D&D 5E Can a PC perform a miracle with a stat/skill check?

[pemerton]

5e (and lots of other swell systems) is a system built around objective difficulty.

<snip>

So in 5e, your job is not to consider dramatic outcomes/momentum. Your job as GM is to consider the actual difficulty of a specific task within the gameworld

What is the basis for the conclusion made about 5e in your post above? What sections of the rules back this up?

5E is a mixture of objective and subjective; combat appears to be mostly objective difficulty, while skills are very definitely subjective. After all, nothing within the 5E wording actually says the difficulty must stay the same each time a player tries it.

I found some relevant rules text, on pp 3 and 58:

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. . . .

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC.

[A table then lists a range of task difficulties, from "Very Easy" to "Nearly Impossible".]​

So it seems the key question is what is meant by the phrase "difficulty of the task"? Does that mean "in game difficulty" - if so, DCs are determined "objectively" in the way that Manbearcat describes. Or does it mean "metagame difficulty" - in which case DCs are determined "subjectively", say for reasons of dramatic pacing.

The text doesn't directly answer this question, as far as I can tell. On page 59 there is a reference to "climb[ing] up a dangerous cliff", which to me tends to suggest "in game" danger rather than "metagame" danger, because the climb is certainly a part of the fiction rather than the metagame and nothing suggest that the danger is located in a different conceptual space. And there is no discussion of how to set difficulties on a metagame basis.

Also, once characters reach higher levels and have skill bonuses of (say) +10 or more, then it is no longer hard, in a metagame sense, to succeed on a check of DC 20 - yet the table still describes such a DC as "Hard".

So it seems to me, having regard to these considerations, that the more natural reading of the difficulties is as pertaining to ingame difficulties rather than metagame considerations.

This also fits with bounded accuracy as an overarching design consideration - the idea of bounded accuracy seems to be that (i) DCs are set "objectively" and (ii) the range of objective DCs, relative to character bonuses, means that DCs never completely outstrip the reach of bonuses, nor vice versa. If DCs were subjective then bounded accuracy would be less necessary, because you could always just adjust the DCs to fit the character bonuses (much as 4e does).

 

[Sadras]

I hope you don't mind, but can we do this piecemeal?

Sure no problem.

D&D 4e, 13th Age, Dungeon World are all systems built around subjective difficulty.

So far we agree, however, I'm inclined to believe that a system built around subjective difficulty results in greater DM fiat than one built under objective difficulty. For instance if in 5e, the DM determines that it is a Hard DC to break open a large oak door at level 1 - then forever, whatever level the PC is, that task requires a Hard DC. The difficulty is as a result of the ingame fiction (supposed physics), whereas in 4e you might decide upping the ante for metagame reasons - which leads to DM fiat.

If you want to disagree with me and say there is no difference as the DC scales with level in 4e, then there is no difference between the two systems and your point about the supposed subjective/objective difficulties between the two systems is moot.

This means that the numerical opposition that the player characters' face scales directly with them and/or is not premised upon an effort to model fantasy world physics. It is not concerned with process simulation or internal consistency of world physics.

Okay, so far all we are discussing is the differences in the game mechanics of the two systems. (Bounded Accuracy in 5e and progressive scaling in 4e).

That is the job of the GM and players to appropriately "skin" the fiction around the outcome-based chassis (and the maths that underpin it).

How are the players involved in 'skinning' the fiction in 4e?

Coupled with other system components and GMing techniques, what it is meant to do is facilitate the consistent generation of dramatic consequences when the action resolution mechanics are consulted to "find out what happens." This is its primary concern; genre fidelity and consistent drama/climax. Not internal consistency of fantasy world physics.

I'm lost again. If I'm understanding you correctly are you saying that when one utilises "fantasy world physics" one loses genre fidelity and consistent drama/climax, why? Does RM also suffer from this or is this only limited to D&D which is not 4e?

So in Dungeon World, the Basic Resolution Mechanic is always going to be the same and in 13th Age/4e, you're going to have DCs that scale with PC progression.

I have no problem with different mechanics of different system, I just don't see why one loses drama/climax just because DCs are different in two different games.

Alternatively, 5e (and lots of other swell systems) is a system built around objective difficulty. This means that the numerical opposition that the player characters' face is premised upon an effort to model fantasy world physics. The math of the system is mostly, or wholly, indifferent to the concern of consistent dramatic outcomes when the resolution mechanics are consulted.

I do not agree. @pemerton in the "Role thread" described how in 4e one could either use Str or Athletics along with DM fiat to keep a door closed from ones opponents on the other side. How is that any different to 5e, where does one lose the drama/climax?
Based on your original post it sound likes like skill challenges in 4e would contain less DM fiat and it would be more structured in 4e.

What the system is interested in, first and foremost, is accurately portraying an internally consistent fantasy world and the "natural/organic" outcomes that are derived from interacting with such a place.

