D&D 5E How difficult should Difficulty be?

[DND_Reborn]

@Charlaquin:

I quoted you in my prior post expressly to give you props for suggesting a 5-point shift would not be unreasonable:

If you are finding the DCs are generally too high in your games, lowering them by 5 across the board seems like a reasonable solution

... which is all I am doing when I changed the names:

See, a 5-point shift moves the names. So DC 0 is now "Very Easy".

So, you said a 5-point shift would be reasonable, but then challenge the resulting shift in names.

You say trivial, I say very easy, etc. Tomayto-tomahto. I disagree with your assessment at every level and there can be no further point in discussing it with you. See you around.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok sounds like we are on the same page. I thought you meant the helper had to be able to make a 30 dc themselves in order to help on a dc 30 check

I did mean that, but in general I have found that if someone has proficiency, they generally have a chance to make the check assuming other factors (such as guidance, inspiration, etc.).

So, the way I play it, they don't need those augments to help, as long as with those augments they COULD succeed with a 20.

In your example, let's say the Wizard had advantage because he was being helped by a Cleric. The two discussed it, etc.

The Wizard is +7 and with guidance could make the check, it is possible. The Cleric is perhaps +5, so guidance alone couldn't do it. BUT perhaps you have another feature in the party, such as a Bard with Inspiration or something else. With THAT +1d8, it would be possible for the Cleric to do it as well.

As long as the possibility with the current features is there, they can Help. In general, proficiency along with available features assures it, so I just assume if a PC has proficiency, they can Help.

Frankly, I think that is an easy rule to use and makes sense (Bob's had training in such things, he can help.)...

Or 7.31% total.

Close to what I got, but not the same... I wonder where the difference lies?

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin:

I quoted you in my prior post expressly to give you props for suggesting a 5-point shift would not be unreasonable:



... which is all I am doing when I changed the names:

View attachment 255009

See, a 5-point shift moves the names. So DC 0 is now "Very Easy".

So, you said a 5-point shift would be reasonable, but then challenge the resulting shift in names.

You say trivial, I say very easy, etc. Tomayto-tomahto. I disagree with your assessment at every level and there can be no further point in discussing it with you. See you around.

Sorry, you’re correct, I do think a 5-point shift is a reasonable ruling if you find that DCs are consistently higher than you mean for them to be. And I stand by what I said about the names not really mattering. If calling 10 “medium,” 15 “hard,” and 20 “very hard” is what makes that being the most typical range of DCs make sense to you, more power to you. I was merely expressing why I personally think the default names are perfectly fitting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sorry, you’re correct, I do think a 5-point shift is a reasonable ruling if you find that DCs are consistently higher than you mean for them to be. And I stand by what I said about the names not really mattering. If calling 10 “medium,” 15 “hard,” and 20 “very hard” is what makes that being the most typical range of DCs make sense to you, more power to you. I was merely expressing why I personally think the default names are perfectly fitting.

Fair enough. Thanks for your input.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I think the DCs are right where they need to be. Difficult doesn't scale by level, so the doors that are DC 15 to get through at level 1 are DC 15 at level 20.

Where I think things go wrong is when DMs 1) give rolls for everything, rather than just saying yes or no, and 2) having a tendency to set DCs too high because players are successfully making more and more rolls as they get higher in level.

An example of giving rolls for everything, rather than just saying yes or no is the one in this OP. I don't care who you are, you aren't lifting several tons. That feat of strength isn't nearly impossible. It's impossible and I'd just tell the player no. That ally the several ton statue fell on? Well, that just did tons of damage to him.

For number 2, I've seen many DMs try and scale DCs with level, which is a mistake in 5e. 5e is bounded, so DCs don't do that. A DC of 20 is hard. Most things are not going to even be hard to accomplish. Right now the group I'm DMing for just hit 10th level in this last session. Probably 85%-90% of the DCs they are rolling for, when they have to even roll, are 10-15. Occasionally a DC is 20. Very, very rarely they will hit something really obscure knowledge wise and it will take a 25 to get that info. I've never used 30.

A DC of 30 represents a nearly impossible action. That a level 20 person has a 10% chance of success with something that is nearly impossible is really good. For 99.999% of the population, there would be no chance of success at all.

 

[Yaarel]

LOL, well at least I'm not alone.

FWIW, I was thinking about revising the table like this if I don't go with the blanket 5 point reduction:

View attachment 254976

So, in the above example, you would need an 11 or better (50%) to succeed in the nearly impossible task. Someone with expertise would be able to do such things nearly routinely, or like you say:

Keep the official table the way it is. There is much game engine math that informs it.

At the same time, feel free to dial everything up to Hard. This is completely workable.

Personally, I dole out a mix of Easy and Hard, and occasionally something impossible that the party really needs to flee or obviate.

 

[Maxperson]

Such methods have never been my favorite. It means the DC adjust according to who is trying the task. That isn't how the world works IMO, but if it works for you, good enough I suppose.

Yeah. The only time I have variable DCs is if it's some sort of knowledge roll and someone who is trained would be significantly more likely to know than someone who isn't trained at all. This happens rarely, since most of the time the piece of knowledge in question is either common knowledge(same DC for everyone) or rare trained knowledge(only proficient PCs get to roll). There's aren't too many things that are on the cusp of those two things.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

At 20th level with both proficiency AND expertise? Yes. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have an issue with is any old CR 0 shlub villager with a 14 in a stat being able to hit that "nearly impossible" DC 22 once out of 20 tries. A 1st level PC with a 16 in the stat will hit that number 20% of the time. That's the opposite of nearly impossible.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Nearly impossible isn't for level 1 PCs, as evidenced by no level 1 PC having any chance at all of hitting a DC 30 without magical aid. It's impossible. If you have a 20 in the right stat, have proficiency and expertise AND have something like bardic inspiration or guidance, you have a small chance of success at level 1, which is as it should be.

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.

That's what nearly impossible means. It means that only 1 in 100,000 people are going to have a chance to succeed. It's not impossible, or else nobody could do it no matter what. But it's nearly impossible, so it requires super high level people or moderately high level people with expertise. By lowering the DC you are changing nearly impossible into somewhat difficult.

 

[Maxperson]

Most recent example. Players found a mural of an ancient battle on a world they had never been able to. Wizard wanted to make a history check to see if he knew anything about it. Now this was a world not only had they never seen, but really had no connection to the world they had come from. So I ruled it a 30, nearly impossible, would have had to have been some crazy circumstance to fall upon this knowledge.

Wizard got his 30.

That was amazingly generous. If a PC in my game was on a world he had never been to and had no connection to, there would be a zero chance of success. You only roll if the outcome is in doubt. I would have simply told him no he doesn't know.