Opinion: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm actually excited for 6e! The moment it comes out, I'll queue up into a 3.5 game~

*snigger*

This thread has created in my mind a picture, wherein the GiTP D&D 5e forum is a dog and the skill/ability check resolutoin is its favorite chew toy.

It has also made clearer to me how 3.x did some damage to the basic structure of the game. (To be fair, it didn't do this in a vacuum). I am beginning to get a grip on why some of the reaction to it was the whole bit about "edition that shall not be named" which reaction I didn't have, but I was also coming to the end of my RPG playing for a while, and among other things had no desire to buy a whole new pile of book, nor the latitude to do that due to life, wife, and all that. It was during that time that 4e came out and I was still not in the hobby. (I did get to play some fun things like Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo, and Civ 3, but that didn't require getting a group of people together).

[Segev]

Thats because you DO know its egregious and specifically picked it for the purposes of being egregious. As Korvin said, we're already on to that game and arent interested in playing.

I know it's egregious because there is a rule in place saying so.

If I were using only the advice you gave, I would recognize that my analysis of a rope being DC 30 (based on how hard I know it to be IRL) is probably higher than the game really expects, given that people use ropes to climb in D&D.

Adjusting for this bias, I would have put it at DC 20.

Without the actual rule that gives the guideline that climbing ropes should require no check at all, I would have no idea it was meant to be that trivial (i.e. no check required) to climb a rope. You telling me I'm being disingenuous because it's "obvious" that climbing a rope should be easier than DC 20 is proving my point: you think there is something obvious that I do not. I am a reasonable man, despite your accusations to the contrary (by asserting that you're "on to that game," and your need to attack me and my honesty rather than provide some evidence that I should know better than to set rope-climbing at DC 20, despite that being a good-faith estimate on my part. You have (or someone on your side of the argument has) also thrown "guy at the gym fallacy" at me about how setting it that high is "obviously" wrong, but honestly, with the, "How hard should it be? We all have done..." explanation of how to set DCs, the "guy at the gym" is, in fact, the only guideline we have. Well, that, and movies and stuff, but how hard is it in movies? What are the stats of the various characters in movies? Should anything Jack Sparrow does in Pirates of the Carribean be DC 5? 10? No check? Or is he a highly skilled and/or lucky character who does things that are DC 15 or 20 somewhat routinely? What are his stats? Do I need to stop the game to calculate them, or otherwise build an array of fictional characters in 5e to use as benchmarks, making assumptions about their levels?

Of course not; you (or someone else) tell me to just make a call and go with it. But then, when I point out that that would have left rope climbing at DC 20, I'm told I'm being disingenuous because I "know its egregious and specifically picked it for the purposes of being egregious." And yes, I picked it because I know it's egregious, because I have a rule telling me it's egregious. I would not know that without that rule in place. I would probably be open to argument that it was egregious if it came up on the forums, but you've yet to tell me how I am to know that it is so obviously egregious based on the standard YOU have outlined for how to generate DCs that I definitely would know it should not be DC 20. You also haven't told me what DC I should come up with based on your standard, nor why.

You've only told me, "You know that's wrong."

Your argument is circular. Any DC I name that you find egregious, it seems, you'll just tell me, "You know that's egregious, so you're being disingenuous." This means literally no example of a DC I can name can be used as proof, because you'll deem that the fact I can use it as an example means I must be arguing in bad faith to name it. I'm not, and I resent the accusation.

I know that climbing a rope should be no check at all because the rules give me a guideline there. Based on that guideline, I can start assigning DCs for harder rope climbs, from the rope being slick with slime to the rope being blown about in wind to somebody being attacked while on a rope. Without that guideline, I would have to determine, for myself, what the base DC to climb a rope is. I'd probably put regular raw rope climbing at DC 20 (again, after factoring in that I am not a good example of it, and how hard it is for people to climb ropes in general in gym class), and then set a knotted rope (designed to make for good footholds) at DC 15. This is my best good-faith estimate with zero guidelines from the rules.

