D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[spinozajack]

Any background can be taken by any class. It is irrelevant in comparing classes. Same with Race.

Skill selection based on character class is built in to every class in 4th edition until themes came in late into the edition, if I remember correctly, but background gives your class like a fighter access to previously rogue-only skills like stealth or thief tool profiency. We were talking about out of combat prowess of the Champion fighter subclass compared to other classes. Being able to access any one skill or tool proficiency that anyone else might be able to get is definitely pertinent to the discussion. A party of 4 in 5e can cover all the bases with the champion being able to make plenty of OOC contribution. I gave at least a dozen examples. If you think proficiencies in 5e don't affect out of combat utility, then I don't know what to say.

Regardless, your point is...you have none, I think.

You mention inclusiveness, and 5th edition did achieve that. But not at the expense of making the default rules selections maintain a classic D&D feeling, with the most basic or iconic subclass of each class fit squarely with the expectation of the majority. In the case of preferring the 4e quasi-magical, complex, defender role fighter being the default, that was overruled. You can't have two defaults. So they picked one for Basic D&D, the one most people wanted and expected, and made the 4e version have to be customized. You still get to play the type of fighter you want to play (even getting magic if you want it), but you don't get to have the rules validate a minority game design bias and put it on a pedestal.

It seems to me like you want the default fighter to be a BM + EK rolled into one. Because you think the champion is boring. In some games, the champion will destroy those two other subclasses once they run out of spell slots or maneuver points. Or on days when there are many combat rounds, basically.

Even 4e fighters ran out of dailies after a few combats, and couldn't fly or even pick the stealth skill. So I'm not sure what you're criticizing about 5e now, because it literally does everything the 4e fighter could, except better. It does more damage (top tier striker-level), has amazing durability, more feats which are very strong in this game, incredible nova capability that other classes lust after, and a simple yet powerful default subclass that isn't eclipsed in power by any other class in the game by a substantial amount, even in short bursts. The champion fighter is a strong MC choice, even for a rogue.

You would think that a 4e expert such as yourself would realize how good at-will, always on status effects in class features was. Increased crit range was one of the big game-breaking things in the Daggermaster of 4th edition that eventually got nerfed. By level 11 a champion fighter can nova 6-7 attacks with an 18 crit range and with bonus attacks on a crit. 8 attacks in one encounter power! With full strength mod! Not even rangers got that. Remember how they nerfed Blade Cascade down to 5 attacks? And those are ranger dual wielder powers.

5e fighters rule, including the champion. Maybe especially. As soon as you have more than 4 combats a day, the champion pulls ahead of the others in damage. Very flexible, very simple, very powerful, very fun. Killing stuff is fun. If you want magic, play an EK. Or a wizard. Or any one of the other myriad magic-using classes. Or multiclass into one for a level or two. Or take a feat. There are literally tons of ways to add whatever powers you want to a champion. And if you find it boring after a while, I'm pretty sure your DM would allow you to retrain.

I think your criticisms are totally off. Not having magic in every class of the game is a feature. We wanted that. You talk about inclusiveness but you don't walk the walk yourself. You seem like you would deny our choice to play a magic-free, simple fighter, despite you having access to any tool or skill a rogue can use, or learn how to cast magic easily with or without multiclassing. In a half-dozen ways. I think it's you who is being exclusive here, actually. You would deny what the majority wants. The majority aren't trying to deny you what you want. But not every class or subclass has to do everything every other class can do equally well.

One size does not fit all.

 

[Celtavian]

Right, and the issue is, to be clear, not that the fighter is in some way inferior, it is that the fighter is in no way unique. There isn't anything that fighters get in terms of an actual capability to do something in the narrative fiction, that every other class cannot possibly do also. A wizard can climb, hide, jump, escape, and even swing a sword. There is in fact not one single general thing that a fighter can do that entirely transcends what a wizard can try to do. He may be poor at some of these things (maybe not too), and he might not be able to try exactly the same mechanical thing in every detail (he can't make multiple attacks, but he can surely swing a sword).

Yet, fictionally, the wizard is far beyond the fighter. He can do things that the fighter, assuming he doesn't become an EK, simply cannot even try. MANY of those things, many spells, can allow him without any sort of check to do things a fighter cannot try at all, like fly or walk invisibly through a crowded room.

