D&D 5E How difficult should Difficulty be?

[DND_Reborn]

that maybe true, but I always thought that the biggest problem of a d20 system is THE D20.

In a lot of ways, I agree. It is too swingy IMO.

My personal favorite is 4d6-4. Use d6s, treating 6's as 0's. I actually have a bunch of dice which are 0 - 5, so they work perfectly of course.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of what specific level and capability?

"A PC" could have anything from a -1 to a +33 or more potential bonus. What is actually impossible for one PC may be relatively easy for another depending on so many factors like tier, skill and party synergies.

Correct, and the DC names don’t change for any of them, which means they need to be at least reasonably fitting across the board, which I believe to be the case with the default names.

Unless you change the DCs for the same task dependent upon who is attempting it, you need a baseline bonus to judge chance of success.

Right, which we know to be a character with a 16 in the relevant ability, increasing at 4th and 8th level, and proficiency.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am rather surprised to see an argument where it seems you and I are on the same page, @DND_Reborn, but here we are.

Yes, I think skill DCs in 5e are often a little high on the high end. DC 30 should be for tasks that push the boundaries of the superhuman; pushing a statue off of your friend just long enough to let them out is not superhuman, real human beings actually achieve that sort of thing now and then (often mothers defending their children or the like, but still, things like that happen IRL.) Having numbers go so high, so fast puts a damper on players trying awesome, epic actions. I find players are often far too skittish or safety-focused. Doing things that makes them more skittish is not productive.

IOW: "Nearly Impossible" is by Earthly standards. The actual limit should be a Gurren Lagann-style "beyond the impossible," where you defy reason itself, committing a deed that will become legend in its own right, the tale of your might resonating across the pages of history.

That’s just a matter of how you set DCs though, not what they’re called. If you want a game where moving that several-ton statue is nearly impossible for a PC, you set the DC at 30. If you want a game where such a task is just medium or hard for a PC, you set the DC at 15 or 20 instead. That’s a dial the DM has the ability to turn up or down depending on how superheroic a game they want to run.

 

[jgsugden]

If you want a more realistic result, try 2d10 rather than 1d20 for ability checks, saves and/or attack rolls. I played in a game that used 2d10 rather than 1d20 where:

A 20 was a super critical success. (1 in 100 chance - something really good would take place - really lucky)
An 18 to or 19 was a critical success. (5 in 100 chance - critical hit, really good result on a skill check) .
A 2 to 4 was a critical failure. (6 in 100 chance - auto miss on an attack roll, failure with story penalty on ability check)

As more things followed the bell curve, the range of 9 to 13 accounted for nearly half of the results, giving us a potential for higher and lower results, but a greater likelihood of mediocre results.

 

[nevin]

You're PC is in tier 4 with a lovely +11 to a Strength ability check (your considerate DM is allowing your +6 Athletics proficiency bonus to apply to lifting that fallen 20' statue off of your ally! Such a nice DM... ).

The task is DC 30, Nearly Impossible (horrible DM! Why a 30!? ), as the statue weighs several tons.

You need a 19 or 20 to succeed, allowing you just a 10% chance of pulling it off.

But, you're the best you can be! Only those pesky rogues or bards can typically be better (darn expertise!). How can YOU have just a 10% chance. You're a hero, master of the realm, a "superhero" even, if you will...

Disappointed, you roll the d20 and get a 15, missed it by quite a bit. The DM tells you the ally fails a death save automatically (being crushed by a 20-foot statue can do that...).

You try again, an 11! It is getting worse! Another failed death save...

Last chance! An 18!?!? Oh, missed it BY ONE POINT! "Come on, DM, give me a break," you cry out, "I was just one point away!"

The DM grins, "Well, ok, you succeed but with a setback," as he rolls on the Lingering Injury table, "You've suffered internal injuries from the strain, oh, and a level of exhaustion."

So, the above scenario... Even with three attempts, your chances of getting that 19 or 20 is a bit over 27%, or about 73% you will fail. Sure, it is nearly impossible, but you are what you are and it seems a bit harsh.