Again: I use it as an example of an egregiously wrong DC I would assign because the rules actually provide a guideline. I was genuinely surprised to learn/realize climbing a rope is meant to be something you can just do with no check.

The fact that you and others must fall back on, "I know this game and don't want to play," i.e. accusing me of arguing in bad faith, demonstrates you cannot actually demonstrate that the DC 20 I named is egregious by the standards you laid out, without referencing the same rule that tells me that DC 20 is, in fact egregious. So you find that someone using the method you lay out to establish DCs can, in fact, come up with egregious results, and you just determine that they're bad faith DMs when they do so if you find the numbers egregiously wrong by your own estimates.

The problem isn't my good or bad faith. The problem is that guidelines actually do matter, and are important. And they're missing for most ability checks.

[EggKookoo]

You've only told me, "You know that's wrong."

Do you think 20 is wrong?

[OldTrees1]

Really? No one ever planned a character around what items they wanted over time? And before any splats were released they weren't considering the only PrCs that existed? I'm very surprised if that was your experience, and a little jealous.

Planned a character around specific items before the campaign (and especially before the DM's decision on whether magic marts exist)? No I have never seen that.

I have seen the DM decide the campaign would have high magic item availability. In those campaigns they told the players that their characters are in a setting where the magic items from the DMG/MIC are generally available for purchase. This is the DM having control over, and choosing to expose the DMG/MIC magic sections to the players. In campaigns with low magic item availability, where the DM did not choose to have a magic mart, then those magic items sections are not exposed to the players. In both types of campaign the players respected that the DMG/MIC magic sections were for the DM. The players respected the DM can choose whether to expose the magic items as highly available for purchase, or to not do that.

If you have experienced players that demanded a magic mart in campaigns without a magic mart, I am sympathetic. For our groups we expected and respected the DM controls whether the campaign has magic marts or does not have magic marts.

In the first 3e campaign, around level 3 I saw the Kensai prestige class in a player's splat book. I found it interesting and asked the DM if it was available and if so how. They had full authority to decide if Kensai PrC existed and if so how it existed. The PrCs from the DMG never came up in my experience (a coincidence) but I expect it would be similar. There are many campaigns where the DM has chosen to tell the players "assume all classes are approved, but then ask" instead of "assume no classes are approved, but then ask". However, it was up to the DM whether the class/PrC was approved for that campaign.

I am not surprised by my experience. D&D is a cooperative game. I expect cooperating with another player (including the DM) is the norm. "Everything is fine" is not news.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have seen the DM decide the campaign would have high magic item availability. In those campaigns they told the players that their characters are in a setting where the magic items from the DMG/MIC are generally available for purchase. This is the DM having control over, and choosing to expose the DMG/MIC magic sections to the players. In campaigns with low magic item availability, where the DM did not choose to have a magic mart, then those magic items sections are not exposed to the players. In both types of campaign the players respected that the DMG/MIC magic sections were for the DM. The players respected the DM can choose whether to expose the magic items as highly available for purchase, or to not do that.

If you have experienced players that demanded a magic mart in campaigns without a magic mart, I am sympathetic. For our groups we expected and respected the DM controls whether the campaign has magic marts or does not have magic marts.

We do the same.

D&D is a cooperative game. I expect cooperating with another player (including the DM) is the norm. "Everything is fine" is not news.

What a great attitude to have. Plus Eleventy.

[diplomancer]

The main counterargument I've seen is that because of 'human nature' (whatever that means) players will turn into rules lawyers and contradict DM decision despite said suggestions being marked explicitly as suggestions...

What is human nature is not being a jerk over a particular number when it turns up one time at the table. What IS human nature (or at least an optimizer's human nature) is to look at a table of numbers and considers ways he can build his character to consistently beat these numbers. When they then find out, perhaps after several levels, that the DM's going to ignore that completely and make up his own (usually higher) numbers, they have a good reason to be a bit miffed about it, and just rubbing it in their face that "actually DMG makes it clear that those are only suggestions and I can change them at will" will not improve the situation.

