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

[Psyren]

I find the opposite: with no guidelines, I have no idea where to start setting DCs.

Does the task in question require talent or training? Both? Both + magic or luck? Both + magic AND luck? Or none of the above?

That's all you need for a starting point for the vast majority of challenges., I'd say.

I think the correct compromise is to point out 'suggested DCs' but also have some text somewhere that says... "these suggestions aren't rules GTFO of the DMG you munchkin."

Printed DCs would be weaponized no matter how many disclaimers were plastered around them. I'll pass.

[Goobahfish]

Printed DCs would be weaponized no matter how many disclaimers were plastered around them. I'll pass.

So you rate the value of preventing munchkins arguing with DM's as more important than giving new DM's suggestions so they don't completely mess up games?

That seems... off.

[Segev]

Does the task in question require talent or training? Both? Both + magic or luck? Both + magic AND luck? Or none of the above?
.

Climbing a rope is requires talent and training, so I guess it isn't automatic.

Oh, wait, there exist guidelines for this: it is meant to be climbed, and rules for climbing are provided, and it shouldn't therefore require a check at all.

Now, how many other things that seem obvious to me are nigh impossible are actually meant to be done without a check? I have no guidelines for most of the skills or abilities. If I use yours, then again, climbing a rope becomes quite a bit harder than intended, and thus I can assume a great many other things do, too.

With guidelines, like the rules for climbing, I actually have some idea what the game intent is for PCs to be able to do. Without them, I don't, and your suggestion that lacks any examples of what should "require talent and training" leaves me just as helpless to assign DCs as calling them "easy" or "hard" with no examples of what tasks are easy or hard does.

[EggKookoo]

This doesn't make me feel "empowered." It makes me feel as helpless as receiving instructions for how to build my very first kit plane that simply read, "This is an easy one! Step 1: read these instructions! Step 2: Build the plane!"

I don't mean to come across as callous but welcome to DMing for 5e. The mechanics just aren't that precise. It's not meant to give you some kind of accurate or authentic means to resolve actions. It's meant to give you the tools you need to come up with results that are satisfying and fun. The question is not "how do I know how easy or hard it would be to do X?" but "how can I make doing X feel exciting, engaging, and possibly dangerous for the players?"

Stop worrying and learn to love the DC.

[Segev]

I don't mean to come across as callous but welcome to DMing for 5e. The mechanics just aren't that precise. It's not meant to give you some kind of accurate or authentic means to resolve actions. It's meant to give you the tools you need to come up with results that are satisfying and fun. The question is not "how do I know how easy or hard it would be to do X?" but "how can I make doing X feel exciting, engaging, and possibly dangerous for the players?"

Stop worrying and learn to love the DC.

I'm not asking for precision. I'm asking for ballparks. I do not think that too much to ask. Close the gosh-darned loop.

[KorvinStarmast]

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

Being indecisive isn't a good look. Pick a number, have the player roll, keep play moving. If you can't decide between 10 or 15, then pick a number in between (I have noticed that 12, 13, and 14 crop up in published adventures) and go with it. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and good is all that is needed to keep playing.

[Segev]

Being indecisive isn't a good look. Pick a number, have the player roll, keep play moving.

Sure. Climbing a rope is DC 20. Have fun!

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure. Climbing a rope is DC 20. Have fun!

As mentioned before, climbing already has a rule. Your assumption of 'abusive DM' is not accepted.

[EggKookoo]

Sure. Climbing a rope is DC 20. Have fun!

I know it's blue and all, but honestly? Yes, that's exactly it.

DMing is iterative. You run a session, you make choices (like picking DCs). You gauge player feedback. You adjust for next session. If the players are indeed having fun with DC 20 climbs checks, great. If not, you'll know.

[Tanarii]

So you rate the value of preventing munchkins arguing with DM's as more important than giving new DM's suggestions so they don't completely mess up games?

That seems... off.

3e. No matter how much you caveat it, it is two decades of proof that DC tables will be and still are weaponized.

The same way that we can't have Martials and Wizards on the same resource renewal rate because of 4e. Except 3e DC tables resulted in actual negative results at many gaming tables, not just "it doesn't feel like D&D anymore" perception.

Another example of how caveats will be ignored no matter what: in 5e the rules have an explicit about climbing not requiring checks except when X, and yet it's constantly brought up as an example by forumites.