Are you saying that in 4e one doesn't concern themselves about the DC and willy-nilly selects a difficulty without any regard to the in-game fiction? So it doesn't matter if its easy, medium, hard, or impossible as long as there is drama/climax - am I reading you right?

Stepping back further, the impetus for that design ethos is actually to (a) serve "verisimilitude" for a segment of the D&D/TTRPG fanbase and (b) serve the mental framework for a segment of the D&D/TTRPG fanbase who feels better equipped to make action declarations for their PCs when process simulation underwrites the outcomes of the system.

Does "verisimilitude' not play a role in 4e skill challenges? At which point does verisimilitude not become important in 4e?

So in 5e, your job is not to consider dramatic outcomes/momentum.

Does it say so in 5e's handbooks that the DMs job is not to consider dramatic outcomes/momentum?

Your job as GM is to consider the actual difficulty of a specific task within the gameworld (the effort to model fantasy world physics - process-sim), and derive an objective difficulty class number (which henceforth becomes an established, unchanging fact about the gameworld) for the PC to attempt to best when resolving their action.

Agreed, but how does that limit dramatic outcome. Thanx.

To assist our discussion should you wish to refer to something specific in the 4e Skill Challenge the link below is to two interlinked epic 4e Skill Challenges posted and designed by @the Jester who certainly appears skilled in the ways of 4e IMO.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?402617-The-Final-Arc-of-my-Epic-4e-Campaign/page2

 

[iserith]

I found some relevant rules text, on pp 3 and 58:

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. . . .

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC.

[A table then lists a range of task difficulties, from "Very Easy" to "Nearly Impossible".]​

So it seems the key question is what is meant by the phrase "difficulty of the task"? Does that mean "in game difficulty" - if so, DCs are determined "objectively" in the way that Manbearcat describes. Or does it mean "metagame difficulty" - in which case DCs are determined "subjectively", say for reasons of dramatic pacing.

I believe that it's not the task that gets the DC in any objective fashion. The DC is set based on the task and the player's approach to it. If the DM thinks that the approach completes the task with certainty, then the DC is effectively less than zero. If the DM thinks that the approach does not complete the task with certainty, then the DC is effectively infinite. If the DM thinks that the approach may or may not complete the task, now it's time for a roll with a DC set according to his or her estimation of the difficulty of the player's approach relative to the task.

I don't buy into the idea that D&D 5e is meant to have objective DCs that model a fantasy world. I realize that some people want that kind of game, but this ain't it in my view.

 

[iserith]

I have to disagree - starting with your base assumptions. The system for resolving tasks doesn't dictate a style of play. In fact, system is largely irrelevant once you understand your role as a DM. What I'm doing is Identifying my players' goals, and then Putting Obstacles between them and their Goals. Everything else is bookkeeping.

Now, you may believe that D&D's bookkeeping is process-sim bc of "objective" DCs, but when it all gets down to it, the game system, whatever it is, doesn't mandate use. I, as DM, determine whether players' actions succeed or fail. Sometimes, when I am personally not clear as to the outcome of a proposed action, I turn to the game's task resolution system to generate an outcome for me. In other words, the system works for me. Simply because the target numbers used in the random outcome generator are integrated doesn't mean the game is pushing fantasy action. Simply because the target numbers used in the random outcome generator are derived from some expectation of difficulty doesn't mean they simulate a fantasy world physics. They just generate outcomes when given variables. A coin toss generates outcomes, and I could play any TTRPG with just a coin, but I like accounting for variables.

That said, I don't assume a fantasy physics world at all. Gravity, atoms, covalent bonds - cannot be said to apply. The world described in the books is a world where the elemental forces are Fire, air, water, etc, where Deities literally grant miracles to the faithful and can be slain by the blasphemous and mighty. In such a world, I'm not anywhere near ready to say "The mechanics simulate the inherent physical processes and interactions between bodies." They don't. All they've ever done, regardless of edition or game, is generate outcomes.

Once this becomes clear, you can run any system, any edition, and always produce an excellent game. Because the source of the excellence is independent from system - it's everything to do with conflict and uncertainty, with overcoming randomness and chaos to achieve something. The system and the rules serve me, I serve the players, and I serve them well.

Coming back around, then, yes - my players can pray for miracles. And yes, they may be granted, not simply because they rolled a nat 20, but because their characters, in selfless desperation, offer the sincere prayer that things turn out okay for the helpless or weak or needy, even if it means the players themselves are ruined. I'll grant that miracle in a heartbeat - no roll needed - it would just get in the way.

^ Read this.

 

[Sadras]

I don't buy into the idea that D&D 5e is meant to have objective DCs that model a fantasy world. I realize that some people want that kind of game, but this ain't it in my view.

Playing the role of a Devil's Advocate here and for the sake of an interesting discussion...