[Psyren]

I know it's egregious because there is a rule in place saying so.

If I were using only the advice you gave, I would recognize that my analysis of a rope being DC 30 (based on how hard I know it to be IRL) is probably higher than the game really expects, given that people use ropes to climb in D&D.

You think something children do regularly is DC 20-30 IRL? And you insist on a written rule to convince you otherwise? Seriously?

There is no rulebook or table on the planet that can compensate for a thought process like this.

No. Merely that expressing an opinion that having guidance and a few examples in the DMG wouldn't break the world. Moreover, I am arguing vehemently against the idea that 'making things easier for DMs' (something others on this forum have posted they find difficult) would be a good idea rather than leaving things so vague it leaves said DMs floundering.

Wanting to save "floundering DMs" is a laudable goal - but not at the expense of all the rest who can apply the system just fine. I think the presentation of the process can be improved (For example, Ginny Di distilled a simple flowchart out of it, some version of which I would absolutely love to see in the 5.5e DMG) but not undermining the system entirely with prescribed DCs of any kind.

The main counterargument I've seen is that because of 'human nature' (whatever that means) players will turn into rules lawyers and contradict DM decision despite said suggestions being marked explicitly as suggestions...

Firstly, the logic there really doesn't follow and secondly, even if it did, it seems to be prioritizing bad players over new DMs... in the DMs guide. Even in 3.5 and PF no one I've ever played with consulted tables unless they were completely floundering. I have subsequently played with 5e DMs who made woeful decisions about DCs and when to ask for checks at all but just went along with it because they were new. So, based on my personal experience (and apparently some others), having suggestions in the DMs guide would be a good idea? Moreover, making a product less helpful to make it more munchkin-proof is trying to solve the wrong problem.

Bad Players vs. Good DMs is a false dichotomy; prescribed DCs hurt good players and good DMs too.

Let's assume you have an impossibly perfect table that never questions their DM's check DCs, even when they don't line up with a printed example in the books. No table arguments result. Problem solved, right?

No, of course not. On top of being wholly unrealistic (most of us on this forum have lived through 3.5e after all), argumentless DCs do nothing for the three other problems prescribed DCs cause - circumventing the thought process that goes into calling for a roll in the first place, being completely incapable of covering most situations, and training DMs towards rote memorization rather than critical thinking.

In order:

Spoiler

Show

1) If a DM sees "Climbing a rope is DC 20" to use Segev's example, that DM is being signalled "Okay, if the player wants to climb a rope now I know what roll to call for. Yay!" When instead they should be thinking "The player wants to climb that rope. Do I even need a roll here? Does succeeding or failing that check add to the game in some way?" And not having a prescribed DC confronts them with that question much more immediately.

2) An open-ended system unlocks the most powerful facet of tabletop gaming relative to other kinds - true freedom of action. Even restricting players to what is physically doable by their characters, the possibility space is functionally limitless. "I know the DC for climbing a rope," the DM might say, "but one of my players wants to grasp it with their knees and free up their hands to fire arrows, and the other wants to slide 30ft. down it without taking fall damage, and my third player is planning to cast grease on the lower half of the rope to aid the second. Also it's really windy and the party is fighting boulder-throwing giants whose attacks are shaking the rope when they hit the wall anchoring it." No possible rulebook can cover all of those actions and factors, but the DM with an open-ended system can.

