Missing Rules

[Reynard]

I would say that you have to think of published DCs as tied to a particular approach to a goal that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. So when I see something like "When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone." Then the implied goal and approach is, broadly, "try to keep from falling on tricky footing by attempting to move nimbly." The difficult terrain makes the result uncertain and the meaningful consequence of failure is that you land prone.

If the player suggests some other approach to the goal than what is implied by the published DCs, then the DM must adjudicate normally.

I like the perspective from jumping into difficult terrain, but you sidestepped the larger question: why are rules system defined crafting etc set DCs generally considered more appropriate than random jumping DCs?

 

[iserith]

I like the perspective from jumping into difficult terrain, but you sidestepped the larger question: why are rules system defined crafting etc set DCs generally considered more appropriate than random jumping DCs?

I don't hold that position and have no particular opinion on that. I'm just stating what I interpret the rules as a whole as saying.

 

[Reynard]

I don't hold that position and have no particular opinion on that. I'm just stating what I interpret the rules as a whole as saying.

I'm not sure how you can have no opinion on it. Assuming downtime happens in your campaign, you have to deal with its mechanics at some point. What I am asking, I guess, is how the different pillars of the game interact with the idea of arbitrary DM rulings when certain pillars have specific rulings tied to them.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure how you can have no opinion on it.

I can afford to because I remember that every single DC, either one that the book sets or that I set, comes only after a statement of goal and approach by the player that is determined to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. Published DCs are tied to an implied goal and approach. If the player's stated goal and approach are substantially similar to the implied goal and approach, then the published DC applies, if there is nothing else about the situation that modifies the difficulty in the judgment of the DM.

So I have absolutely no reason to think that a published DC or my own DC is more or less appropriate than the other.

 

[5ekyu]

Not knowing the scene, jumping between platforms could be automatic if you have a high enough strength. Or if some PCs can't make it there may need to be some teamwork.

Or it's just a poorly written mod. All I can say is how I've run it. I can also say that writing mods is not simple, so assuming that they're blinded by their own brilliance doesn't help much.

Agree - since jump is a task specifically tied to the base strength score its not a simple flat DC that applies to everyone. if the scene shows the distance between the platforms, a lot can be derived from that compared to the typical strength jump minimums.

But i do not know what module or theory room we are talking about so... just musing on preferences.

 

[Maxperson]

So here's a general question for all the "you don't need benchmarks" folks in this thread: for those thing for which the rules do provide set DCs -- I am looking at things like the tool proficiency stuff in Xanathar's -- how do you square that? Is there a reason it is okay for that stuff to have defined DCs as opposed to DM gut checks?

I don't view those DCs as anything more than helpful suggestions. So for the jumping DCs, the game is saying, "You the DM need to decide if, when and what to set the DC at." For rules where DCs are given, the game is saying to me, "You the DM need to decide if, when and what to set the DC at, but here's a suggestion that might help you." Sometimes I take that suggestion, and sometimes I don't.

 

[5ekyu]

So here's a general question for all the "you don't need benchmarks" folks in this thread: for those thing for which the rules do provide set DCs -- I am looking at things like the tool proficiency stuff in Xanathar's -- how do you square that? Is there a reason it is okay for that stuff to have defined DCs as opposed to DM gut checks?

From a Gm perspective, i make it clear as to how Dcs are set and that applies. The book standard ones may or may not apply - if they match the campaign standard.

From a designer POV, where i would draw the line between "provide DCs or leave it to DC assignment process" depends on two things:
1 - How often in actual in-game use will circumstances apply that make this task veriable in difficulty and needing judgement? if the answer is "often/usually needs to consider circumstances" - jumping, climbing, etc - that would not be where i would set fixed DCs **unless** i included info on assumptions. If it were very often most of the time going to be done in a controlled environment over time - crafting for instance - not often an on the fly type thing - then i would be leaning towards set DCs.
2 - Will this be a totally foreign notion to the players/GMs or do they have at least some basis for judgement? if its alien to them - roll to extract demonic ichor - then give them a sample DC in specific circumstance as a baseline. Its just one example or two so they can have a starting point tho, not an attempt to provide any large comprehensive list of DCs. two or three illustrative DCs can serve as a baseline. --- if it is a task which the players/GMs have a basic idea about - most people have jumped or seen jumping and there is a minimum safe jump defined as well - then no need for strongly SET DC pre-fabs.

but thats me.

 

[ad_hoc]

So here's a general question for all the "you don't need benchmarks" folks in this thread: for those thing for which the rules do provide set DCs -- I am looking at things like the tool proficiency stuff in Xanathar's -- how do you square that? Is there a reason it is okay for that stuff to have defined DCs as opposed to DM gut checks?

Well, they're optional modules in a supplement. I think, first and foremost, that is important to keep in mind.

1) Tools

I don't like the suggested DCs. The big reason is that most of the time a check should not be called for. This is 3e style play which bogs the game down and has characters failing at simple things. It's easy enough to ignore that and use the suggested uses for inspiration.

2) Downtime

I do like the DCs for downtime. That's because the activity is just the DC. It happens off screen, player rolls a die, and the game then continues.

The ability check system is designed to adjudicate what happens in tense and dramatic situations. If it isn't interesting then best to just rule the PCs succeed and move on with the game.

Downtime is not a dramatic situation, but it's also important not to have automatic successes. So a roll is called for which represents the average effort over a week. I think that's fine. Also, mundane things like crafting are automatic. It's also a time when the books will be open and sheets will be updated, possibly even with levels being gained.

 

[Reynard]

. Downtime is not a dramatic situation, but it's also important not to have automatic successes.

Interesting. I feel the opposite way. If there is no dramatic tension then there is really no reason to not just assume success, IMO. If the characters take a week off from the dungeon to recover and engage in downtime activities, making them roll for those activities seems counter productive.

 

[iserith]

Interesting. I feel the opposite way. If there is no dramatic tension then there is really no reason to not just assume success, IMO. If the characters take a week off from the dungeon to recover and engage in downtime activities, making them roll for those activities seems counter productive.

The rule for determining if there is an ability check is that the DM judges if the action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. One might say that when it comes to a downtime activity there are no guarantees of automatic success (though the DM might rule otherwise from time to time) so the outcome is uncertain. And the meaningful consequence of failure is, depending on the activity, loss of gold or time, complications, gaining a rival, etc.

Under that rule, it's quite reasonable to have ability checks for resolving downtime activities. Now, in D&D 4e, the rules say "all DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations." And I personally like that statement. But that's a different game!