I don't know that there's ultimately a 'fix' for this, except to get some spell casting if you want, but the argument is that at least one edition, 4e, DID allow somewhat more, that its fighters were a bit more 'mythic'. ONE reason for this, baseline performance for highest level 4e PCs was a lot more fantastic. This meant that perhaps the fighter wasn't doing a lot that was super unique, but he was far less outclassed. He was like the Motorcycle Bandit vs the Pixie Summoner instead of BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. I thought it worked out a little better overall.

That being said, you do have the choice in 5e to be an EK or MC into wizard, or whatever. I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.

This argument I can understand. It is true. I prefer the fighter be that way myself. If someone wants to play Hercules, then you have to create a special game or wait for an epic book. I want my fighters to be merely the best at fighting with weapons. That is what they are.

I want my wizards well beyond the fighter, like they are in most of the novels I read. That's my preference. If you don't, a different game is probably what you want. I can see why you prefer 4E. Their daily and encounter powers were more impressive than 5E fighter capabilities.

 

[Celtavian]

Yes, but this isn't what I'm talking about. The game only envisages one range of difficulty, measured against a level 1 PC (apparently from what I can see). Obviously you can set any numbers you want, in theory, but how does that change the argument?


You are clearly missing my point. We know that in 4e a level 10 medium DC is 18, but what FICTIONALLY does that represent? There are SOME conventions, an 18 represents a running broad jump of about 15' IIRC, a 20 will let you break through a barred wooden door, and a 26 is required to break through a wooden wall. So we DO have a bit of a baseline, what the authors envisaged, but we have a lot of freedom. The most capable 'ordinary human' might have a +4 Ability Bonus, and maybe a Skill Bonus of +5 if the feat uses a skill they are trained in (on the assumption that ordinary people even get +5 trained bonuses, 4e doesn't apply character rules to NPCS). So, a strong non-leveled NPC might achieve checks up to say 29 at the most extreme. He might break a barred door, or crash through the wall of a village house, or jump over a 20' wide chasm, in the default setting.

So, assuming we don't want to radically amplify the abilities of low level non-adventurers, we'd probably rescale things in a bit of an exponential fashion. a check result of 30 is the top of realistic human potential, a 35 is quite a bit beyond it, a 40 might be 'less than godlike' and a 45 might represent moving a mountain. This is quite a bit beyond what the default fiction envisages, but because there's a large scale difference in the numbers that heroic/paragon/epic PCs can achieve its quite possible to radically rescale the fiction attached to the different numbers. You simply cannot do that in 5e. If the hardest attainable DCs are super fantastic things, then low level characters will be achieve them. Not often, but if even one guard captain can say throw a giant, its going to be a pretty odd setting...


Sure, you can create a different skill system in essence. But as with my example above, I can make 4e's fiction much grittier without much effort. I can simply set the DC for cracking through a barred door at 35, not 18. I can simply subtract 10' from broad jump results, so that even a 35 only gets you just barely beyond olympic record distance (or make up some other formula). In general most fiction doesn't even have ANY mechanical tie to a specific DC in 4e, so I can just set the DCs such that even 20th level 4e PCs can only accomplish modestly astounding things, not stupidly ridiculous things.


No, I don't understand. The critical problem here in the 5e setup is the small growth in bonuses means you can't differentiate between heroes and ordinary people in terms of abilities and skills. The game simply cannot do it. No amount of picking different DCs will change that unless you start picking them purely on fictional grounds and ignoring mechanics.



D&D is a level-based game, that's the whole core conceit is that as you level up you scale up in power. I don't think this is something I invented for rhetorical reasons. Its so core to D&D that I would dare say that a game where you use some other scaling system ISN'T D&D AT ALL. In a much more fundamental way than people said that about 4e! I don't think its 5e either TBH. I mean I can do anything I want if I just homebrew my own system. Heck, I was already lambasted once on this thread today for even making a contrast with my own homebrew. I think you need stronger arguments.

Now I think I'm understanding your point. 5E is more compacted than other versions of D&D. The power curve is the flattest of any edition of D&D. the difference between a 20th level fighter and a 1st level fighter is wide enough where the level 20 can kill the level 1 very quick and easy. But not so wide an army of 1st level fighters can't be a good fight for a level 20 fighter like previous editions. This flat power curve doesn't allow you to play an epic level game as easily as in past editions.

