock?

Winner!

[Keltest]

I tries making this argument a few months back. My position boiled down to "a hard lock is 'hard' to pick." Then came the cries of railroading and gamism and all that fun stuff.

I generally just ignore any cries of railroading just for setting a DC the players cant meet. If lockpicking isn't working, try something else. This isn't a video game where there is the One True Path to get to victory that you need to be able to follow no matter what decisions you make. Failure is an option, and the party has the capacity to rebound from it.

[Segev]

I feel like theres a tendency to overthink these things. Why do you need an example for how hard a lock should be to crack? The answer is, invariably, exactly as hard as you want it to be to crack. Small town jail? Easy lock, DC 10 on the best maintained cells. Big city jail? Better materials, more usage and upkeep, DC 15. Maximum security in the same jail? Best quality cell locks they can manage, DC 20. Breaking into the king's vault? DC 25, and you need to disarm the trap as a separate check.

And by tying "easy lock" to "small town's best-maintained jail cells," "Big city jail -> better materials -> DC 15," and "Maximum security big city jail -> best quality cell locks they can manage -> DC 20," and "king's vault -> DC 25, and it's trapped," you've closed the loop that D&D 5e fails to.

Maybe it seems obvious to you. I wouldn't have been able to come up with that.

[Keravath]

... but I will point out that to this DAY I have trouble figuring out how to set ability check DCs on the fly, because they're so badly lacking in examples of what, precisely, the game expects to be "easy" or "hard."

You might want to try looking at this one from an alternate point of view.

Instead of ... "How difficult is this particular task in an objective reality?" ... consider ... "For this group of players or player, what chance do I want to have them succeed at this task?"

If you are in a situation with an exceptional lock with a rogue with thieves tools skills and perhaps expertise then you might consider that the lock was created by a master craftsman designed to keep the content hidden ... and give it a DC of 25. which with the Rogue's +10 to thieves tools gives about a 25% success rate. On the other hand, if the party has a fighter with the criminal background and proficiency in thieves tools, then perhaps the lock was just made by a master craftsman to keep most people out and the DC is 20. With the fighter's +5 this then gives the party a 25% chance of dealing with the lock encounter by simple lock picking. Spells, brute force and other ingenious approaches still remain if the lock picking fails.

As the DM, you narrate the story so that the players can have fun. A DC 25 lock when the highest skill in the party is +4 or +5 is just frustrating and is the DM saying to the players "You can not solve this lock by lockpicking ... try another approach" ... except they don't know that until they try lockpicking a few times and discover that they can't succeed that way.

Objective reality in a role playing game is whatever the DM decides it should be. The DM generally knows their players, so the DM can set the DCs with the party in mind to generate a certain liklihood of the party succeeding at a task. This could be exactly why the rules don't have that many concrete examples of determining DCs BECAUSE there is no concrete DC for any specific task, there is only how likely the DM wants it to be for the party or character to succeed at a given task to make the narrative and game more fun.

Although there is a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the players, the DM really should be aware that the game does not have to contain an objective reality, it contains a world created by the DM whose details can be infinitely maleable if it serves their purposes, the plot and the fun of the players.

This actually comes down the DMs approach to world building. When I started out I created worlds that were inflexible, what was written was what existed, "Ooops those level 3 characters really should not have gone there", plot lines in the world could go on, I might even have envisaged exactly how the last encounter of an entire campaign might go. However, as years went by I learned that the game was more fun if the world responded to the character actions. The players don't know what I do. They don't know where I intended various things to be ... so what if the dungeon was supposed to be east of the town and the party went west ... I don't need to railroad them, as long as I haven't said where the dungeon is supposed to be it can just as easily be to the west. However, I then took this a bit too far. Most encounters the party had were scaled to the party. They had some tough fights but never anything to cause panic or worry. That campaign got out of hand about level 11-12 as the players began taking greater and greater risks leaving me with the decision to modify encounters or kill them off. So now, I use a flexible world template with ideas of the great story lines, major geographical, demographic and sociological features all reasonably well defined but with details to be filled in as I go along. Encounters beyond the ability of the party to deal with are possible and the players need to realize that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. They are still small fry in a very large pan.