[GooeyChewie]

I don't want a laundry list of DCs, for two reasons. One, there's no way WotC could cover all possible scenarios, so ultimately the DM will still be in a position of having to adjudicate DCs on their own. Two, it can cause arguments when the DM doesn't use the 'right' DC and the players recognize that fact.

At the same time, I've come to agree that the 2024 DMG should provide better guidance on setting DCs. In particular, I think it should make clear that DCs should be set based on the challenge you want to present to the party, not some Platonic ideal of the difficulty of various tasks. From there they could provide guidance on how to make your descriptions clear and consistent.

[Tanarii]

DCs shouldn't be set based on challenge for the party. Also tried, identified as a pain point, and rejected. In 4e.

[OldTrees1]

As mentioned before, climbing already has a rule. Your assumption of 'abusive DM' is not accepted.

3e. No matter how much you caveat it, it is two decades of proof that DC tables will be and still are weaponized.

The same way that we can't have Martials and Wizards on the same resource renewal rate because of 4e. Except 3e DC tables resulted in actual negative results at many gaming tables, not just "it doesn't feel like D&D anymore" perception.

Question: Why is the assumption of abusive Players accepted?

Seriously, if we can't assume some GMs can make mistakes*, why are we allowed to consider the jerks that weaponize rules?

*Specifically mistakes about setting the DC. This is about GMs like Segev accidentally setting a DC that is not where they would want it. This is not about GMs like Tanarii choosing to exercise their freedom to set the DC exactly where they want it. Only the former is a mistake for this context.

I know it's blue and all, but honestly? Yes, that's exactly it.

DMing is iterative. You run a session, you make choices (like picking DCs). You gauge player feedback. You adjust for next session. If the players are indeed having fun with DC 20 climbs checks, great. If not, you'll know.

Question: Why is supporting multiple types of GMs rejected?

Some find the freeform of 0 guidance to be liberating. Apparently some are worried about abusive players.

Others find they can learn from the wisdom of others. For them guidance helps skip ahead to better sessions now without having to pay every mistake from scratch.

[EggKookoo]

Others find they can learn from the wisdom of others. For them guidance helps skip ahead to better sessions now without having to pay every mistake from scratch.

As I said upthread, the game was not developed in a vacuum. The existence of forums such as this one was taken into account. If you need guidance setting a DC, ask here.

This way, DMs who don't want to be straightjacketed by an official DC list are free from that concern. DMs who want to be given guidance for a DC -- for their own table only -- have places they can go where they can ask questions with as much context as they want and work out a set of DCs (and/or a methodology for coming up with them on the fly) that works for them. Both "sides" get what they want.

A Google search provides plenty of player-generated skill DC lists.

DCs shouldn't be set based on challenge for the party.

Unpopular opinion: When in doubt, CR works as a good basis for determining a DC. If you have to scramble up a tree, it's scarier if you're doing so to avoid a bulette than to avoid a kobold. You're more likely to make a mistake or misjudge something.

[OldTrees1]

As I said upthread, the game was not developed in a vacuum. The existence of forums such as this one was taken into account. If you need guidance setting a DC, ask here.

So rather than provide useful guidance in the product, you are excusing it because forums exist? Not everyone uses these forums. Forums are not included in the prerequisites of the product.

This way, DMs who don't want to be straightjacketed by an official DC list are free from that concern. DMs who want to be given guidance for a DC -- for their own table only -- have places they can go where they can ask questions with as much context as they want and work out a set of DCs (and/or a methodology for coming up with them on the fly) that works for them. Both "sides" get what they want.

We tried that for 5E and no, both "sides" did not get what they want. You could easily include guidance in the DMG without it being a straightjacket. DMs that don't want to be straightjacketed don't use the guidance. DMs that want guidance use the guidance as a stepping stone.


Seriously, this sounds like someone had a bad experience with an abusive player and thus does not want other GMs to have complete products out of fear of them seeing another abusive player. Just make sure the guidance is not RAW or default. I can upgrade, enable, & use it in my games and you don't need to worry about it in your games.


Consider Tanarii's exception:

Even though I generally come down on the side of against DC charts 3e style, if they were done well with accompanying text and were in the DMG, a la the Social Interactions section, they could work.

Although I do think that in that case they'd want to to follow a series of examples like yours (call it: Acrobatics DC 10 every round to avoid slipping, Athletics DC 10 to grab hold and avoid falling) with a general note "for Wushu games subtract 5 from all physical DCs, for heroic swashbuckling use as is, and for Guy at the Gym add 5".

