D&D 5E NPC Ability Checks and Stunting or...Ogre Smash

[Tony Vargas]

(a) natural language

check.

vsetting/class/environmental components being established first, with bounded system maths (later)

Tradition. Check.

In game jargon

Bah! Natural Language!

, this would be the design of an "objective" (but rulings-based) framework.

Objective but rulings based = subjective.

Contrast with systems in which the game's maths chassis has primacy and the fiction is derived genre-wise around those numbers (mutable/ malleable fiction or fluff).

The contrast is who's picking the numbers and how.

In the former case, you have game designers picking numbers more or less out of the ether to model specific things, locking the game into modeling only those things, and only with those numbers. Greatsword. 2d6. End of story. Want anything else, put on your game designer hat and pull numbers out of the ether (within bounds).

In the latter case (Hero would be an example) you have players with concepts picking numbers from an effects-based set of mechanics, to model, mechanically, the effect they envision the concept having in play. A greatsword might be a 2dHKAp, OAF, for 15 pts, or it might be a bit more or less or even something else entirely depending on how the player imagines both it and how his character will be using it. (One PC in a Champions! game had 'greatsword' that was actually an illusion, and just gave him a few HTH levels, that he usually used for DCV.)

In both cases, someone's starting with an idea and using numbers to model it.

Alright, because D&D is still laden with game jargon, we eschew "natural language" for a moment

NO! Natural Language!!!

From a GM utility perspective and reading this through a "natural language" prism, I gain nothing here when attempting to discern/establish a DC baseline (Easy, Medium Hard for whom?) for play use.

Just in the natural language sense. Easy is easy, hard is hard. For whom? Whomever. It's bounded accuracy, one whom isn't so different from the next.

Roll the dice only when there are prospects of failure/outcomes are uncertain.

When the DM decides they are uncertain.

the designers use the terms "character", "most people", and "low-level characters". We know these are not interchangeable so deciphering a standardized baseline becomes a wee bit opaque.

Most people would be low-level NPCs. The C stands for character. Sounds interchangeable enough.

I guess they're telling us it doesn't matter, use whatever you like

YES!!!!

Go forth and do whatever, you are EMPOWERED!

Finally, there is also the "off message", rather subtle insinuation that story/environmental items aren't, in fact, objectively evaluated. "Becomes reasonable after 10th level or so." Eh? Soooooooooo...associated DCs scale with characters? Fiction related to Hard DCs becomes "reasonable"...rendering it...Medium..or...no? Is this meant to inform adjudication/play procedure or is this just..."stuff"?

Yeah, the DM is running a game, and the PCs are likely not of wildly different level. To do so he makes rulings, which are necessarily subjective.

Just give up trying to stuff 5e into any sort of 'objectively' box.

5e isn't objective. It has objectives. Like 'be as much like D&D as possible.'

Regardless, this bit interacts wonkily with "natural language"

When in doubt, let natural language win out!

Alright, so we have an Ogre battling the PCs in a stand of trees. As GM we want our Ogre to shove over a small (30 ft high), medium canopy (20 ft diameter), Sawtimber tree (lets say nearly a foot diameter trunk at 4.5 feet up) onto a couple of PCs.

Uh, Natural Language, remember? We're not all lumberjacks or forestry service managers, here. An Ogre is battling heroes in the woods (in a fantasy world). It whacks 'em with a tree.

A lot goes into toppling a tree (beyond its size, health, and lean); the magnitude of applied force, leverage (at what height force is applied), robustness of root plate:soil/earth interface on opposite side of applied force. Think of a tree as a weighted cylinder with a broad, heavy base which is buried. You have a lot to contend with to knock it over. But if that base is destabilized on the opposite side of the applied force, the job becomes much, much easier.

No. Just no. What goes into ripping up a tree and pounding heroes with it? Well, one being an Ogre, because Ogres do stuff like that. And two is, well, one's enough, really, but fantasy woods are not just stands of timber - the Ogre could be messing with stuff that'll mess with him, or the tree could symbolize something...

If Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible are fixed story elements in our setting, centered around "normal human average" (or even "low level characters" if we wish it), what natural language descriptor would we associate with pushing this tree over? Hard? Very Hard? Nearly Impossible?