3) I've explained repeatedly that stymieing "munchkins" is only part of the problem. Making DMs feel they don't have a ton of stuff to memorize also matters. Maybe there's a base DC for climbing a rope, and one for holding onto it with your legs to free up your hands, and one for sliding down it safely. Three fairly common interactions with a rope. But even if all of those are universally applicable to all situations involving one, that's still three more things the DM would be presented with for a single common situation - even if the DM doesn't feel the need to memorize them all, they have to at least remember they exist so they can be looked up. And if DMs don't consider that valuable either, now there is a bunch of stuff taking up space the rulebook that took design resources for WotC to playtest and compile that's been rendered useless. So either it's a waste of precious design time for WotC (if it's considered worthless), or it's one more thing for DMs to track (if it's considered worthwhile.) There is no win there.

Table arguments from weaponizing prescribed DCs are a problem (one we've seen pop up many times before) but they are far from the only issue.

[Segev]

Do you think 20 is wrong?

Only because the rules tell me so.

You think something children do regularly is DC 20-30 IRL?

Talented and skilled children, yes. Do you genuinely think the vast majority - let alone all - children climb those ropes successfully? The gym classes I was in always made a big deal out of measuring how high kids could get.

Certainly, I would never have assumed scrawny wizards were meant to be able to climb ropes without a check! I would qualify myself as having a "wizardly physique," so to speak, and I certainly can't climb a rope. But apparently even the Str 8 wizard is meant to climb a rope with no chance of failure under reasonably normal conditions. I have no problem with this as a game conceit, but without the rules telling me that guideline? I'd never have assumed it was anything shy of DC 15 with special knots for aiding in footholds. DC 20 for a raw rope.

[noob]

You think something children do regularly is DC 20-30 IRL? And you insist on a written rule to convince you otherwise? Seriously?

There is no rulebook or table on the planet that can compensate for a thought process like this.

You understand that children are especially good at rope climbing due to such task having a difficulty that depends on mass of the individual/muscle power, ratio at which children are really good.
The fact a child can do it is not even in the slightest an argument to say it is easy here.
As a child personally I could not rope climb so even despite the advantage children have(higher muscle power to mass ratio than the average adult) I still could not.

[Psyren]

Talented and skilled children, yes. Do you genuinely think the vast majority - let alone all - children climb those ropes successfully?

I think enough of them do that the vast majority of adventurers can as well. Certainly I don't think doing so is Hard or Nearly Impossible.

Moreover, gym ropes are free-standing and suspended from a ceiling, whereas the ones adventurers use would far more likely to be anchored to a wall, cliff face, tree or other support - the thing that they're, you know, trying to get on top of.

[Keltest]

Do you think these kids are all level 20 rogues with expertise or something to be able to reliably hit DC 20?

[EggKookoo]

Only because the rules tell me so.

Which rule? Isn't your point that there's no rule that helps you figure these things out?

Edit: I'm not trying to be jerky here. I'm just trying to understand how you arrived at the decision that 20 is too high. You appear to think that it is, but how? My contention is that it's not intrinsically too high. If your players don't find something wrong with setting it to 20, great! If they do, talk to them about why they think so. Ask us why we might think so (with context). The problem is, there's no single right answer. DC 20 is too high for [task X]... sometimes. Sometimes not.

[Segev]

Which rule? Isn't your point that there's no rule that helps you figure these things out?

No. My point is that there are a distinct lack of guidelines as to what tasks are what difficulty for most ability scores. Climbing actually does have rules! I am saying we need more guidelines like that: climbing, under normal circumstances, is no check, just half your ground speed. I do think we actually could use more guidelines for what is "normal," but I would assume a specifically-designed climbing implement, such as a rope, is well within "normal" circumstances that require no check.

Again, I use rope climbing as an example because it is an actual case where what I am asking for exists in the rules, and I can point to it as a place where what I am asking for informs me that my use of the rest of the rules without what I am asking for is unreliable.

Is keeping from suffering sufficient stomach distress to count as Poisoned after eating spoiled meat (or just over-seasoned tacos) Easy? Moderate? Hard? I don't know! Given my own experiences with it, I'd say probably Moderate (DC 15), but am I misjudging what an average person can do? I obviously am with rope climbing, where we actually have a guideline that climbing normally doesn't require a check.