That makes more sense. I can only say the flat power curve is part of the attraction for me as a DM and player. I can construct adventures more like the novels I enjoy in 5E than in any previous edition of D&D. In previous editions of D&D an army of orcs had no chance of taking on a high level party, in 5E they are a real danger. This mirrors a book like Lord of the Rings or even some of the D&D novels way better than any previous edition. I like that aspect.

I can at least understand how those that enjoy a more epic feel such as fighting demon armies may not be happy. We fought three cloud giants at level 7. In 3E/Pathfinder, we could usually take down three standard cloud giants by level 7 with five characters. In 5E we got our asses handed to us and had to flee. They burned our hit points down too quickly and our ACs were easy to hit.

Some prefer this style and have been asking for it for years. They finally get it. But for those that still want to play epic D&D, they will have to DM differently, hand out far more magic, and probably adjust some of the systems. Monsters hit comparatively harder and easier. The games numbers are compacted leading to a wider range of challenges, but less high.

 

[pemerton]

Supreme Sneak: Hide is one of the main features of the rogue, and with Expertise already there it is hardly ground breaker, only a minor boost.

Advantage puts a pretty good floor under a skill check: only a 1 in 4 chance of 10 or less, only a 1 in 16 chance of 5 or less. It removes a lot of the randomness to which the fighter (by way of contrast) remains vulnerable.

Stroke of Luck: Same case of Cunning Action, as it is a combat ability, and a limited resource.

I don't see why it is a combat ability. From Basic PDF, p 28:

If your attack misses a target within range, you can turn the miss into a hit. Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20.​

Nothing there about combat.

As for it being limited use, it returns after a short rest. The same as Action Surge, which you were lauding upthread as a major fighter ability in non-combat contexts. It seems to me that auto-success on an ability check once per short rest is a more useful non-combat ability than taking an extra action once per short rest.

In situations were time is key, an Action Surge, being a generalistic action, comes in handy (in a chase for example, or saving your companions from falling while you are holding still). No one can deny this utility

I'll deny the second part - Action Surges doesn't let you take a reaction, does it?

the Fighter is far from worthless outside combat.

The fighter brings very little to non-combat other than ability checks, which s/he has no ability to manipulate (via dice tricks) or render needless in the way that rogues and casters do. I don't have a strong view on whether or not that's worthless, or close to worthless. I don't find it very impressive.

as to a 'fix,' there's all sorts of possibilities.

From the player side, very simply, don't play a fighter if it doesn't do enough to keep you entertained.

From the DM side, the possibilities are endless: You could re-write the fighter class, or the skill system.
You could also just arbitrarily rule the fighter succeeds much of the time.
You could hammer the limits faced by casters - for instance, by forcing 'long' adventuring days.

I'm not sure for whom these are intended to be fixes.

Not playing a fighter doesn't sound like a very good fix for someone who wanted to play (say) a Conan-esque character. Conan is notably effective out of combat.

Rewriting a class or a skill system is something I'd rather pay someone else to do, rather than have to do myself.

The bits about "arbitrary" ruling and hammering caster limits push towards a GMing style that I personally find pretty unattractive. More on this below.

If you follow the procedures of 4e (because if you're not then all that guidance and examples and p42 are all worthless) it has already (numerically) decided for you what Easy/Medium/Hard is based on character level

<snip>

So disregard the play procedures, advice, information and page 42... and 4e can do exactly what we're saying 5e can do

I think this misunderstands [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s point about 4e.

The system stipulates a numerical, mechanical weighting for DCs of various levels. But it doesn't correlate those DCs to the fiction except at a few points. This is a marked contrast with (say) 3E, which has a very tight correlation between DCs and fiction (eg balancing on a cloud is DC 100 Acro, from memory) or (in non-D&D systems) a marked contrast with Rolemaster or Burning Wheel, both of which stipulate a whole lot of DCs in fictional terms.

We know that in 4e a level 10 medium DC is 18, but what FICTIONALLY does that represent? There are SOME conventions, an 18 represents a running broad jump of about 15' IIRC, a 20 will let you break through a barred wooden door, and a 26 is required to break through a wooden wall. So we DO have a bit of a baseline, what the authors envisaged, but we have a lot of freedom.

This. LostSoul described this feature of 4e very nicely about 3 years ago:

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

It's not at all clear to me how 5e is meant to work, in this respect. Some posters upthread (eg [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]) have said that 5e works like 3E - DCs are set "objectively", based on the features of the world, and then we find out whether or not the players can pile enough bonuses onto their PCs to beat them.