What this means is that any dungeon may play differently depending on the party. The DCs may be adjusted up or down to accommodate the rate of success I want to see combined with rewarding the character and making them feel good for their character choices. The rogue with expertise should not be burned with every lock being a DC25 ... only some. Others should be easily picked with their passive lockpicking of 20. Anyway, I think this is why the books don't have that many concrete examples of DCs ... because the created worlds aren't necessarily objective realities unless the DM wants them to be that way. DCs are meant to be modified so that every task is exactly as difficult as the DM wants it to be.

[Keltest]

And by tying "easy lock" to "small town's best-maintained jail cells," "Big city jail -> better materials -> DC 15," and "Maximum security big city jail -> best quality cell locks they can manage -> DC 20," and "king's vault -> DC 25, and it's trapped," you've closed the loop that D&D 5e fails to.

Maybe it seems obvious to you. I wouldn't have been able to come up with that.

But its all based on context that you, as the DM, are responsible for creating anyway.

Maybe the small town is very rich with a well funded criminal justice system, so their locks are better than average. DC 15 or 20. Maybe the king's vault was damaged during an earthquake (which may or may not have been summoned by the party cleric). DC 5, and the trap is broken.

The point is, what you should be asking is how hard do you want it to be? The ease or lack thereof should be contributing to the overall situation that youre trying to create. If the players take some preemptive steps to make it easier, great! Take that into consideration. Advantage and disadvantage aren't the only tools you have to represent context making a task more or less difficult.

[JackPhoenix]

Elder Lock makes me think Great Old One. How about a Great Old Lock that can be a patron for a warlock, thus making them a Locklock?

Well, Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate.... and what's the point of being a key if there isn't a lock on the gate?

[Segev]

You might want to try looking at this one from an alternate point of view.

Instead of ... "How difficult is this particular task in an objective reality?" ... consider ... "For this group of players or player, what chance do I want to have them succeed at this task?"

If you are in a situation with an exceptional lock with a rogue with thieves tools skills and perhaps expertise then you might consider that the lock was created by a master craftsman designed to keep the content hidden ... and give it a DC of 25. which with the Rogue's +10 to thieves tools gives about a 25% success rate. On the other hand, if the party has a fighter with the criminal background and proficiency in thieves tools, then perhaps the lock was just made by a master craftsman to keep most people out and the DC is 20. With the fighter's +5 this then gives the party a 25% chance of dealing with the lock encounter by simple lock picking. Spells, brute force and other ingenious approaches still remain if the lock picking fails.

As the DM, you narrate the story so that the players can have fun. A DC 25 lock when the highest skill in the party is +4 or +5 is just frustrating and is the DM saying to the players "You can not solve this lock by lockpicking ... try another approach" ... except they don't know that until they try lockpicking a few times and discover that they can't succeed that way.

Objective reality in a role playing game is whatever the DM decides it should be. The DM generally knows their players, so the DM can set the DCs with the party in mind to generate a certain liklihood of the party succeeding at a task. This could be exactly why the rules don't have that many concrete examples of determining DCs BECAUSE there is no concrete DC for any specific task, there is only how likely the DM wants it to be for the party or character to succeed at a given task to make the narrative and game more fun.

Although there is a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the players, the DM really should be aware that the game does not have to contain an objective reality, it contains a world created by the DM whose details can be infinitely maleable if it serves their purposes, the plot and the fun of the players.

This actually comes down the DMs approach to world building. When I started out I created worlds that were inflexible, what was written was what existed, "Ooops those level 3 characters really should not have gone there", plot lines in the world could go on, I might even have envisaged exactly how the last encounter of an entire campaign might go. However, as years went by I learned that the game was more fun if the world responded to the character actions. The players don't know what I do. They don't know where I intended various things to be ... so what if the dungeon was supposed to be east of the town and the party went west ... I don't need to railroad them, as long as I haven't said where the dungeon is supposed to be it can just as easily be to the west. However, I then took this a bit too far. Most encounters the party had were scaled to the party. They had some tough fights but never anything to cause panic or worry. That campaign got out of hand about level 11-12 as the players began taking greater and greater risks leaving me with the decision to modify encounters or kill them off. So now, I use a flexible world template with ideas of the great story lines, major geographical, demographic and sociological features all reasonably well defined but with details to be filled in as I go along. Encounters beyond the ability of the party to deal with are possible and the players need to realize that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. They are still small fry in a very large pan.