Edit: I'm not trying to be jerky here. I'm just trying to understand how you arrived at the decision that 20 is too high. You appear to think that it is, but how? My contention is that it's not intrinsically too high. If your players don't find something wrong with setting it to 20, great! If they do, talk to them about why they think so. Ask us why we might think so (with context). The problem is, there's no single right answer. DC 20 is too high for [task X]... sometimes. Sometimes not.

Clearly, others do find it too high, as they are "calling me out" for (apparently, according to them) lying about where I would "really" set it, since I "know" that's "egregious." But to answer your question, the rules for climbing in the PHB and DMG state that climbing is just at half your land speed (barring you having a climb speed), and that you only need to make a check if the surface is particularly smooth or otherwise difficult to climb. (I am unclear if a standard brick wall is too smooth to climb without a check or not, honestly, and again, would appreciate a couple examples of things that are expected to be the edge of "no need to check" difficulty for climbing. However, I would assume that a rope - explicitly used in genre fiction as a means of climbing - is one of the "normal" things you can climb without a check, given these guidelines. Without them, I would have defaulted to how hard I know rope climbing to be and made it DC 20, after tamping down my knee-jerk reaction of 30, which I know instinctively to be too high because I know I'm a wimp and thus shouldn't use my own experience alone as a guideline.)

[Sorinth]

Segev, does this mean if a player tried to read some arcane runes you'd call for a DC 30+ Arcana check because you personally can't read magical runes?

[EggKookoo]

Is keeping from suffering sufficient stomach distress to count as Poisoned after eating spoiled meat (or just over-seasoned tacos) Easy? Moderate? Hard? I don't know! Given my own experiences with it, I'd say probably Moderate (DC 15), but am I misjudging what an average person can do? I obviously am with rope climbing, where we actually have a guideline that climbing normally doesn't require a check.

This is a much better example than climbing. Unfortunately, there are still a ton of variables. How spoiled was the meat? How much of it did you eat? Did you drink a large amount of strong alcohol with the meal? How many of these variables would better be represented with advantage or disadvantage?

It's all a judgment call. There's no realistic way to have a chart of DCs that's going to cover this kind of thing for all the different kind of actions you can take in the game. Not without some kind of Task Tome book akin to the Monster Manual that has pages and pages of example tasks of varying complexity and challenge and their associated DC.

Again, it's not about being realistic but more about being consistent. And you know the basic mechanics, right? Are you intending the spoiled meat episode to be unusually harsh? If so, crank the DC. Otherwise go with a low number -- maybe lower than your instinct might suggest. I'd go lower than 12 even. Just the fear of being poisoned is enough to engage the player, even if it's an easy roll in the end. Be less concerned about what happens before the roll and more concerned about what happens after. Say the player fails even a low DC check. What then? That's where the game is -- the dice are just vehicles to get you there.

Clearly, others do find it too high, as they are "calling me out" for (apparently, according to them) lying about where I would "really" set it, since I "know" that's "egregious." But to answer your question, the rules for climbing in the PHB and DMG state that climbing is just at half your land speed (barring you having a climb speed), and that you only need to make a check if the surface is particularly smooth or otherwise difficult to climb. (I am unclear if a standard brick wall is too smooth to climb without a check or not, honestly, and again, would appreciate a couple examples of things that are expected to be the edge of "no need to check" difficulty for climbing. However, I would assume that a rope - explicitly used in genre fiction as a means of climbing - is one of the "normal" things you can climb without a check, given these guidelines. Without them, I would have defaulted to how hard I know rope climbing to be and made it DC 20, after tamping down my knee-jerk reaction of 30, which I know instinctively to be too high because I know I'm a wimp and thus shouldn't use my own experience alone as a guideline.)

I think the straightforward truth is that in the end, DMing can't be taught. I don't mean you can't learn to be a DM. What I mean is, you learn to be a DM by DMing. You need to be half game designer. More than half, maybe.