[Tanarii]

Question: Why is the assumption of abusive Players accepted?

Seriously, if we can't assume some GMs can make mistakes*, why are we allowed to consider the jerks that weaponize rules?

They aren't jerks. They aren't abusive. Unless you consider charop abusive. Weaponized DC tables is an accepted part of 3e charop. Proof is in twenty years of the 3e char op online community pudding.

Unpopular opinion: When in doubt, CR works as a good basis for determining a DC. If you have to scramble up a tree, it's scarier if you're doing so to avoid a bulette than to avoid a kobold. You're more likely to make a mistake or misjudge something.

Not just unpopular, antithetical to 5e design philosophy.

[OldTrees1]

They aren't jerks. They aren't abusive. Unless you consider charop abusive. Weaponized DC tables is an accepted part of 3e charop. Proof is in twenty years of the 3e char op online community pudding.

Not just unpopular, antithetical to 5e design philosophy.

I assume by weaponize you are talking about the player weaponizing XYZ against the GM in an abusive manner rather than talking about playing the game. Do you mean "weaponize" in an abusive sense or is your concern moot?


If you (Tanarii) set the DC at 15 and a player in your game demands the DC should be 10 because the PHB said so, that is jerk behavior.

[Tanarii]

I assume by weaponize you are talking about the player weaponizing XYZ against the GM in an abusive manner rather than talking about playing the game. Do you mean "weaponize" in an abusive sense or is your concern moot?

I mean weaponize as the values in the charts are assumed to be a hard rule by the community, and DMs that override them are house ruling.

I'm not sure where "abusive" is coming out of all this. Not being abusive doesn't make the concern that it's a real problem in the community moot.

If you set the DC at 15 and a player in your game demands the DC should be 10 because the PHB said so, that is jerk behavior.

Not if the community assumes the player is in the right. Then it's the Dm being the jerk. Even if the rules caveat them as technically correct.

[KorvinStarmast]

Question: Why is the assumption of abusive Players accepted?

Tanarii was pointing to something other than an assumption based on two decades of 3e's norms.

[OldTrees1]

I mean weaponize as the values in the charts are assumed to be a hard rule by the community, and DMs that override them are house ruling.

I'm not sure where "abusive" is coming out of all this. Not being abusive doesn't make the concern that it's a real problem in the community moot.

Not if the community assumes the player is in the right. Then it's the Dm being the jerk. Even if the rules caveat them as technically corrrect.

Tanarii, you use freeform DCs instead of the guidance or values in some chart (partially because the guidance and charts don't exist, but partially because that is your GMing style). If a player tried to attack you using irrelevant text from the PHB/DMG as a weapon OOC against you, they are being a jerk.

This is different from if a player in my group (I like the players to have guidance about DCs) sees my DC did not match their expectation, and they make me aware of the expectation mismatch, that is not jerk behavior. Context changed and the player behavior also changed. I would not call this "weaponizing" anything.

If by "the community" you mean the forum, then I don't see that as part of our gaming sessions. Just make it clear the guidance is off by default and that should validate not using it, even to the stubborn forum.
If by "the community" you mean a disruptive player disrupting your games, then yeah they are being a jerk.
If by "the community" you mean the non disruptive player in my game not disrupting your game nor my game, then no they are not weaponizing it.


PS: Abusive comes from the connotation of "weaponize" was there a miscommunication? Should I downgrade my concern from "Tanarii wants to avoid abusive behavior" to "Tanarii wants to avoid annoying forum disputes" or some other message?

[GooeyChewie]

DCs shouldn't be set based on challenge for the party. Also tried, identified as a pain point, and rejected. In 4e.

The key pain point in 4e was that the DCs scaled with level. Skill check DCs in 5e are already based on difficulty, but without the scaling (Very Easy 5, Easy 10, Moderate 15, Hard 20, Very Hard 25, Nearly Impossible 30). The problem (imo) is that the DMG does not make clear that these difficulties do not need to be based on some objective platonic ideal of the task, but instead can be set for narrative reasons. Honestly that's how it works anyway. Having a laundry list of DCs just makes the DM look up what the 'right' description is for their chosen DC.

