D&D 5E How difficult should Difficulty be?

[DND_Reborn]

Not me.

I don’t see the problem.

Well, like I said...

Oh absolutely.

LOL, well at least I'm not alone.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, your "range" is effectively from -1 to +17 (barring magic)

But, do you really want the dump stat-no proficiency (DSNP) guy to be able to accomplish nearly impossible tasks?

As opposed to your high stat-proficiency-possible expertise (HSPPE) guy, who should be able to do them with at least a reasonable chance of success?


Of course, which leads to my questions above. Each DM will have their own metric of success that they feel works. I feel the default values in the PHB are too high to reflect my metric.

I am fine with the alternate table I posted or the blanket -5.

Using the table values. A very easy is DC 2, which the DSNP guy would fail 10% of the time. Sure, it is very easy, but they have no ability to support the task nor proficiency. Looking at the rest of the task levels (with total modifiers):

View attachment 254980
To me those percentages look about right. A 1st-level PC with Ability 16 and proficiency will likely (80%) succeed at a Medium Task, but a Very Hard task is looking less likely (40%), but they have a reasonable chance (20%) of doing the Nearly Impossible, even at 1st level.

By the time they get to tier 4 (if they get there LOL!), that Nearly Impossible task is 50/50.

Make them the "best of the best" with expertise (if applicable) and you get an astounding 80% for Nearly Impossible tasks! That's HEROIC in my book!

I don’t think a task that anyone has a 50% chance or better of succeeding at can accurately be described as “nearly impossible.”

 

[DND_Reborn]

At 1st level you get a +2 prof bonus and can have a +3-5 from stats. Just like the above is a long winded way of saying "okay, but roll a nat 20," DC5 checks are the long winded way of saying "okay, but don't roll a 1."

Nearly impossible should be...nearly impossible.

The difficulty is literally called “nearly impossible,” so the best of the best having only a 10% chance of success at it seems perfectly appropriate to me. If they had a higher chance of success, it wouldn’t be nearly impossible, just very difficult.

I don’t think a task that anyone has a 50% chance or better of succeeding at can
Accurately be described as “nearly impossible.”

See, here's the thing:

Nearly impossible is a task. If it is Nearly Impossible for a level 1 PC, it shouldn't be as hard for a level 20 PC.

At DC 30, Nearly Impossible isn't Nearly Impossible for the vast majority of creatures in the world, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Even rolling a 20 would be a failure and you can't do any better.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, here's the thing:

Nearly impossible is a task. If it is Nearly Impossible for a level 1 PC, it shouldn't be as hard for a level 20 PC.

At DC 30, Nearly Impossible isn't Nearly Impossible for the vast majority of creatures in the world, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Even rolling a 20 would be a failure and you can't do any better.

The difficulty category isn’t called “nearly impossible for a first level character,” it’s called “nearly impossible.” The fact that it’s possible for any character is what makes it nearly impossible, instead of just impossible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly though, what you call the difficulty categories doesn’t really matter. The important thing is, what range of DCs do you typically use. Again, the DMG advises that if the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, the game will play out fine. So, whatever names you need to use for the DCs to make it feel appropriate to you that those three be the ones the PCs most typically encounter, go with that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A point some people seem to be missing is this:

You never see a DC that high. I've never encountered anything about DC 24, and I think 26 is the highest I've seen in a book.

And it goes back to what @James Gasik said:

but if D&D is heroic fantasy (which I think it is), then having players routinely do incredible things is part of that fantasy.

If your PCs fails more often than not at a hard or very hard task, how "heroic" does that feel?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Frankly though, what you call the difficulty categories doesn’t really matter. The important thing is, what range of DCs do you typically use. Again, the DMG advises that if the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, the game will play out fine. So, whatever names you need to use for those DCs to make it feel appropriate to you that they be the most typical DCs for the players to encounter, go with that.

Valid point.

 

[Stalker0]

I have the exact opposite problem, for me DC 30 is far too easy. Over multiple campaigns my players always find ways to jack up their checks around 5th or 6th level.

I consider DC 30 less nearly impossible and more “rare but doable”.

To me DC 35 is the true “nearly impossible”

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have the exact opposite problem, for me DC 30 is far too easy. Over multiple campaigns my players always find ways to jack up their checks around 5th or 6th level.

I consider DC 30 less nearly impossible and more “rare but doable”.

To me DC 35 is the true “nearly impossible”

Really? How do they do that. Abusing guidance gets you an average +2 or 3, what else is there??

 

[James Gasik]

Bards?