D&D 5E How difficult should Difficulty be?

[Cap'n Kobold]

I disagree. I think the harder it is to do something; the more people will remember it, and this has played out over my experience just listening to the stories of what my players recall from old games, and what they actually remember from those games. Sure, they feel good when they needed a 13 and they get it, but players remember a whole lot more that time they could only succeed on a 20, and nail it.

Now to be clear, I am not saying the low chance of success events is the ONLY thing they remember. Obviously they remember the crazy jokes, the fun plots, the epic speeches they give, etc. Its just that I do find those "1 in a million" odd chances that they succeed on are remembered and talked about much more often than any "normal" roll would be.

Indeed. But they will also remember how they keep failing to achieve things, with the single success standing out because that was when something finally worked.

Its like putting the group up in combat against a creature that they can only hurt on a crit. Certainly they will remember when they finally connected and won, but also that it took ten frustrating rounds of trying and failing each time before they did so.

 

[Charlaquin]

But do you think a character ought to need to spend a feat to properly excel at what their class is meant to specialise in beyond what others are capable of who haven’t trained in this area specifically?

They don’t. That’s what proficiency is for.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But do you think a character ought to need to spend a feat to properly excel at what their class is meant to specialise in beyond what others are capable of who haven’t trained in this area specifically?
SE is fine for branching out even further but I don’t think it needs to be required for your core specialty.

If you think that ,for example, wizards should be able to get expertise in Insight without taking a feat, giving every class a free expertise is not an unreasonable houserule.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, this explains a lot. The tasks are in terms of the world, not the PCs doing them, to me.

But there are too many creatures in the world for one difficulty standard to apply universally. What’s impossible for your average commoner is entirely possible for a level 17+ rogue, and that’s before considering what non-humanoid creatures can do. The difficulty categories have to be relative to someone’s capabilities, and personally I think the PCs are a better choice for that than Joe the Human Commoner.

Without a feature to help them, such as magic, inspiration, or expertise, this will never be the case. 10% is the best baseline they can hope for.

Under the default names, yes, which again, seems appropriate. Under your proposed shifted-by-5 names, it’s possible to achieve 35% chance of success without such additional help, which simply doesn’t strike me as “nearly impossible.”

In all honesty, yes, this is an issue for me. I find a +4 boost in proficiency ridiculous for 17+ levels of experience. I've increased it to anywhere from +8 to +12 at 20th level, but always dropped it because it means I also have to adjust ACs and spell saves.

That’s bounded accuracy for you. It wasn’t a universally beloved design choice, but it was one of the few bold ones the 5e designers made.

Which never existed until Tasha's came out.... So, what to do before then?

I dunno, multiclass rogue, I guess? It’s available now, which is why I’m recommending it now.

Pretty much my view. A feat (which is OPTIONAL btw both in that feats are optional and Tasha's isn't accepted by everyone, myself included for most of it!).

It’s optional, yes, but it seems like an option that would serve your needs well, so I am recommending you opt to use it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If you think that ,for example, wizards should be able to get expertise in Insight without taking a feat, giving every class a free expertise is not an unreasonable houserule.

If that’s what the player wants to put their character’s one expertise into? Then sure, why not? their wizard can be exceptionally skilled at reading people and determining their motivations and intentions, would that really be so odd?

They don’t. That’s what proficiency is for.

Sure, but is it right that any warlock who might’ve read a few books about the forest matches the level of understanding a druid or ranger would have of nature? Or that a fist fighting monk can quote scripture better than the cleric or paladin? The issue with only having proficiency is that you’re only as good as any other adventurer who is trained in that skill for something your class is supposedly meant to be specifically dedicated to.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, but is it right that any warlock who might’ve read a few books about the forest matches the level of understanding a druid or ranger would have of nature?

Well, they won’t. A typical warlock won’t have as high a Wisdom modifier as a typical ranger or druid. If they build for high wisdom, then they’ve dedicated more to it than simply reading w few books about the forest. And, even if they do that, they’ll still lack features like the ranger’s natural explorer that make them a cut above even characters with the same skill mod.

Or that a fist fighting monk can quote scripture better than the cleric or paladin? The issue with only having proficiency is that you’re only as good as any other adventurer who is trained in that skill for something your class is supposedly meant to be specifically dedicated to.

That’s a feature, not a bug. It means the party doesn’t need a ranger to have someone who can pass a tough nature check (or whatever). But, thanks to their class features, a party with a ranger is still at an advantage compared to a party without one when it comes to exploration.

 

[Maxperson]

Under the default names, yes, which again, seems appropriate. Under your proposed shifted-by-5 names, it’s possible to achieve 35% chance of success without such additional help, which simply doesn’t strike me as “nearly impossible.”

This. 1 out of every 200 janky commoners will roll an 18 stat. If you use floating ASIs, that means that if you set the nearly impossible DC number at 25, 1 in 200 Joe Blow farmers is capable if achieving the nearly impossible with no training. That trivializes the "nearly impossible."