But other posters, over the past few pages, have said some stuff that points in quite a different direction:

the DM decides when a roll is needed. It scales exactly as the DM allows it to scale. The DM decides if something is possible in a given situation for a given character. Then he decides whether it would require the PC to make a roll or not. He decides the DC. He could decide lifting a mountain is hard for a Titan, but impossible for a human. He could give the titan a DC 15 to lift the mountain and say it is impossible for the strength 20 fighter.

Well, that example is how you might run it. Other DM's judgement about 'strong enough to challenge the barbarian,' might be different. So the 12 STR Kobold might get to roll. The DM would also be fully within his rights to rule that the Kobold won.

<snip>

The solution is the same as with the Kobold vs Barbarian arm-wrestling. The DM rules that the army's arrows bounce of the dragon's scales and it eats the lot of 'em. End of story: ruling, not rules.

<snip>

I can see how it's uncomfortable for folks accustomed to following the RAW, something typified be 3.x

"You fail" or "You succeed" are both legitimate resolutions, without rolls, to any action in 5e. The DM is inserted into the resolution system. Call it 'fiat in the middle,' if you like.

<snip>

If a player says his character runs on the wall like in Prince of Persia, the DM is free to make that easy or impossible or just let it work or fail automatically.

If a DC for a STR ability check can be (say) 15 for a Titan but impossible for a human (even a 20th level fighter with 20 STR), then what is the point of boosting STR? Of Remarkable Athlete? Etc. If the GM is entitled to override the system at any point and declare that a player's declared action fails, what is the point of the system?

I'm having a hard time accepting this as meaning anything other than : "actively protect players from the system"

As I've seen espoused, the 5e DCs are "world-set".

So I'm having problems figuring out how you'd sell the idea that though you have a very reasonable chance to succeed, you actually don't get to try...

I'm seeing it play out like :
Strong peasant (Str 14) vs 20th level Barb = no check
Strong low-level Fighter vs 20th level Barb = ? perhaps a check
Average (Str 10) 20th level fighter vs 20th level Barb = check*
Strong peasant (Str 14) vs 20th level Dex Fighter (10 Str) = ???

*I would assume this one gets to try, even if it has, by 5e's principals, a lower chance of success than the stronger peasant - which leaves me in a state of ???

The main point is actually the impossibility for me to know which situation would allow for a contest.

See above - you are completely correct. If this is meant as the way it is supposed to be, then I completely mis-understood the books.

Absolutely this. I took the system to be one of "objective" DCs - as you put it, "world-set" DCs.

If the system is just unfettered GM fiat, I don't even see the point of all the numbers. What are they for?

 

[Celtavian]

If a DC for a STR ability check can be (say) 15 for a Titan but impossible for a human (even a 20th level fighter with 20 STR), then what is the point of boosting STR? Of Remarkable Athlete? Etc. If the GM is entitled to override the system at any point and declare that a player's declared action fails, what is the point of the system?

Absolutely this. I took the system to be one of "objective" DCs - as you put it, "world-set" DCs.

If the system is just unfettered GM fiat, I don't even see the point of all the numbers. What are they for?

The numbers are loose framework for combat resolution. Resolution for anything other than combat is optional.

To put it simply. this is the edition where the DM is empowered to create the type of fiction he wishes. There is no set world DCs. The world is purely in the DM's imagination. The designers have been quite clear that empowering the DM was a major part of this edition. Rule lawyering is gone. The idea of a player looking in a book to see the DC is gone. The DC is set by the DM using loose guidelines to drive the fiction.

If you are in a group that wants epic play with skills, the DM will have to construct a rule subset to support that style of play. If you want skills to do something other than what the DM decides is possible, someone will have to write it up and get it approved by the group. This edition favors DM fiat as the means for encounter resolution. The DM is encouraged to hand-wave everything that doesn't matter. He is encouraged to set DCs either by planning when a check will be required during encounter creation or creating a list of DCs for common checks he will require. They are not set. It isn't intended that ability checks be used very often. It's a very fluid system that utilizes DM fiat. If that isn't something a group likes, then 5E probably won't make them particularly happy.

I'm ok with it. I'm used to the game being this way from its beginnings. The rule lawyering and everything needing to be spelled out didn't start until 3E. We used to make up stuff all the time for accomplishing tasks other than attacking. I don't have a problem resolving encounters in that fashion again. Once more people embrace that this is how 5E works, they can construct rule subsets that support their play-style.