Who cares? Do you want the Ogre to hit heroes with a tree? Yes? Then he does. Describe it.

So how do we go about doing this? Let us see the DMG example for for adjudicating such improvised actions

Yep. That was an example. An example of the DM making a ruling.

How does this work as a procedurally coherent template for stunting that creates thematic fiction and changes the situation dynamically, thereby creating interesting decision-points for players?

It doesn't. It works as an Empowered DM making a ruling.

---

Alright, that's enough from me. Have at it. I'll check back in in a few days to see what folks have to say and acknowledge [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION] 's laugh (I guess that qualifies as preemptive acknowledgement).

Dude, you, like, totally overthought that. ;P

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This always baffles me. If the DM sets the DC, can't he just come up with the idea that the Tree is rotten/in loose earth, and set the DC at DC 10 without telling the players that's what happened (or just rule that the Ogre succeeds). Can't he decide that the Ogre notices that the tree is possibly rotten? Does the DM have to tell the players everything so that they players don't cry "foul"? If the PCs don't expressly say that they are looking at the area around the Ogre to see more of what's there, is the DM supposed to just allow them to make a perception check and tell them about the rotten tree?

As I said, if there are unknown factors which the characters aren't aware of, then you should tell the players that there must be unknown factors involved. Otherwise, it just looks like you're making nonsensical rulings because you're a bad DM (either malicious or incompetent).

The DM has every bit as much right to arbitrarily let the ogre automatically succeed on a Perception or Nature check as they do to let it automatically succeed on an attack roll or saving throw. You could also just say that a wandering band of orcs automatically captures them and takes their stuff, because you think it would be fun to make an adventure out of them escaping. How well that goes over will depend on your particular group.

In my experience, the idea of DM shenanigans surfaces most when players are looking for ways to call their DM out.

In my experience, players learn to call the DM out when DMs try to cheat, and they become alert against such attempts due to past history with DMs who cheat. As a DM, you should avoid even the appearance of cheating, until you know your players well enough that they can trust you. Once you have their trust, it's okay to do things that look like cheating, and they'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

(One PC in a Champions! game had 'greatsword' that was actually an illusion, and just gave him a few HTH levels, that he usually used for DCV.)

I don't know what DCV means, but if HTH means "hand to hand" then I think Luke's lightsaber in Return of the Jedi works the same way. All it ever does is knock enemies off of Jabba's sand barge. It never cuts anyone.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

[EDIT: I noticed that I made two different point 2s. I don't care enough to fix it, so I'm just noting it here.]

In "brief":

1) I remember the same design phase discussions as you. I think the DC is intended relative to the common human and should not change for other characters. I also like someone's conceptual assistance tweak to the phrasing of adding "challenge" to the end of term rather than "task". Would something the average person fails at 45% of the time be considered an "easy task" in natural language? Not on the earth I live on! Could it be considered an "easy challenge"? Absolutely!

2) You should make a general decision about what sort of genre emulation you are going for. Gritty realism, cinematic action, wuxia, myth, etc. Set your DCs based on natural language as interpreted within that genre. What I'm calling cinematic action* is the one most represented in official D&D examples, including rule books, novels, video games, etc, but you may want to do something else.

If you accept #1 and #2 (just try it as a thought experiment) everything regarding DC more or less works.

2) By the book, Athletics doesn't seem to apply to pure acts of strength like lifting, pushing, etc. It is more for stuff like jumping, swimming, climbing, (running?). While I'm not sure I like design that leaves certain tasks as orphans where no skill applies, but lets almost every other task theoretically apply a skill, this does help resolve the issue with high level character trained in Athletics being better at knocking over trees than giants without Athletics. I could go either way on how to rule this--just consider which outcome you are most comfortable with and make a decision.

3) The highest ability score check result possible for a creature without proficiency and no special bonuses is 30. They can accomplish a nearly impossible task 5% of the time, and they are the only ones who can.