 

[DND_Reborn]

But there are too many creatures in the world for one difficulty standard to apply universally. What’s impossible for your average commoner is entirely possible for a level 17+ rogue, and that’s before considering what non-humanoid creatures can do. The difficulty categories have to be relative to someone’s capabilities, and personally I think the PCs are a better choice for that than Joe the Human Commoner.

Ok, I had a bunch more stuff, but realized it was just fluff at this point so deleted it. But not to worry, there is still plenty left LOL!

In a sense, my default "terms" are based on base proficiency (+2) with at best a good modifier of +3, for a total of +5. Note, this isn't necessarily a 1st level PC. This is a creature who has some training and good ability, the type of individual you would expect might make the attempt.

DC 25 is nearly impossible. Only a 20 will do it. Not impossible, but as close as you can get to impossible (i.e. "nearly") and still have a chance.
DC 20 is hard, at +5 is a 30% chance. You are much more likely to fail (more than twice as likely), but you have a decent chance to succeed.
DC 15 is medium, with +5 the creature is roughly 50/50.
DC 10 is easy, with success at 70%. You are twice as likely to succeed than fail.
DC 5 is very easy. With +5, you cannot fail. Only suffering some penalty will allow you to fail at this DC.

For me in regards to those "terms", I can just remove "Very Hard: DC 25" and shift "Nearly Impossible" to its place. Other DCs are kept at about this limit or lower. Saves for ancient dragons are 24 or lower. Fiend lords have 24-26 at worst IIRC. And so on. For AC (a type of DC), the Tarrasque at AC 25 is the highest I can think of. So, having 25 be the cap for ability checks is more reasonable than 30 IMO.

Of course, when you shift to a tier 4 PC with +11, the tasks basically shift one place each. What was nearly impossible becomes hard, hard becomes medium, and so forth. Such (super?)heroes are almost expected IMO to do tasks mere mortals find nearly impossible. Even at 35%, then can and will still fail much more often than not.

Now, with all that, if a task is actually nearly impossible, there must be a chance it can be done for anyone who tries it, including Joe Commoner! The issue is technically anyone can attempt anything in 5e (part of the issue IMO), so a nearly impossible task should be DC 20 because of the d20. Modifiers and DCs would need to be adjusted for this, however, and it wouldn't be worth the trouble to make a "nearly impossible" task actually "nearly impossible", instead of impossible.

Another solution would be allowing the d20 to explode, although this doesn't fix the core issue as I see it. Then a DC 40 could be "nearly impossible", with a 1 in 400 chance for someone with no modifier added. This would probably make some players very happy.

That’s bounded accuracy for you. It wasn’t a universally beloved design choice, but it was one of the few bold ones the 5e designers made.

I can certainly appreciate bounded accuracy in many aspects even if I don't like other parts of it. While I understand the reason, in many ways I feel it bounded things too much.

I dunno, multiclass rogue, I guess? It’s available now, which is why I’m recommending it now.

It's a sad solution back then, and the feat is a sad solution now.

It’s optional, yes, but it seems like an option that would serve your needs well, so I am recommending you opt to use it.

I'd rather fix the issue than use a band-aid solution to jury-rig it so it "works".

Anyway... I will say I think you've made some good points and I appreciate your discussion on the topic. I have several options now to consider and decide which one will best suite my need and "fix" what I feel needs fixing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Now, with all that, if a task is actually nearly impossible, there must be a chance it can be done for anyone who tries it, including Joe Commoner! The issue is technically anyone can attempt anything in 5e (part of the issue IMO), so a nearly impossible task should be DC 20 because of the d20. Modifiers and DCs would need to be adjusted for this, however, and it wouldn't be worth the trouble to make a "nearly impossible" task actually "nearly impossible", instead of impossible.

I think this, and the bolded portion in particular, is our biggest point of disagreement. I don’t see how one could possibly describe a task than any rando with no training whatsoever can just luck into 5% of the time as “nearly impossible.” 5% is a platinum trophy in Dark Souls. That’s not “nearly impossible,” that’s just hard. Winning Olympic gold, that’s nearly impossible. Only the best athletes in the world even have a chance at that, and only a very few of them succeed at it.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, I had a bunch more stuff, but realized it was just fluff at this point so deleted it. But not to worry, there is still plenty left LOL!

In a sense, my default "terms" are based on base proficiency (+2) with at best a good modifier of +3, for a total of +5. Note, this isn't necessarily a 1st level PC. This is a creature who has some training and good ability, the type of individual you would expect might make the attempt.

DC 25 is nearly impossible. Only a 20 will do it. Not impossible, but as close as you can get to impossible (i.e. "nearly") and still have a chance.

1 in 20 isn't nearly impossible. Winning the lottery is. 1 in 20 is just very hard.

Edit: Thinking further, I roll a natural 20 pretty much every week, usually multiples. If a 5% chance is nearly impossible, I achieve the nearly impossible on a weekly basis, usually multiple times.