 

[pemerton]

The numbers are loose framework for combat resolution. Resolution for anything other than combat is optional.

<snip>

This edition favors DM fiat as the means for encounter resolution. The DM is encouraged to hand-wave everything that doesn't matter.

But a lot of non-combat does matter.

"Say yes or roll the dice" is one thing, and tends to work fairy well. "Say no without a die roll" tends to be trickier, in a context where an important part of character building is assigning bonuses (via skill choice, stat allocation and boosting, feats etc) that are meant to be useful against DCs.

this is the edition where the DM is empowered to create the type of fiction he wishes.

This doesn't strike me as special to 5e, though. It's an aspect of 2nd ed AD&D that I didn't like. After all, a common label for the GM creating the fiction that s/he wants to is "railroading"!

The rule lawyering and everything needing to be spelled out didn't start until 3E.

I've never played 3E and have GMed a handful of sessions of it. It's had no impact on my play preferences.

The trad systems that influence my conception of how out-of-combat is resolved are AD&D Oriental Adventures, Traveller, Runequest and most of all Rolemaster. The "modern" systems that have influence me in this respect are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and 4e.

Five of these systems use "objective", "world set" DCs: AD&D, Traveller, RQ, RM and BW. The others use "subjective" DCs (this is true at least for HQ in its revised version) - but the "subjective" DCs are not set by GM fiat, but by reference to encounter difficulty procedures (MHRP has probably the most complex version of this, in the form of the Doom Pool). The aspiration of these systems is that player resources interact with the GM-side mechanics to produce dynamic fiction that is not under the direct control of either GM or the players.

"Subjective" DCs with no constraints on the GM side is not something I've ever encountered, outside of the context of a certain approach to 2nd ed AD&D. And "rules lawyering" - a phrase that I first came across before 2nd ed was published - has no direct bearing on the working of either sort of system, at least in my experience.

 

[BryonD]

Hey, you seem to think there's some sort of subtlety here I'm missing. What can I say? If you wish to expound on it then perhaps it will cease being a mystery. Otherwise I can do no more than to observe that in every respect I know of Advantage works fine in all of these systems, and it achieves the same thing. Tony noted above that 4e had both a simpler form of advantage (CA for +2 and acted as a trigger for a lot of things) as well.

I'm not disputing that the physical mechanic works. You can clearly see examples of Paizo jumping in with it as well.
But in the bounded system it creates a different interaction because of the tighter range of numbers.
Tony partly has a point regarding 4E because it is true that 4E moves a tight range of numbers along with character level of the party. So Advantage would, at least, have a more consistent function than it would in 3E (where it would still work perfectly ok) But moving a tight range with the characters is not the same thing as having the characters themselves progress across a tight range. The result in how low level threats and high level threats may interact in on the same stage at the same time is different then how they work in either 3E or 4E.

BA is nothing more than tweaking down the normal d20 bonus growth that has been roughly +1/level in all previous editions to about +1/2 levels. The effects are pretty minor really. It somewhat amplifies the value of multiple attacks, because damage rates had to be increased. Overall I preferred the more traditional bonus curve. The only respect in which 4e really pushed was in explicitly extending the game to 30 levels, which does create a more distinct tiering effect. If you rescaled 4e mechanics to a 20 level progression you'd get rid of roughly 10 points of bonus growth, and the two systems start to really look pretty much alike.

Obviously my observations differ from yours.
This wouldn't be the first time I've been told on these boards that my observations are not real because someone else with different tastes and preferences observe things differently.
I'm ok with that.

But again, 4E moves the range along with it and the play of highly diverse levels does not come off at all the same. And 4E brings a lot of other baggage along for the ride (for better or worse, depending on your taste).

To me the two systems have enough difference to be night and day.

 

[Erechel]

But a lot of non-combat does matter.

"Say yes or roll the dice" is one thing, and tends to work fairy well. "Say no without a die roll" tends to be trickier, in a context where an important part of character building is assigning bonuses (via skill choice, stat allocation and boosting, feats etc) that are meant to be useful against DCs.

This doesn't strike me as special to 5e, though. It's an aspect of 2nd ed AD&D that I didn't like. After all, a common label for the GM creating the fiction that s/he wants to is "railroading"!