4) Use the examples in the books for precedent on the sorts of rolls to make for improvised attempts. The most basic way of doing it that covers the majority of situations is:
a) Initiating character uses an action (occasionally an attack instead) to make an appropriate ability check.
b) If appropriate, opposing character makes an opposed ability check.
c) Results are applied.
The only modifiers given as examples are advantage or disadvantage.
I think I might remember the rules mentioning using an attack roll for some sort of improvised actions at some point, perhaps buried in the DMG. In any event, I think allowing the rolls to be attack rolls or saving throws, whichever are most appropriate, is perfectly in line with the game design philosophy, and if it wasn't explicitly mentioned is likely an oversight.
One thing I would recommend is to almost never (or even hardline never) use more than two rolls for an improvised action, one for the initiator, and perhaps one for any opposer. If possible, I would avoiding even doing things like having a character make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to grab a chandelier and swing their feet into someone and then make an opposed Strength (Athletics) check to see if they can knock them down. Instead, I'd prefer just making a single Strength (Acrobatics) check opposed by the defender's normal shove resisting roll. This is more fun because it increases the likelihood of success, and lets me feel like I'm passively retroactively fighting back against the overly complex and fun-destroying triple jeopardy rules of attempting combat maneuvers in 3e. If you want to encourage characters to do this, only require one roll (sometimes opposed) for success, because characters do stuff they succeed on and stop trying stuff they don't. How often did people try that stuff in 3e? Unless they feats, "almost never" because it was a hassle and rarely worked, and you were better off just swinging your weapon until they stopped moving.

So, in the ogre's situation, here is how I would do it:

1) I'm going for a cinematic action style where stuff like that is possible. Is it possible for a regular commoner? Uhm, no. So the DC should be above 20 (you could fudge that to 20 if it were right on the edge of what were possible, but this is beyond the edge in my opinion). Is this something that would be a very difficult challenge, or a nearly impossible challenge in general? Going by simple DCs, I'd say it's a very difficult challenge (DC 25), but I think the ogre should be able to do it, so I'm going to go with a DC 22 instead. (I would thereafter use the same DC if a human or anyone else tries to do this--I just used the ogre to help me come up with an appropriate DC.) This is a feat of raw Strength, so that's all it is: a Strength check.
2) The ogre has much better leverage than a normal human. The disarm rule in the DMG gives precedent for exactly this sort of thing: advantage and/or disadvantage. So I'm going to give the ogre advantage for his size. This means he will succeed about 28% of the time. So with a few attempts he can make it happen. This seems about right for the cinematic action genre, since the tree is still pretty formidable compared to the ogre. The numbers work.
3) You implied you are going for an area attack. So if the ogre succeeds on the Strength check, then those in the area make either an ability check or a saving throw. I'm not sure if the goal is to pin people, knock them down, damage them, etc. Precedent implies that you go with a save to resist damage, and an ability check or save to resist a condition. So if you want to smack them, DC 12 Dexterity save or take damage based on the Improvised Damage chart (either 1d10 or 2d10 based on what you feel is closest on the chart). Opposed ability checks are pretty much always one on one. Since this is an area of effect, they should resist a pin or a knockdown with a save (if it were only one character, you might go with a check instead). In either case, the effect is similar to a Shove, so you might want to allow the characters to make their choice of a Strength or Dexterity save. Or you could rule one way or another based on how you visualize the scene. On a failure they are either knocked down or Restrained, based on the goals, the ogre, and the tree. (You could go with Grappled instead of Restrained, but game precedent of monster attacks and spells favors Restrained, and it is cooler.)
4) A Restrained character can use their action to make a Strength check to escape from the tree, with an arbitrarily set DC (I'd say 10 or 12, it shouldn't be terribly hard).


*The rule book examples on whether or not there is a chance of failure seem to take a gritty realism approach. Things they don't make you roll for are "duh" extremes, like walking across a room or ordering an ale. Some people have preferred to take a more story-based approach, going with whether there should dramatically be a chance of failure, which is cool, but not what the books really imply with their examples. I tend to play somewhere in between myself, using a variant of the automatic success rule, and being a bit more generous on occasion.

 

[Rhenny]

As an aside, yes, rolling dice behind a screen can create suspicion and ruin fun too. I'm surprised you even ask that question in a tone that implies you think it never happens.

As an aside, to your aside, my DMing experience is mostly with people who I know (although I did start a new group with people I didn't know during the Next Playtest, but now we've known each other since then) and sometimes I actually run campaigns/sessions where I roll dice in the open, and sometimes I run them when I hide rolls. I find that when I roll behind the screen (or hide rolls because I use Fantasy Grounds), my players don't mind at all. In some ways, they even get more into the fiction of the situation. I guess, I've gained credibility already so it isn't an issue. To tell the truth, more and more, I find myself not calling for rolls as often as I used to, instead, giving the PCs information and allowing them to succeed at many of the things they attempt to do or discern.