[noob]

Segev, does this mean if a player tried to read some arcane runes you'd call for a DC 30+ Arcana check because you personally can't read magical runes?

Honestly it would make some sense: either you know the language a bit or you do not and if you do not know the ancient language at all due to it being ancient and you never having learned it, no sort of dice will help you.
Making skills replace language is definitively not raw either, languages are their own thing.

[Psyren]

I'd love to know what kind of table or text would be expected to help with adjudicating "over-seasoned tacos."

Do you think these kids are all level 20 rogues with expertise or something to be able to reliably hit DC 20?

Segev, does this mean if a player tried to read some arcane runes you'd call for a DC 30+ Arcana check because you personally can't read magical runes?

Cosigning these great questions.

I think the straightforward truth is that in the end, DMing can't be taught. I don't mean you can't learn to be a DM. What I mean is, you learn to be a DM by DMing. You need to be half game designer. More than half, maybe.

Absolutely. Good DMing definitely entails understanding game design on some level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Absolutely. Good DMing definitely entails understanding game design on some level.

And that's something I (hope|think) we can all agree on--the DMG doesn't do a great job of helping us understand what the developers were thinking and doesn't give enough tools to understand game design. This is orthogonal to "what should the DC be in this case". More "how we expect you to think about target numbers and checks."

For example, I could get behind a set of worked examples, where the various considerations are called out. This doesn't have to be exhaustive or even representative for all the possibilities, but can illuminate what they think are the important parts.

[Keltest]

And that's something I (hope|think) we can all agree on--the DMG doesn't do a great job of helping us understand what the developers were thinking and doesn't give enough tools to understand game design. This is orthogonal to "what should the DC be in this case". More "how we expect you to think about target numbers and checks."

For example, I could get behind a set of worked examples, where the various considerations are called out. This doesn't have to be exhaustive or even representative for all the possibilities, but can illuminate what they think are the important parts.

The thing is, DMs are not answerable to the game devs. Only to the players at the table. D&D is played in so many varied ways its unreasonable to expect the devs to have a standardized system that accounts for every way to play. Just let the tables decide what works for them directly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing is, DMs are not answerable to the game devs. Only to the players at the table. D&D is played in so many varied ways its unreasonable to expect the devs to have a standardized system that accounts for every way to play. Just let the tables decide what works for them directly.

No, I agree with this. But it would help DMs (especially those who "want to follow the rules" and have lack-of-confidence issues, as some have reported) understand how the devs were thinking that people would do this. Even if they don't agree. This isn't "do it this way or it breaks", it's "here's how we would apply it to this particular case". It's a learning tool, not a rule.

Worked examples of their thinking and their assumptions don't come across as prescriptive (at least to me)--no one (that I know of) takes the "how to build Whatsisname McDwarfyFace" section of the introduction as saying that that's the only character you can build.

[Psyren]

Honestly it would make some sense: either you know the language a bit or you do not and if you do not know the ancient language at all due to it being ancient and you never having learned it, no sort of dice will help you.
Making skills replace language is definitively not raw either, languages are their own thing.

Languages are their own thing but runes are not a typical language - they are ideogrammatic symbols rather than merely representations of the characters in a syllabic alphabet. Interpreting their meaning, especially when that meaning has deeper consequences than simply knowing what word or phrase they signify (e.g. what spell or portal they're maintaining) can thus be reasonably represented by a skill, and therefore a skill check - not a binary "you either know the language or you don't."

Your reasoning is like saying that anyone who knows the symbols that represent digits from 0-9 should all be equally good at every math problem. Either you know the language or you don't right?

And that's something I (hope|think) we can all agree on--the DMG doesn't do a great job of helping us understand what the developers were thinking and doesn't give enough tools to understand game design. This is orthogonal to "what should the DC be in this case". More "how we expect you to think about target numbers and checks."