At lower levels, you really have no chance whatsoever. Now, it might not bother you, personally, that the DCs are so high. But I'm trying to think of any DCs in the game really that high. I mean, off the top of my head, DC 24 or 26 maybe is the highest I think I can remember seeing.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum... a very easy task is DC 5, which barring bonuses means you have a 20% chance of failing it. Again, the DM has the "no progress" and "progress with a setback" instead of "failure", but still...

Does anyone else feel the DCs in some ways are a bit too high? I'm considering a blanket lowering by 5 or something.

no. I think some DM's get this idea that everything should be hard so they put players in these circumstances. Now it's also possible that the DM dropped several hints and moving it was alwasy a near impossible task. I do thing the lingering injury table, is reminiscent of the old 1st edition critical tables that floated around forever and they were always popular till used. Then no one not even th DM's like them. I doubt I'll ever use them or the lingering injury table. like you said it's a game of hero's. That stuff isn't really fun. Unless it's because of something that the PC shouldn't have survived and then as DM, I'll come up with something that works for the game.

 

[Maxperson]

10% is much too low for level 20 to me, though. At this point we're talking the pinnacle of PCs. Now, with expertise it does increase significantly, but only two classes get that feature, and feats are options so you can't rely on that. Also, this is something the PC should be able to do solo to be really heroic--not rely on magic, help, etc. Otherwise, that defeats the heroic feel IMO.

I have found the 5-point shift will probably work nicely the more I've thought about it. With +11, a DC 25 would be a 35% chance to succeed, roughly 1 in 3. That is enough to give the PC a real chance, but not so much to make it feel automatic at all.

To me that's far too high for something that's nearly impossible. It means that with +3 from bard/guidance and expertise, which are easy to get, you are now succeeding on nearly impossible tasks 80% of the time. To me something that is nearly impossible should be a longshot for most 20th level PCs and impossible for most low level PCs. Nearly impossible DCs are supposed to be missed the vast majority of the time. That way when you really make one, it means something.

 

[DND_Reborn]

bard/guidance and expertise

You know, I find it interesting people keep bringing these up...

Bards aren't in every party. In 4 years now, I played a bard (getting just to 5th level in that class) once and no one else in my group (or the new group I'm in) has played a bard.

Guidance is available only to Clerics and Druids. While most parties tend to have one or the other (if not both), the spamming use of guidance has made a lot of people nerf the use or eliminate the spell altogether. In my own games, for example, guidance is only usable once per short or long rest for each PC.

Expertise is available only to Rogue and Bards. Xanathar's brought in Prodigy, but to limited races, and it wasn't until recently with Tasha's that you have it readily available if that is what you want, but competing with so many other feats it is by no means a guarantee. Of course, many classes have features which double proficiency bonus to a limited subset of skills, but those are subclass specific and limited as well.

While many people here seem to feel any or all of these things are a given, please know they simply are NOT universally so.

All that being said, what is nearly impossible should not be exceedingly rare IMO for tier 4 PCs! It is a huge let down when the situation does arise, the PC has a chance to do something great and memorable, but the odds are so against it that the PC might as well try something else.

So, for groups where you don't have power-gamers, min-maxers, or tactical-team experts, most modifiers to ability checks range from +3 to +10 with the only common exception IMO is the rogue due to expertise sometimes getting in the +13-16 range.

---------------------------------------------
Perhaps another route, which would be simpler than adjusting DCs and tasks names, is just to allow every creature to have expertise in one skill.

For PCs, perhaps limiting this to their Background skills would work best. Then, by the time they reach tier 4, they will probably have +14-17 in that one skill they can excel in.

 

[Maxperson]

You know, I find it interesting people keep bringing these up...

Bards aren't in every party. In 4 years now, I played a bard (getting just to 5th level in that class) once and no one else in my group (or the new group I'm in) has played a bard.