I've never played 3E and have GMed a handful of sessions of it. It's had no impact on my play preferences.

The trad systems that influence my conception of how out-of-combat is resolved are AD&D Oriental Adventures, Traveller, Runequest and most of all Rolemaster. The "modern" systems that have influence me in this respect are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and 4e.

Five of these systems use "objective", "world set" DCs: AD&D, Traveller, RQ, RM and BW. The others use "subjective" DCs (this is true at least for HQ in its revised version) - but the "subjective" DCs are not set by GM fiat, but by reference to encounter difficulty procedures (MHRP has probably the most complex version of this, in the form of the Doom Pool). The aspiration of these systems is that player resources interact with the GM-side mechanics to produce dynamic fiction that is not under the direct control of either GM or the players.

"Subjective" DCs with no constraints on the GM side is not something I've ever encountered, outside of the context of a certain approach to 2nd ed AD&D. And "rules lawyering" - a phrase that I first came across before 2nd ed was published - has no direct bearing on the working of either sort of system, at least in my experience.

But there is guidelines. A lot of them, and the extremely loose guidelines outside combat was always one of the main critics of 4th edition, and one of the things that the fanbase has always defended. It would be very naive to call purely DM fiat the DCs of certain tasks in 5th edition. The DC settings, because Bounded Accuracy and linear, non exponential growth of power, are fixed to the world and not levels, hence the difficulties chart:
5 for very easy task, (75% of probability without being trained),
10 for easy tasks (50% chances without being trained),
15 for average (25% chances whitout training),
20 for hard (5% chance without training),
25 for very hard (0% chance with or without training if you have not a significant Stat Mod -at least +3 with training), 30 for nearly impossible (0% chance if you have not Expertise, magical aid, and a significant modifier -at least for a level 4 character. With Expertise -+4-, exceptional stat -+4/+5- and Guidance -1d4- you have a slight chance, but you are an exceptional expert magically aided).
So, for example, a 20th level 12 Strenght Wizard cannot perform any Very Hard feature of Athletics unless is trained (only achievable via Sailor/Soldier background, variant human or months of training outside adventures, all of them reasonable enough) -like swimming against the flow-, unless he handwaves it with a spell (that always have a limited duration), while a 1st level, 18/20 str half orc champion with athletics (via class features, you probably choose that to enhance your strenghts) has between 10/15% chance (better than a hard situation for the same wizard), and that same 20th level warrior has a 55% chance, better than an Easy task to a non proficient, non exceptionally Stat. Also:

DIFFICULTY CLASS
It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table.
TYPICAL DCs
Task DC Task DC
Very easy 5 Hard 20
Easy 10 Very hard 25
Moderate 15 Nearly impossible 30

The numbers associated with these categories of difficulty are meant to be easy to keep in your head, so that you don't have to refer to this book every time you decide on a DC. Here are some tips for using DC categories at the gaming table.
If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one. Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such a task without making a check.
Then ask yourself, "Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate, or hard?" If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt.
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 becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so. A DC 30 check is nearly impossible for most low-level characters. A 20th-level character with proficiency and -relevant ability score of 20 still needs a 19 or 20 on the die roll to succeed at a task of this difficulty.

VARIANT: AUTOMATIC SUCCESS
Sometimes the randomness of a d20 roll leads to ludicrous results. Let's say a door requires a successful DC 15 Strength check to be battered down. A fighter with a Strength of 20 might helplessly flail against the door because of bad die rolls. Meanwhile, the rogue with a Strength of 10 rolls a 20 and knocks the door from its hinges.
If such results bother you, consider allowing automatic success on certain checks. Under this optional rule, a character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant ability score minus 5. So in the example above, the fighter would automatically kick in the door. This rule doesn't apply to contests, saving throws, or attack rolls.
Having proficiency with a skill or tool can also grant automatic success. If a character's proficiency bonus applies to his or her ability check, the character automatically succeeds if the DC is 10 or less. If that character is 11th level or higher, the check succeeds if the DC is 15 or less.
The downside of this whole approach is its predictability. For example, once a character's ability score reaches 20, checks of DC 15 and lower using that ability become automatic successes. Smart players will then always match the character with the highest ability score against any given check. If you want some risk of failure, you need to set higher DCs. Doing this, though, can aggravate the problem you're trying to solve: higher DCs require higher die rolls, and thus rely even more on luck.