For example, I could get behind a set of worked examples, where the various considerations are called out. This doesn't have to be exhaustive or even representative for all the possibilities, but can illuminate what they think are the important parts.

Sure - but I see this, as I said above, as a presentation issue rather than a fundamental flaw with the process itself. Include a decision tree or flowchart (like the one I posted) and then 1-2 examples.

[Segev]

Segev, does this mean if a player tried to read some arcane runes you'd call for a DC 30+ Arcana check because you personally can't read magical runes?

That depends entirely on what makes them "arcane." Probably not, though, as I equate "reading arcane runes" that aren't, you know, just somebody writing out a textbook in "arcane language," with trying to make head or tail of an engineering diagram. That's honestly probably a "are you proficient?" check more than anything else. If it's more than an "are you proficient" check, though, yeah, I'd probably set the DC at 20-30, because if it's something even proficient people can't auto-parse, it certainly isn't something the 8 Int untrained barbarian is going to piece together, no matter how well he rolls.

Am I sure that's how hard I should be making it? No. I kind-of want to set it at DC 15, but am not sure that's not too easy. Guidelines would be nice, but I do feel somewhat confident in my analysis of how hard reading a freebody diagram, an engineering document, or interpreting a circuit or some complex theoretical physics equations are. Mostly, they're about "are you trained in the skill," with some very difficult ones being harder than that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure - but I see this, as I said above, as a presentation issue rather than a fundamental flaw with the process itself. Include a decision tree or flowchart (like the one I posted) and then 1-2 examples.

Yeah. That's what I meant. It's a fine process, but they explained it badly. So fix the explanation, not the process.

[Sorinth]

Honestly it would make some sense: either you know the language a bit or you do not and if you do not know the ancient language at all due to it being ancient and you never having learned it, no sort of dice will help you.
Making skills replace language is definitively not raw either, languages are their own thing.

Which is not one Segev is arguing because you are taking into account what the character could know/do whereas Segev is saying that if it's something he personally finds hard to do in real life then it's going to be hard for a character to do as well. So if Segev isn't a doctor and can't diagnose/treat an illness then the DC for that check is going to be 25+ because being a doctor is very hard and it doesn't matter that my character's background is in fact a doctor, if it's hard for Segev in real life it's hard for every character in the game.

[Sorinth]

That depends entirely on what makes them "arcane." Probably not, though, as I equate "reading arcane runes" that aren't, you know, just somebody writing out a textbook in "arcane language," with trying to make head or tail of an engineering diagram. That's honestly probably a "are you proficient?" check more than anything else. If it's more than an "are you proficient" check, though, yeah, I'd probably set the DC at 20-30, because if it's something even proficient people can't auto-parse, it certainly isn't something the 8 Int untrained barbarian is going to piece together, no matter how well he rolls.

Am I sure that's how hard I should be making it? No. I kind-of want to set it at DC 15, but am not sure that's not too easy. Guidelines would be nice, but I do feel somewhat confident in my analysis of how hard reading a freebody diagram, an engineering document, or interpreting a circuit or some complex theoretical physics equations are. Mostly, they're about "are you trained in the skill," with some very difficult ones being harder than that.

So if it's intelligence based it's whether the character would find it easy/hard/impossible, but if it's strength based it's whether you in real life would find it easy/hard/impossible.

[EggKookoo]

Am I sure that's how hard I should be making it? No. I kind-of want to set it at DC 15, but am not sure that's not too easy. Guidelines would be nice, but I do feel somewhat confident in my analysis of how hard reading a freebody diagram, an engineering document, or interpreting a circuit or some complex theoretical physics equations are. Mostly, they're about "are you trained in the skill," with some very difficult ones being harder than that.

Ability scores have this problem. Some tasks are virtually impossible for a person not primed with some basic knowledge or aptitude, but more manageable for another person who has specialized education, training, or similar experience with it. We're not supposed to use proficiency as a gate, and we're not supposed to have different DCs for different characters attempting the same action. So we're left with setting a really high DC. It's clunky.