What this means is that any dungeon may play differently depending on the party. The DCs may be adjusted up or down to accommodate the rate of success I want to see combined with rewarding the character and making them feel good for their character choices. The rogue with expertise should not be burned with every lock being a DC25 ... only some. Others should be easily picked with their passive lockpicking of 20. Anyway, I think this is why the books don't have that many concrete examples of DCs ... because the created worlds aren't necessarily objective realities unless the DM wants them to be that way. DCs are meant to be modified so that every task is exactly as difficult as the DM wants it to be.

But its all based on context that you, as the DM, are responsible for creating anyway.

Maybe the small town is very rich with a well funded criminal justice system, so their locks are better than average. DC 15 or 20. Maybe the king's vault was damaged during an earthquake (which may or may not have been summoned by the party cleric). DC 5, and the trap is broken.

The point is, what you should be asking is how hard do you want it to be? The ease or lack thereof should be contributing to the overall situation that youre trying to create. If the players take some preemptive steps to make it easier, great! Take that into consideration. Advantage and disadvantage aren't the only tools you have to represent context making a task more or less difficult.

This approach is possible, but at that point, why do I want them to have either a possibility of failure or of success? If I just am deciding "how hard do I want it to be for them," why don't I just decide whether I want them to succeed or fail? Why have skill rolls at all?

Now, don't get me wrong: 5e has a lot of "don't roll and just let them succeed" and even "are they proficient? let them succeed" type advice to cut down on pointless rolling when there's nothing interesting besides saying "well, nothing fun happens" if they fail. And I applaud this.

But the whole point of having skill rolls is to apply some verisimilitude. Even if it's just genre-convention, narrative verisimilitude. If it's tied to nothing save, "Well, I know they have a +7 to this check, and I want them to have a 25% chance to succeed, so I'll make it a DC 23 check," then there's literally no point. I should just roll a d4 and give it to them on a 4.

All that "but it's so context-dependent!" claptrap is silly. The presence of the example is enough that I can start extrapolating all those context-sensitive things. But without the starting point, I have no clue where to begin. Is it hard to pick that lock? How should I know? Picking ANY lock sounds hard to me! Obviously, it's DC 25 to pick a simple lock. Climbing a rope sounds nearly impossible to me, so obviously it's DC 30.

Oh, it's how hard I *want* it to be? Fine; do I want them to succeed? they do. Do I want them to fail? They do. Do I not care? I'll let them succeed, then, as that's more fun for them.

Why do I have ability checks, again?

[Lille]

Well, Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate.... and what's the point of being a key if there isn't a lock on the gate?

So a GOOlock of Yog-Sothoth can quite possibly be a Locklock? I love it.

Hypothetically, one of the uses of a chain is to lock something. Therefore, could a Chain Pact GOOlock of Yog-Sothoth be a Locklocklock?

[Telok]

One part of what I kept running across with the skill/stat checks was that medium, middle, average, and normal are all synonyms in English. Therefore your normal check DC was 15.

DM couldn't think of a DC immediately? 15, or more if it was difficult for the DM in real life. You wanted to try something the adventure didn't have a DC for? 15, or more if it was difficult for the DM in real life.

The other part was DMs who were running an adventure and there was a DC for something. Climb a wall? Roll for it. Yes, roll because why is there a DC for it in the module you're supposed to automatically succeed? Talk to a NPC? Roll for it. Yes, roll because why is there a DC for it in the module you're supposed to automatically succeed? Jump something? No DC for it so you can't do it if it's further than your strength score. No you don't get to roll because if you were supposed to jump it there would be a DC for it.

'Rulings not rules' is OK if people know how to rule and what it does to the game. But I've been in games where rolling a d30 for the check DC would be more consistent than the DM rect-stracting DCs.

[EggKookoo]

'Rulings not rules' is OK if people know how to rule and what it does to the game. But I've been in games where rolling a d30 for the check DC would be more consistent than the DM rect-stracting DCs.

DMing is a skillset. Like all skillsets, some are naturally better than others in using them. Others have lots of experience. But you can't escape that proper DMing takes some combination of talent and experience.