Guidance is available only to Clerics and Druids. While most parties tend to have one or the other (if not both), the spamming use of guidance has made a lot of people nerf the use or eliminate the spell altogether. In my own games, for example, guidance is only usable once per short or long rest for each PC.

I've seen a bard in 75% of the campaigns I have run, clerics in 75%, and druids in 50%. Maybe it's just me, but I see a hell of a lot of those things. I've also seen expertise show up in most campaigns.

Expertise is available only to Rogue and Bards. Xanathar's brought in Prodigy, but to limited races, and it wasn't until recently with Tasha's that you have it readily available if that is what you want, but competing with so many other feats it is by no means a guarantee. Of course, many classes have features which double proficiency bonus to a limited subset of skills, but those are subclass specific and limited as well.

Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that nearly impossible is supposed almost never be achieved, not be achievable by a first level PC with proficiency and a 16.

All that being said, what is nearly impossible should not be exceedingly rare IMO for tier 4 PCs! It is a huge let down when the situation does arise, the PC has a chance to do something great and memorable, but the odds are so against it that the PC might as well try something else.

See, I disagree on both of those points. First, nearly impossible should be nearly impossible, not simply a bit harder than usual for low level folks. Second, some of the best moments that I have experienced in D&D where when all the chips were down and we needed a long shot to come through and we hit it. Sure not making it is a bit of a let down, but D&D isn't about only having successes. Let downs happen and those long shots can't happen when all you need is a 13 or higher on the die without expertise or magic. To get those long shots you have to go past nearly impossible, except the next thing past nearly impossible is actually impossible which is no roll.

So, for groups where you don't have power-gamers, min-maxers, or tactical-team experts, most modifiers to ability checks range from +3 to +10 with the only common exception IMO is the rogue due to expertise sometimes getting in the +13-16 range.

You don't need power-gamers, min-maxers or tactical experts to have a 20 in a stat and proficiency, which is +11 at 20th level.

 

[James Gasik]

It comes down to something you don't often see. Most RPG games I play in, there's no real session zero, no matter how hard you try to get everyone to create a party, they all show up at session 1 with whatever cool thing they want to play.

I remember when I was really taking a hard look at character options, oh, sometime after Xanathar's came out, that I realized that getting advantage is trivially easy if you want it/want to grant it to allies. The Wolf Totem Barbarian, which I've never seen played, for example. Or a party of Kobolds (before MMM took away Pack Tactics). Or Mastermind Rogues.

A party that's actually built to support each other, can break bounded accuracy over their knee with fairly trivial ease. Now more than ever, with the new Hobgoblins and Peace Clerics on the table.

Bizarrely, I can't tell if WotC designed their game with this in mind or not, because sometimes the game can be pretty easy, so that any group can muddle on through, and other times, you'd need something like Stalker0's group to succeed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You don't need power-gamers, min-maxers or tactical experts to have a 20 in a stat and proficiency, which is +11 at 20th level.

Which is precisely what I did in the OP. A whopping 10% chance for the scene for a PC who is at that point, supposed to be "superheroic".

Not very heroic if you have just a 10% chance to do that heroic task.

See, I disagree on both of those points.

Which you've expressed repeatedly at this point, is it enough yet???

First, nearly impossible should be nearly impossible, not simply a bit harder than usual for low level folks.

Which is nothing like what I said...

Second, some of the best moments that I have experienced in D&D where when all the chips were down and we needed a long shot to come through and we hit it. Sure not making it is a bit of a let down, but D&D isn't about only having successes. Let downs happen and those long shots can't happen when all you need is a 13 or higher on the die without expertise or magic.

Granted, but when people like hitting 65% of the time, a long-shot needs to have a reasonable chance of success to be exciting, otherwise it is just going to disappoint you 9 times out of 10. It is hardly "fun". Now, increase the chances to 35% or so when there is a reasonable chance, that is fun and worth doing.

You're experiences differ, great, but they aren't mine. You want 10%, great, I don't. Instead of going back and forth on it again and again and again, let's let it rest, ok???

Now, if you have something meaningful to contribute in some other fashion, let's hear it.