I think the concepts we are discussing are definitely influenced by type of game table (strangers/tournament play, casual familiar play, long-time homebrew/very familiar play).

 

[Rhenny]

In my experience, players learn to call the DM out when DMs try to cheat, and they become alert against such attempts due to past history with DMs who cheat. As a DM, you should avoid even the appearance of cheating, until you know your players well enough that they can trust you. Once you have their trust, it's okay to do things that look like cheating, and they'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I agree. First and foremost, the DM needs to establish the impartial arbitrator aspect. I guess it is just a puzzle to me because most of the games I DM are with people who I've known for years, and we are so used to each other at the gaming table, there is little second guessing or suspecting cheating on either side. Looking back, when I started DMing for a new group during the Next playtest, I probably was more transparent and clearly open with the players so that they would know that I was trying to be the impartial arbitrator.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I guess it is just a puzzle to me because most of the games I DM are with people who I've known for years, and we are so used to each other at the gaming table, there is little second guessing or suspecting cheating on either side.

My now geographically scattered group has in the past played through voice chat but no dice roller, where everyone just rolled their own dice and announced the result, and nobody had any problems. I doubt there was any cheating, because we all pretty much know that it isn't as fun to cheat. For my part, although I'm against cheating with dice as the DM, if one of my players were to occasionally (defined as "so rarely and non-suspiciously that no one even suspects it") cheat with the dice, while I disapprove, I wouldn't care enough to do anything simply because I think it's their own fun they are detracting from rather than mine. (Now, if someone regularly cheated, they'd get the warning and then the boot.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As an aside, to your aside, my DMing experience is mostly with people who I know (although I did start a new group with people I didn't know during the Next Playtest, but now we've known each other since then) and sometimes I actually run campaigns/sessions where I roll dice in the open, and sometimes I run them when I hide rolls. I find that when I roll behind the screen (or hide rolls because I use Fantasy Grounds), my players don't mind at all. In some ways, they even get more into the fiction of the situation. I guess, I've gained credibility already so it isn't an issue. To tell the truth, more and more, I find myself not calling for rolls as often as I used to, instead, giving the PCs information and allowing them to succeed at many of the things they attempt to do or discern.

I think the concepts we are discussing are definitely influenced by type of game table (strangers/tournament play, casual familiar play, long-time homebrew/very familiar play).

Absolutely, I agree. Playing with friends and family is, IMO, the best way to play D&D, and I will accept things in that setting that I would never accept in any other. I would even take a relaxed attitude toward outright DM dice-cheating in that setting, since the point of the game in that case isn't the game qua game at all--it's spending time with your family or friends in the way everyone finds enjoyable.

 

[S'mon]

My two thoughts:

IMO "Becomes more reasonable after 10th level" in the DMG is not a call for floating DCs, just a statement that PC abilities do increase as they level up, so high static DC numbers become more achievable. It's a statement about the world-sim.

Conversely, I think the best way to treat ogre & tree is 4e style, as a set move, ideally written up pre-battle, probably with auto success for the tree-pulling and reasonable attack & damage numbers pre-set as part of the ogre CR. This is basically the 'cinematic' approach - ogre gets to pull up and use tree because it's a cool dramatic vignette that is integrated into Gamist play.

 

[S'mon]

This only works if the DM has credibility because he actually knows how to build a consistent fantasy world. If I sit down at a table with a DM and he makes a bizarro ruling, my Bayesian analysis says that it's less likely he's an excellent DM with a good reason for showing me something he knows to be bizarro (because there is something weird about the current situation) than that he is a poor DM who has no idea how bizarre the ruling he just made is. In the former case, it's probably a one-time event that can be profitably investigated in-character ("oh, the tree was rotten"); in the latter case, he's probably going to keep on making bizarre rulings that spoil all my fun and make it impossible to forget that I'm playing in his imagination instead of an actual fantasy world.

How many people play with GMs they don't trust and don't regard as having credibility? This is obviously not the market 5e is going for.