[Pleh]

Gee, if only there were some sort of book that was a Guide for Dungeon Masters on how to run the game and design encounters.

The DMG is rather sufficiently thick as it is. It's an overview for easy reference and limited examples for inspiration, not a comprehensive glossary of encounter elements.

I can't help but feel like that deserves its own sourcebook, but even then it would invariably make us players ask more questions than it answers, giving us yet more inconsistent fringe cases along with the actually useful stuff.

[Pex]

So we've gone back to the Gygaxian Prose method of writing rules?

More seriously I may end up resurrecting my dm quiz if I have to find a new gaming group. It was single page of about 5 - 6 yes/no questions on which optional rules were in play and another 5 - 6 multiple choice "how do you run X" questions. That and I'd ask about their house rule document/binder/essay. Of course we'd had a good couple decades of vague rules and multiple interpretations. Most DMs could do the sheet in about 30 seconds and skip a ten minute Q&A session.

Sounds like it's coming back to that.

Because I like to use the word a lot, I resent having to do that. I shouldn't have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time. Every DM has house rules. That's fine, but it's the DM's responsibility to bring them up at Session 0. I should know going in how the game is played and not be surprised and disappointed a Thing I want to do doesn't work 2 months into the game because the DM interprets the rule differently than what my previous DM did that let a player do that Cool Thing I wanted the fun of doing. It's not a House Rule. It's what the DM thinks is the actual rule of the game, so it wasn't even thought of to bring up in Session 0. I'm certainly grateful and happy when a DM interprets a rule in my favor. I get my fair share of those. I'm not liking that I need to ask.

As much as I harp on this it's not a deal breaker. I enjoy the game despite of it.

[Keravath]

This approach is possible, but at that point, why do I want them to have either a possibility of failure or of success? If I just am deciding "how hard do I want it to be for them," why don't I just decide whether I want them to succeed or fail? Why have skill rolls at all?

Now, don't get me wrong: 5e has a lot of "don't roll and just let them succeed" and even "are they proficient? let them succeed" type advice to cut down on pointless rolling when there's nothing interesting besides saying "well, nothing fun happens" if they fail. And I applaud this.

But the whole point of having skill rolls is to apply some verisimilitude. Even if it's just genre-convention, narrative verisimilitude. If it's tied to nothing save, "Well, I know they have a +7 to this check, and I want them to have a 25% chance to succeed, so I'll make it a DC 23 check," then there's literally no point. I should just roll a d4 and give it to them on a 4.

All that "but it's so context-dependent!" claptrap is silly. The presence of the example is enough that I can start extrapolating all those context-sensitive things. But without the starting point, I have no clue where to begin. Is it hard to pick that lock? How should I know? Picking ANY lock sounds hard to me! Obviously, it's DC 25 to pick a simple lock. Climbing a rope sounds nearly impossible to me, so obviously it's DC 30.

Oh, it's how hard I *want* it to be? Fine; do I want them to succeed? they do. Do I want them to fail? They do. Do I not care? I'll let them succeed, then, as that's more fun for them.

Why do I have ability checks, again?

You have skill checks because success doesn't mean much without the possibility of failure. You could choose to narrate the entire adventure based on the choices of the characters and not have a single skill roll. There are game systems that do that. However, for some reason, the players feel successful when they roll a die and succeed at a task. They optimize their chances through circumstance or other spells like guidance and then they roll it. They cheer on a high roll, they moan and groan on a bad one.

Why do you have skill checks? Why do you set a DC that doesn't guarantee either success or failure? ... The reason is that it sets up a task or turning point in the game where neither the players nor the DM (at least on the surface) know which way it will turn out. Will the characters succeed or fail in this circumstance? Will it be a partial success or partial failure? The die roll is partially or entirely determining the outcome which generally makes for a more fun, unpredictable, less rail road feeling campaign.

If there is an event that the DM knows the players need to succeed in order to advance the plot then the DM creates multiple ways to solve the problem, some of which will have at least the guaranteed minimal success to advance the plot. In other cases, the task, event or encounter might just be fun, might lead to something else, might be a start of a quest that could be introduced in some other form later ... but the players don't know that. All they know is that they interact with the game world, apply the characters skills, apply the player's and party skills trying to increase their odds at success ... then roll the die and the result determines how effective they were at that interaction. The DM or player narrates the success or failure advancing the story. It is much more fun this way than either the player or the DM just deciding how everything turns out ... and that is why you make skill checks and that is why the exact DC you make up for any task really doesn't matter except in terms of defining the general probability of success or failure for the character/party in the current situation.

