Should there be more Exploration/Interaction Rules?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A task that a trained professional can fail 25% of the time shouldn't be called easy either.

Two opinions:

1. I wouldn't call someone with a +4 a "trained professional".
2. Even so, I'd say that that's as easy as I'd expect someone like that to have to roll for.

Because that's what those labels really mean--they're not Easy/etc compared to all possible tasks, but only out of the spectrum that you should even consider asking for a check for. If it's easier than that, the chances are that the chance of failure isn't worth the time spent.

Personally (and YMMV), I don't do DC 5 checks except in extremely rare circumstances. 50/50 for a +0 is as low as I'm willing to go for. I try to err on the side of letting people do cool things without asking for checks, ie "competent is baseline; checks are already for exceptional things."

[Psyren]

A task that a trained professional can fail 25% of the time shouldn't be called easy either.

1) You're not a "trained professional" with a 10 and no proficiency
2) You know you don't have to call for a roll, right? Seriously, DMG 237

[Hytheter]

1) You're not a "trained professional" with a 10 and no proficiency

That's 50%. 25% is the "adventurer (who is unlikely to have a 10 and lack proficiency in something they'd be the ones rolling for)" of which you speak. A character with proficiency and a decent stat modifier will still fail 'easy' tasks a significant proportion of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) You're not a "trained professional" with a 10 and no proficiency
2) You know you don't have to call for a roll, right? Seriously, DMG 237

That's the point. Before I set a dc at all, I've already filtered out the cases that fail too infrequently to matter. So easy isn't easy out of all tasks, it's easy out of tasks that require checks. Which are already in the upper range of all tasks. The others are all dc 0.

[Psyren]

That's 50%. 25% is the "adventurer (who is unlikely to have a 10 and lack proficiency in something they'd be the ones rolling for)" of which you speak.

If they don't have +0/+0, where are you getting 25% on a DC 5 from? That clearly means 10 stat (0) and no proficiency (0).

[PhoenixPhyre]

If they don't have +0/+0, where are you getting 25% on a DC 5 from? That clearly means 10 stat (0) and no proficiency (0).

Personally, I think I misunderstood something. I was thinking the discussion was about DC 10 (ie Easy, not Very Easy) and a +4 total modifier (which puts it at 25% failure). Hence my comment about +4 not being "trained professional", which I don't see until significantly higher, at least for meaningful adventuring tasks, which is what the ability check system is for.

Personally, if I'd be tempted to assign a DC below 10, I'll just let them auto succeed instead unless the consequences for failure are really compelling and interesting. So my personal bar for what DC 10 means is pretty high--you can do a lot before you get there. Almost every "normal" task someone would do in every day life is in that "no roll needed" category for me.

[Hytheter]

If they don't have +0/+0, where are you getting 25% on a DC 5 from? That clearly means 10 stat (0) and no proficiency (0).

What? I'm still talking about dc10, the so-called 'easy' difficulty.

[Tanarii]

[SUB]
Personally (and YMMV), I don't do DC 5 checks except in extremely rare circumstances. 50/50 for a +0 is as low as I'm willing to go for. I try to err on the side of letting people do cool things without asking for checks, ie "competent is baseline; checks are already for exceptional things."

In other words, if I have to make off-stat checks non-proficient checks*, the best case scenario is a crap shoot, and the 'medium' and more likely case is a 25% chance of success?

Doesn't that make your players gun shy at trying to do entire categories of things that might fall within those ability scores, in case there is a check? Or do you call for checks so very infrequently they just don't care and accept they are likely to fail when they come up? Or do you use One Roll To Rule Them All, highest in party rolls, for most checks?

Because that's my experience from using the standard DCs, with DC 15 as Medium and DC 10 as Easy. It makes players gun-shy about checks.

*keeping in mind that's usually 1/2 the typical adventurers ability score for their entire career.


--------------

In relationship to structures: If a game structure is going to involve any significant number of checks, the DCs shouldn't be too hard, certainly not at best 50/50 for off-ability checks. For example, 4e skill challenges, which they had to significantly modify the math for in that edition for exactly that reason. I've replicated in 5e periodically, because they are an incredibly useful game structure, provided they're not player facing. That has probably significantly reinforced my view that DCs are too high. OTOH my home brewed versions don't assume One Roll To Rule Them All, which was a common way to design them in the 4e era.

[Sigreid]

I personally sometimes do stages of success or failure. For example, that 15 DC tree from earlier would possibly be 15 to climb a distance in 1 round. A 10 doesn't mean you don't climb the tree, it means it takes you 2 rounds to get to the same point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In other words, if I have to make off-stat checks non-proficient checks*, the best case scenario is a crap shoot, and the 'medium' and more likely case is a 25% chance of success?

Doesn't that make your players gun shy at trying to do entire categories of things that might fall within those ability scores, in case there is a check? Or do you call for checks so very infrequently they just don't care and accept they are likely to fail when they come up? Or do you use One Roll To Rule Them All, highest in party rolls, for most checks?

Because that's my experience from using the standard DCs, with DC 15 as Medium and DC 10 as Easy. It makes players gun-shy about checks.

Probably 7/10 times I call for a check, it's some form of degrees of success[1]. The rest of the time, I'm asking the "expert" to make the check. I don't generally allow group checks (that aren't actually group checks, ie requiring 50% of the group to pass). And the players know that if I'm actually calling for a check (as opposed to just narrating what happens), it's fairly exceptional already. Or enemy action. Most of the time, they just succeed. Because I can't find meaningful, interesting consequences for failure. I hate "and nothing happens" as a result.

Thus, my "DC 10" tends to sit nearer most other DM's (from what I can tell) DC 15. And I never (or only incredibly rarely, for pre-planned things I've already decided are (nearly) off-limits) go above DC 20. If I'm making up a DC on the fly (ie 99.99% of the time), it's either 10, 15, or 20. And mostly 10 or 15. And mostly 10.

I also don't generally have mechanically-oriented players who focus on the numbers. They're really good about thinking in character and doing what the character would do in a situation, without worrying about mechanical probabilities.

[1] especially "knowledge" checks. You'll almost always know something; your result determines how much and how relevant the information is. The other category here is "how long will it take", usually for things like picking a lock.

[Psyren]

What? I'm still talking about dc10, the so-called 'easy' difficulty.

75% chance of success is fine for an easy roll. Any easier than that and you shouldn't be calling for a roll in the first place.