Armour Class in 5e for all intensive purposes is static and is dependent on the armour one wears, ceteris paribus. One is able to make a strong case that Armour Class is essentially just another DC.

Following from the above assumption and that AC is by far the primary DC of the game: Do you not believe that 5e is therefore more closely identified as an objective game rather than not and that there is a strong possibility that your outlook of 5e as being non-objective with regards to the setting of DCs is not shared by most who play it?

 

[iserith]

Playing the role of a Devil's Advocate here and for the sake of an interesting discussion...

Armour Class in 5e for all intensive purposes is static and is dependent on the armour one wears, ceteris paribus. One is able to make a strong case that Armour Class is essentially just another DC. Following from that assumption and that AC is the primary DC of the game, do you not believe that 5e is therefore closer identified as an objective game rather than not and that there is a strong possibility that your outlook of the 5e as being non-objective with regards to the setting of DCs is not shared by most who play it?

I don't think so. And to be clear, I have no skin in the game one way or another. I take each game and play them as they come based on what I see. I play D&D 5e differently than D&D 4e which I play differently than D&D 3e. I think that the need to pigeonhole D&D 5e as some objective rules-as-physics model is probably a form of confirmation bias. Some want it to be that kind of game, really badly, and it's just not. That doesn't mean they can't try to play it that way at their own table or even advocate for it, but I'm going to disagree that it was designed with that intent.

 

[Bawylie]

I don't think AC proves your point.

A while back, I was running a Spycraft d20 game. One of my players got a baddie from behind and put a dagger to their throat - he had demands and whatever. Anyway, the time came where the player wanted to kill the baddie. I made him roll and he missed the AC. Now, there was nothing established in the fiction that suggested this dude was in any way resisting. But I made him roll anyway. The player felt robbed. I felt stupid. It was the wrong call.

Now I understand, AC, checks, are to generate outcomes from uncertainties - to rob randomness of its power - they are not a filter through which all actions must pass. So no, AC doesn't prove that D&D is objective or a simulation. It's simply a variable that we sometimes use when generating outcomes.

As to the last bit, whether many people play it my way, Iserith's way, or your way - that doesn't matter. Many many people say things like "all intensive purposes" instead of "all intents and purposes." People do lots of crazy stuff because of what they believe to be true or fear to be true or simply just because. But the number of them being great doesn't legitimize their position.

 

[keterys]

So far we agree, however, I'm inclined to believe that a system built around subjective difficulty results in greater DM fiat than one built under objective difficulty. For instance if in 5e, the DM determines that it is a Hard DC to break open a large oak door at level 1 - then forever, whatever level the PC is, that task requires a Hard DC. The difficulty is as a result of the ingame fiction (supposed physics), whereas in 4e you might decide upping the ante for metagame reasons - which leads to DM fiat.

If you decide that oak doors are DC 15 in 5e, then they should probably be 15 forever, sure. Unless it's an oak door banded in iron, or spiked in, or warped from the weather or any other excuse you want.

In 4e, if you decide oak doors are a 15 check to open, then technically they remain so for the campaign. You just might get more encouragement to run into adamantine warded doors at Epic instead of oak doors.

Or to not care that it's a door at all, and instead ask someone how they're barreling through the corridors of the flying fortress and they make their Athletics moderate check to smash their way through multiple obstacles as part of a skill challenge or narrative moment. Etc.

 

[Sadras]

That doesn't mean they can't try to play it that way at their own table or even advocate for it, but I'm going to disagree that it was designed with that intent.

Fair enough. The few sections I have managed to read from my 5e books I cannot remember coming across any sections that actually stated objective-based or rules-as-physics system.

I don't think AC proves your point.... (snip)...so no, AC doesn't prove that D&D is objective or a simulation. It's simply a variable that we sometimes use when generating outcomes.

My point is that Armour Class is not variable. It remains constant - a constant DC for a certain type of Armour which is linked into the Bound Accuracy of the system which means tasks are not necessarily going to become more difficult or easier because you are of a higher level. The AC/DC remains the same - it is your skill (proficiency), abilities (str, dex..etc) which improve or type of items, which increases your chance of success.

As to the last bit, whether many people play it my way, Iserith's way, or your way - that doesn't matter. Many many people say things like "all intensive purposes" instead of "all intents and purposes." People do lots of crazy stuff because of what they believe to be true or fear to be true or simply just because. But the number of them being great doesn't legitimize their position.

It might have seemed so in my words, but I wasn't going this route. No judgement by me here.

 

[Sadras]

If you decide that oak doors are DC 15 in 5e, then they should probably be 15 forever, sure. Unless it's an oak door banded in iron, or spiked in, or warped from the weather or any other excuse you want.

In 4e, if you decide oak doors are a 15 check to open, then technically they remain so for the campaign. You just might get more encouragement to run into adamantine warded doors at Epic instead of oak doors.

I see no difference between the two editions in your examples, or am I blind?