The Variant rule keeps the game in the level that you want. It's up to the DM to set the difficulty of a task, or to the module/ adventure you seek. It's expectable that the DM isn't a stupid or evil person, but a person who try to fit the expectations of his group. But there is a guideline in a trap of how the difficulty is set:

PITS
Mechanical trap
Four basic pit traps are presented here.
Simple Pit. A simple pit trap is a hole dug in the ground. The hole is covered by a large cloth anchored on the pit's edge and camouflaged with dirt and debris. The DC to spot the pit is 10. Anyone stepping on the cloth falls through and pulls the cloth down into the pit, taking damage based on the pit's depth (usually 10 feet, but some pits are deeper).
Hidden Pit. This pit has a cover constructed from material identical to the floor around it. A successful DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check discerns an absence of foot traffic over the section of floor that forms the pit's cover. A successful DC 15 Intelligence (Investigation) check is necessary to confirm that the trapped section of floor is actually the cover of a pit.
When a creature steps on the cover, it swings open like a trapdoor, causing the intruder to spill into the pit below. The pit is usually 10 or 20 feet deep but can be deeper. Once the pit trap is detected, an iron spike or similar object can be wedged between the pit's cover and the surrounding floor in such a way as to prevent the cover from opening, thereby making it safe to cross. The cover can also be magically held shut using the arcane lock spell or similar magic.
Locking Pit. This pit trap is identical to a hidden pit trap, with one key exception: the trap door that covers the pit is spring-loaded. After a creature falls into the pit, the cover snaps shut to trap its victim inside. A successful DC 20 Strength check is necessary to pry the cover open. The cover can also be smashed open (determine the cover's statistics using the guidelines in chapter 8). A character in the pit can also attempt to disable the spring mechanism from the inside with a DC 15 Dexterity check using thieves' tools, provided that the mechanism can be reached and the character can see.
In some cases, a mechanism (usually hidden behind a secret door nearby) opens the pit.
Spiked Pit. This pit trap is a simple, hidden, or locking pit trap with sharpened wooden or iron spikes at the bottom. A creature falling into the pit takes 11 (2d10) piercing damage from the spikes, in addition to any falling damage. Even nastier versions have poison smeared on the spikes. In that case, anyone taking piercing damage from the spikes must also make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw, taking an 22 (4d10) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Under this rules, the difficulty isn't set by level, but by means of who can make the things needed, and level is only significant if you already have some training. Level matters in the chance you have to accomplish certain tasks. And with the variant rule of 5, the level 20 warrior can automaticly succeed where the wizard with or without spells can't, and vice versa: the warrior (unless trained in Arcana, has significatively high Intelligence, and magical aid never could identify a spell in the lips of a rival) don't.

There is some niche protection, but the protection isn't graved in stone, so class & level are not the only factors that comes around in the resolution of a certain task. You can also take account on the Difficulty Class between Hide and the general, untrained Passive Perception, like a peasant (PP 10- easy task), a Guard (PP 12- in between the Average and easy task) or a trained 1st level ranger (PP 14- almost average difficulty). Passing a guarding dog is arguably difficultier, as he has Advantage on Hearing and Smell checks (14 +5 to their Passive Perception if it doesn't rely on sight, but hearing, almost the Hard check, only 10% chance if the hiding character isn't trained nor exceptionally agile).

As you can see, the DCs are world-given, and the characters will have a better or lesser chance of success given not only his level, but their stats and training. This keeps the minor modifiers relevant, as it isn't the same to have a +1 or don't have it.

But at this time, I sense that you have fear to give any control to the DM. There are loose guidelines, yes and the DM always have the ultimate word, but the DM is not an evil dictator, nor it's a stupid person: is the narrator and always keep the best interest of the table, and presumably has common sense to determine if anything is hard or not, and the players have their modifiers and abilities to surpass this. If you don't trust your DM, why play any game with him? Why don't give him a published adventure if he is learning to determine difficulties? That way, the DCs of the several tasks are going to be in the module. And there are numerous examples of difficulty sets among the books, and plenty of unofficial DM screens to aid setting the DC.