[KorvinStarmast]

The key pain point in 4e was that the DCs scaled with level. Skill check DCs in 5e are already based on difficulty, but without the scaling (Very Easy 5, Easy 10, Moderate 15, Hard 20, Very Hard 25, Nearly Impossible 30). The problem (imo) is that the DMG does not make clear that these difficulties do not need to be based on some objective platonic ideal of the task, but instead can be set for narrative reasons. Honestly that's how it works anyway. Having a laundry list of DCs just makes the DM look up what the 'right' description is for their chosen DC.

DM can also add adv or disadv based on situation or narrative. DM can also look at moderate to hard and choose DC = 17.

And the d20 is swingy. Recently my paladin tried a history check. His INT is 8. He rolled a 19, scoring an 18 on the history check. Passed, got a bunch of useful info out of it. He has also had some INT checks that ended up 0 when he rolled a 1. Hilarity ensued, because when we play, we like to have fun.

[EggKookoo]

So rather than provide useful guidance in the product, you are excusing it because forums exist? Not everyone uses these forums. Forums are not included in the prerequisites of the product.

I think this entire argument hangs on the validity of "useful" in that statement.

[EggKookoo]

Not just unpopular, antithetical to 5e design philosophy.

Weirdly, the 5e DMG implies pretty heavily that you should scale DC with PC ability.

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

[Psyren]

Climbing a rope is requires talent and training, so I guess it isn't automatic.

1) Look at that, you're already proving the point. Before even figuring out what the DC should be, you should first be establishing (a) a reason they can't just keep trying/take 20, and (b) ensuring a meaningful consequence for failure. Your desire for DC guidelines is already showing what DMs who think like you would do when handed a number, i.e. disengage and circumvent the process they should be following entirely.

2) Children regularly climb ropes e.g. in gym classes all over the world, so "your adventurer needs talent and training to climb a rope" (absent any other factors) doesn't make much sense.

I don't mean to come across as callous but welcome to DMing for 5e. The mechanics just aren't that precise. It's not meant to give you some kind of accurate or authentic means to resolve actions. It's meant to give you the tools you need to come up with results that are satisfying and fun. The question is not "how do I know how easy or hard it would be to do X?" but "how can I make doing X feel exciting, engaging, and possibly dangerous for the players?"

Stop worrying and learn to love the DC.

Yes.

As mentioned before, climbing already has a rule. Your assumption of 'abusive DM' is not accepted.

Indeed.

3e. No matter how much you caveat it, it is two decades of proof that DC tables will be and still are weaponized.

The same way that we can't have Martials and Wizards on the same resource renewal rate because of 4e. Except 3e DC tables resulted in actual negative results at many gaming tables, not just "it doesn't feel like D&D anymore" perception.

Another example of how caveats will be ignored no matter what: in 5e the rules have an explicit about climbing not requiring checks except when X, and yet it's constantly brought up as an example by forumites.

I don't want a laundry list of DCs, for two reasons. One, there's no way WotC could cover all possible scenarios, so ultimately the DM will still be in a position of having to adjudicate DCs on their own. Two, it can cause arguments when the DM doesn't use the 'right' DC and the players recognize that fact.

Exactly.

At the same time, I've come to agree that the 2024 DMG should provide better guidance on setting DCs. In particular, I think it should make clear that DCs should be set based on the challenge you want to present to the party, not some Platonic ideal of the difficulty of various tasks. From there they could provide guidance on how to make your descriptions clear and consistent.

I think it can and should be both. The difficulty of various tasks should be consistent, within a campaign at least, and the guidance of basing difficulty on talent/training/magic/luck helps you get there without being a straitjacket. But you should also be taking the challenge you want to present to the party into account. I wouldn't expect a level 1 party to scale a sheer cliff face during a monsoon, any more than I would expect them to fight a Rakshasa; I would tailor a climbing challenge for their capabilities just as I would a combat challenge. (Or, if running a sandbox campaign, I would provide a mix of Possible and Impossible encounters but give them the freedom to avoid/retreat from the latter.

[Tanarii]

If by "the community" you mean the forum, then I don't see that as part of our gaming sessions. Just make it clear the guidance is off by default and that should validate not using it, even to the stubborn forum.
If by "the community" you mean a disruptive player disrupting your games, then yeah they are being a jerk.
If by "the community" you mean the non disruptive player in my game not disrupting your game nor my game, then no they are not weaponizing it.