[Keltest]

Because I like to use the word a lot, I resent having to do that. I shouldn't have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time. Every DM has house rules. That's fine, but it's the DM's responsibility to bring them up at Session 0. I should know going in how the game is played and not be surprised and disappointed a Thing I want to do doesn't work 2 months into the game because the DM interprets the rule differently than what my previous DM did that let a player do that Cool Thing I wanted the fun of doing. It's not a House Rule. It's what the DM thinks is the actual rule of the game, so it wasn't even thought of to bring up in Session 0. I'm certainly grateful and happy when a DM interprets a rule in my favor. I get my fair share of those. I'm not liking that I need to ask.

As much as I harp on this it's not a deal breaker. I enjoy the game despite of it.

I don't think its feasible for the DM to list every personal ruling for every conceivable case right at the start of the game. D&D is a big game, if you have specific concerns outside the DM's houserules, I think the onus is on you to bring them up for the DM to rule on.

[Pex]

Yeah, the DMG fails hardcore at most of its proposed function. It's probably the weakest book in the entire edition, in terms of meeting its goals. (And I am not particularly fond of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, feeling that it was slim on useful content compared to, say, Volo's Guide.)

It really needs a LOT more advice on how to adjudicate at the table. More closing of decision loops, more examples of finding intent in the RAW and of how to feel out judgment calls. I appreciate the compliment on my ruling ability, but I will point out that to this DAY I have trouble figuring out how to set ability check DCs on the fly, because they're so badly lacking in examples of what, precisely, the game expects to be "easy" or "hard."

We're certainly in 100% agreement on that!

You might want to try looking at this one from an alternate point of view.

Instead of ... "How difficult is this particular task in an objective reality?" ... consider ... "For this group of players or player, what chance do I want to have them succeed at this task?"

If you are in a situation with an exceptional lock with a rogue with thieves tools skills and perhaps expertise then you might consider that the lock was created by a master craftsman designed to keep the content hidden ... and give it a DC of 25. which with the Rogue's +10 to thieves tools gives about a 25% success rate. On the other hand, if the party has a fighter with the criminal background and proficiency in thieves tools, then perhaps the lock was just made by a master craftsman to keep most people out and the DC is 20. With the fighter's +5 this then gives the party a 25% chance of dealing with the lock encounter by simple lock picking. Spells, brute force and other ingenious approaches still remain if the lock picking fails.

That's Mother May I. The player can only succeed if the DM lets him regardless of how the player makes his character. He has a 25% chance because the DM wants him to have a 25% chance. Player spending game resources to become good at lock picking is irrelevant. You changed the DC on the fly to ensure 25%.

But let's not derail this thread into another endless argument about skill use.

I don't think its feasible for the DM to list every personal ruling for every conceivable case right at the start of the game. D&D is a big game, if you have specific concerns outside the DM's houserules, I think the onus is on you to bring them up for the DM to rule on.

How am I supposed to know I need to ask? Every DM I played with said wizards can use their familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. Why would I have to ask about it when finally I played a wizard, but no, that's the DM who believes the rules say a wizard cannot use his familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. The next time I play a wizard, nope, denied again. That DM rules a wizard cannot use his familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. I then play with a different DM as a cleric. Bard took Magic Initiate feat and has a familiar. Guess what? This DM says of course you can use your familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. This is supposed to be my fault?

Out of years experience playing now I know most if not all of what needs to be asked. I still resent I have to. That's the game's fault. When I first started playing and didn't know, that's when I get surprised. That's when I only find out I can do or can't do something depending on who is DM that day. That's the game's fault. Today with the experience, I know to ask if great weapon style works on smites, can I shove before attacking with Shield Master, what exactly does it mean to know a 1st level spell with Magic Initiate. It's the game's fault I need to ask. What remains a surprise is skill use because the game refused to provide benchmarks. It's no use asking the DM what's his DC to climb a tree because my Athletics will be whatever it is regardless, so it's up to DM whim whether I'm Tarzan or George of the Jungle.