But they are flexible enough to give some liberty to the DM. This have been said countless times: the rules can't possibly consider every single aspect of the game, and it's a waste of time to list every possible example of DCs, because A) it would be a pain in the ass, and B) there is no chance to cover every single possibility.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] if 4e's smattering of DC's don't counts as dictating the fiction for DC's then I'm going to have to agree with [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6784868]Erechel[/MENTION] since the amount of nailed down DC's is about on par with what I remember in 4e... So I have to revise my opinion. Both games allow the DM to structure the fiction that lines up with DC's.

 

[Celtavian]

But a lot of non-combat does matter.

Only as much as the DM wants it to. We've always played this way. This is a return to 1E and 2E for us.

"Say yes or roll the dice" is one thing, and tends to work fairy well. "Say no without a die roll" tends to be trickier, in a context where an important part of character building is assigning bonuses (via skill choice, stat allocation and boosting, feats etc) that are meant to be useful against DCs.

I say no all the time. You only have a problem if the players make it a problem.

This doesn't strike me as special to 5e, though. It's an aspect of 2nd ed AD&D that I didn't like. After all, a common label for the GM creating the fiction that s/he wants to is "railroading"!

Railroading is a pejorative used to describe a DM that forces a path on the players. That's just bad DMing regardless of system. The DM always has limits on the game. It's a matter of how he constructs them and creates the illusion of a dynamic world.

I've never played 3E and have GMed a handful of sessions of it. It's had no impact on my play preferences.

Irrelevant. It had a major impact on the D&D community and the stated desires of players wanting a new edition.

Five of these systems use "objective", "world set" DCs: AD&D, Traveller, RQ, RM and BW. The others use "subjective" DCs (this is true at least for HQ in its revised version) - but the "subjective" DCs are not set by GM fiat, but by reference to encounter difficulty procedures (MHRP has probably the most complex version of this, in the form of the Doom Pool). The aspiration of these systems is that player resources interact with the GM-side mechanics to produce dynamic fiction that is not under the direct control of either GM or the players.

It's always under the control of the GM or DM in any game that has one. Because the system attempts to create a dynamic resolution doesn't change that the DM is the one placing the obstacles in front of the player. There is no way around a DM having near complete control of a game. That is why a bad DM will do a bad job no matter the system. A good DM can do a good job with just about any system. The system is mostly irrelevant other than providing preferred options to players and DMs for encounter resolution. They have no more affect on the fiction than the DM incorporates and the players tolerate.

"Subjective" DCs with no constraints on the GM side is not something I've ever encountered, outside of the context of a certain approach to 2nd ed AD&D. And "rules lawyering" - a phrase that I first came across before 2nd ed was published - has no direct bearing on the working of either sort of system, at least in my experience.

I never heard talk of rule lawyering prior to 3E. I played with lots of different groups and at conventions during that period. I don't think the term was used amongst D&D players much. Maybe some other system you played had rule lawyers.

DCs weren't even used in early editions of D&D. A lot of mechanics were percentage based. A lot interactions were hand-waved. Social interactions were almost solely the purview of the DM. He decided based on how convincing your role-playing was barring a few things like morale if you chose to use those rules. I'm very accustomed to the 5E style of play that places a greater emphasis on keeping the game going forward than knowing rules. Winging it was quite common during the early D&D days. The game didn't start to bog down with excessive rules until 3E. That was the edition that required you lug your books around and know the rules like an encyclopedia if you wanted to run the game fast.

5E does have some optional rules in the DMG for things like 3E tumbling. It isn't interested in games where players lift mountains or hack down castle walls with their swords. It's a much lower key game meant to be played at fast pace with loose rules. If the DM thinks you need to make a roll, you make it. He should only do this when he feels the roll is for something exciting or important. If this isn't your cup of tea, 5E won't be for you. It happens to be my cup of tea. I like being to able to hand-wave things or decide immediately if I like someone's role-playing that a lie worked or that it didn't work if I don't like the lie they told. If my players don't trust my judgment, they shouldn't play with me. I don't think any player should play with a DM they don't trust to make the game fun. That's what it comes down to for 5E. You don't get to hold the DM to anything. If you don't like how the DM does things, you find a new one. If you're enjoying the game, you stick around.

Anyone looking for a game with static DCs or a set world provided by the books is probably not going to like 5E. That may be the case for you. I'm enjoying the game. I don't have any problems with the lack of set DCs. I'll just set them myself. If I want a player to have a 60% chance of success, I'll make the DC that number. I can do that with the 5E rules. Not sure why others feel they can't. You can pretty much do what you want with 5E. You just have to put work in to make it as you like it.