[Sorinth]

Ability scores have this problem. Some tasks are virtually impossible for a person not primed with some basic knowledge or aptitude, but more manageable for another person who has specialized education, training, or similar experience with it. We're not supposed to use proficiency as a gate, and we're not supposed to have different DCs for different characters attempting the same action. So we're left with setting a really high DC. It's clunky.

Care to provide sources for that assumption?

[EggKookoo]

Care to provide sources for that assumption?

Try suggesting it on this forum.

[Psyren]

Yeah. That's what I meant. It's a fine process, but they explained it badly. So fix the explanation, not the process.

Right. And ideally those examples should include "I went through the steps and, based on XYZ I determined a check wasn't necessary/wouldn't add anything" and "I went through the steps, concluded a check was appropriate, and after considering XYZ I set the DC at Moderate. However, here's an additional consideration that might make me land on Hard instead in this case."

Which is not one Segev is arguing because you are taking into account what the character could know/do whereas Segev is saying that if it's something he personally finds hard to do in real life then it's going to be hard for a character to do as well. So if Segev isn't a doctor and can't diagnose/treat an illness then the DC for that check is going to be 25+ because being a doctor is very hard and it doesn't matter that my character's background is in fact a doctor, if it's hard for Segev in real life it's hard for every character in the game.

So if it's intelligence based it's whether the character would find it easy/hard/impossible, but if it's strength based it's whether you in real life would find it easy/hard/impossible.

Right. It's malpractice. (In more than one sense of the word, lul.)

Ability scores have this problem. Some tasks are virtually impossible for a person not primed with some basic knowledge or aptitude, but more manageable for another person who has specialized education, training, or similar experience with it. We're not supposed to use proficiency as a gate, and we're not supposed to have different DCs for different characters attempting the same action. So we're left with setting a really high DC. It's clunky.

Different DCs by actor, no, but some characters may not need a DC (i.e., may not need to roll) at all. And above all else, you should not be setting a DC before first determining whether there's a meaningful consequence for failure that you're prepared to enact and that benefits the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ability scores have this problem. Some tasks are virtually impossible for a person not primed with some basic knowledge or aptitude, but more manageable for another person who has specialized education, training, or similar experience with it. We're not supposed to use proficiency as a gate, and we're not supposed to have different DCs for different characters attempting the same action. So we're left with setting a really high DC. It's clunky.

Personally, as a heuristic (not a rule), I find that if I want to gate things on proficiency and/or have different DCs...I've failed to actually follow the earlier steps.

Specifically, the "does this take a check at all" steps that come before setting a DC. A certain task may be possible but not guaranteed for one person and impossible for another. Or guaranteed for one person and impossible for another. That happens based on the fiction and the characters, without reference to things like proficiency. because proficiency is too broad to cover individual cases.

Take, for instance, the task "respond appropriately with the hand sign when challenged by a member of the Thieves Guild of Thieftown". If you're not a member of that guild, you don't know the right sign. If you are a member, you do know it. You might have two rogues with identical proficiencies, but if one had the backstory/adventuring statement[1] "I am a member of the Thieves Guild of Thieftown" and the other doesn't, one gets an auto-pass and the other an auto-fail.

And such things are very common, especially for Intelligence (aka knowlege)-based checks. The barbarian from the howling wilderness does not know the secret symbology of the Cult of the Obscure. The scholar of religions might. One gets a check, the other doesn't. And since players don't call for checks, it all works.

Which raises a point--we never have to decide check/no-check or DCs in the abstract. They're always specific to one particular character in one particular situation in one particular world. And consistency between characters in different situations may or may not actually fit--if the situations are different, the answers to the questions may be different as well. Trying to force consistency is, IMO, a Bad Thing.

[1] something that's come up in play or was approved by the DM, including possibly part of the background.