[Luccan]

We're certainly in 100% agreement on that!



That's Mother May I. The player can only succeed if the DM lets him regardless of how the player makes his character. He has a 25% chance because the DM wants him to have a 25% chance. Player spending game resources to become good at lock picking is irrelevant. You changed the DC on the fly to ensure 25%.

But let's not derail this thread into another endless argument about skill use.



How am I supposed to know I need to ask? Every DM I played with said wizards can use their familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. Why would I have to ask about it when finally I played a wizard, but no, that's the DM who believes the rules say a wizard cannot use his familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. The next time I play a wizard, nope, denied again. That DM rules a wizard cannot use his familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. I then play with a different DM as a cleric. Bard took Magic Initiate feat and has a familiar. Guess what? This DM says of course you can use your familiar to Help someone gain Advantage on an attack. This is supposed to be my fault?

Out of years experience playing now I know most if not all of what needs to be asked. I still resent I have to. That's the game's fault. When I first started playing and didn't know, that's when I get surprised. That's when I only find out I can do or can't do something depending on who is DM that day. That's the game's fault. Today with the experience, I know to ask if great weapon style works on smites, can I shove before attacking with Shield Master, what exactly does it mean to know a 1st level spell with Magic Initiate. It's the game's fault I need to ask. What remains a surprise is skill use because the game refused to provide benchmarks. It's no use asking the DM what's his DC to climb a tree because my Athletics will be whatever it is regardless, so it's up to DM whim whether I'm Tarzan or George of the Jungle.

You remain one of the few experienced RPG players I know of who are shocked (shocked!) that different tables play differently and often have their own houserules. 3e is a much more rules-heavy game, but I find that many who still play it have dozens of their own changes. The only thing 5e does dramatically different by not giving a little rule for every occasion is not give ammunition for people to complain about the DM doing their job for their table: make something the people playing enjoy. Now, different expectations can clash with that, but I would hope the people you willingly play with are at least willing to compromise. But I also don't understand why not knowing the DC for something is such a nightmare: even if 3e has guidelines, rarely do I have proof the DM is using them. I roll anyway, under the assumption the DM has done what they thought is fair and isn't deliberately trying to make the game suck. I find this works for all editions.

[HappyDaze]

It's what the DM thinks is the actual rule of the game, so it wasn't even thought of to bring up in Session 0. I'm certainly grateful and happy when a DM interprets a rule in my favor. I get my fair share of those. I'm not liking that I need to ask.

Let's be realistic: A DM can't be expected to have knowledge of every possible rules interaction at session 0. They (typically) don't do this as a full time job and they don't (usually) have support staff to assist them. I've seen managers at jobs that interpret policies differently despite having entire departments (HR, risk management, etc.) to help them and I certainly don't expect them to go over all of them during my interview (session 0 of the job). If I have a specific question of how something works, it is my responsibility to get that clarified up front.

[Chronos]

Sure, every table has houserules, and I'd expect someone joining a new group to ask what they are. At my table, I could say "We allow feats but not multiclassing, the Player's Handbook and subclasses from Xanathar's are fair game, but spells outside the PHB require approval on an individual basis, these three spells are broken as-written, so if you want to use one of those, we'll come up with something, we've removed concentration from these five spells, here's how we handle short rests, and if you use a summoning ability or the like, there's a limit of one creature".

That's our houserules. But what are our rulings and interpretations? Not only is that a much longer list, but most of it, we don't even know it's on the list.

The thing is, 5e starts by assuming that the DM is skilled, experienced, and competent, but that's exactly the wrong assumption to make. A skilled, experienced, and competent DM can run a good session with any game, even one that's crap as written. The guy who needs the DMG is the guy who's unskilled and inexperienced. It's not much use to say "We trust your judgement", when the DM himself knows that he can't trust his own judgement. The guys writing the book are the professionals; they're supposed to be skilled, experienced, and competent. It's literally their job. So why not have them make some of those judgement calls, instead of the newbie?

[Luccan]

People will absolutely become beholden to those citations. 5e's DMG needs work, but not in the "here's how you get fine granularity in your DCs" area. The DM is empowered to make decisions for their table from the start because they aren't immediately presented with the idea that there is One Way to do things.