PS: Abusive comes from the connotation of "weaponize" was there a miscommunication? Should I downgrade my concern from "Tanarii wants to avoid abusive behavior" to "Tanarii wants to avoid annoying forum disputes" or some other message?

3e has a huge and cohesive online community, has been for 20 years, and the community views impact the entire approach of many to most tables.

If it's abusive (and I don't think it is), it's abusive as in the community has set the default expectation that the tables are to be used as a default, and variations from them is tantamount to house ruling. And house ruling in a negative way, to boot.

However, this is weaponizing of the DC tables. Just because it's accepted as the norm by the community and impacts the expectations of the vast majority of players and DMs doesn't make it any less weaponizing. Exactly the opposite.

[OldTrees1]

3e has a huge and cohesive online community, has been for 20 years, and the community views impact the entire approach of many to most tables.

If it's abusive (and I don't think it is), it's abusive as in the community has set the default expectation that the tables are to be used as a default, and variations from them is tantamount to house ruling. And house ruling in a negative way, to boot.

However, this is weaponizing of the DC tables. Just because it's accepted as the norm by the community and impacts the expectations of the vast majority of players and DMs doesn't make it any less weaponizing. Exactly the opposite.

If I am understanding correctly, you are:
1) Not talking about players in a playgroup trying to overrule the GM with irrelevant text from the PHB/DMG. (This is what I initially thought you meant. I thought you meant players weaponizing tables against GMs in groups not using the tables.)
2) You are talking about playgroups having a bias towards the default or popular approaches unless the playgroup cares enough to spend the energy to deviate.

For example while feats are an optional off by default variant in 5E, feats seem popular enough that a group might default to using them unless they care enough to spend energy to keep them off. We can even see that having feats as an optional off by default variant lowered the energy barrier to keep them off compared to 3E/4E.

However I can't be understanding completely because I don't see who is metaphorically stabbing someone. So I am missing part of your pain point.

I think this entire argument hangs on the validity of "useful" in that statement.

There are GMs asking for such guidance because they found it useful in the past. That validates the validity of "useful" in that statement. Even if you don't find it useful for you, you have the capacity to recognize it as being useful to those that found and will find it useful.

[Xervous]

In all the times I’ve seen discussions and gripes over 3.5e era skill mismatches there were few that didn’t mirror the pattern of “GM drops a change to your class features mid session with no warning or valid explanation”. It’s about lack of communication and perceived bait-and-switch. This resolves more as a question of whose duty it is to push for clarity and understanding before the game’s onset.

[EggKookoo]

There are GMs asking for such guidance because they found it useful in the past. That validates the validity of "useful" in that statement. Even if you don't find it useful for you, you have the capacity to recognize it as being useful to those that found and will find it useful.

What if it's harmful?

You want a list of DCs. There are plenty online, and a healthy online community where you can hammer out the validity of those DCs. Note this is something you'd likely do even if there was an official published list. You're not going to agree with every DC in a hypothetical DMG list.

I don't want a list of DCs, at least not something with an official stamp. I don't have to be burdened by such a thing because I don't want to fight the notion that such a list is proscriptive.

Why can't we both have what we want? Why do you want me to be burdened by your list?

[OldTrees1]

Why do you want me to be burdened by your list?

We both want both of us to have what we want. So please cut the misrepresentation unless I am wrong and you want me to be burdened.

Why can't we both have what we want?

We can. However the 5E model fails (undue burden on me) and the 3E model fails (undue burden on you). So we should look for why they failed and how to innovate further.

• You don't want to have to fight against the notion of a list being proscriptive.
• I don't want you to have to fight against the notion of a list being proscriptive. Not that I want it to be proscriptive for my group either.
• I want there to be guidance in the product that I can provide to players to give them detailed concrete expectations.
• <Insert mutual reflective desire here?>

Creating the guidance is a burden. The notion of the list as proscriptive is a burden. So have a guidance be buried in the DMG without it being proscriptive. By default the guidance is not used.

Cost to you: People that like the guidance might create groups that use the guidance. Online discussion might be dominated by the more popular option with a bias in your favor since your method is default.
Cost to me: I have to turn on the variant and share those pages of the DMG with my players. Online discussion might be dominated by the more popular option with a bias in your favor since your method is default.


Please, stop assuming malice and stop assuming ignorance. It is unreasonable to assume I want to burden you. It is unreasonable to assume the current system satisfies the use case of those that criticize it for not satisfying their use case. Can we work together while we care about each other's vested interests?