D&D 5E NPC Ability Checks and Stunting or...Ogre Smash

[transtemporal]

I pretty much always come back to the Risus descriptions for target numbers:

10: A cinch. A challenge for a schmuck. Routine for a pro.
15: A challenge for a professional.
20: An Heroic challenge. For really inventive or tricky stunts.
25: A challenge for a Master. Nearly superhuman difficulty.
30: You've GOT to be kidding. Actual superhuman difficulty.

The key thing is in deciding whether you want an action to be able to happen with a target number at all. If not ("I use persuasion to convince the king to kill himself"), just disallow it outright.

Also consider that if you allow for NPCs, then PCs might want to try it too at some stage and you should have a response ready - "Hey I have the same strength as the dragon that smashed down the dungeon wall in the last session! I bring down the castle wall with one blow from my mighty fist!"

 

[CrashFiend82]

I do enjoy the ideas and discussion, but I do take umbrage with the obvious meta-gaming from a player perspective in your example. For example, what if the DM had decided to make a more athletic ogre, or one that has proficiency, or expertise in Strength (athletics). As for the rules in the DMG pg. 279. If you want a monster to be proficient in a skill you can give a bonus equal to its proficiency ability on checks related to that skill... You can double the proficiency to account for heightened mastery. So in your example what if I, as the DM, decide to have an ogre with mastery in athletics, say with a prof bonus of +2 doubled to +4 now it has +8 to Strength (athletics). If the DC for pushing over the tree is 25 (a midsize tree), and roll and its successful. I can not fathom how this is "cheating" in some form, as the characters, need not have some prior meta-game knowledge about every single ogre. Consider reality, can you look at a professional lineman in football and know what he is able to bench, or his ability to pass block (closest corollary, I have to the strength of an ogre, no offense to any athletes). So as a DM, since I have that toolset to make the change based on rules provided, how is that being "unfair"?

 

[Nagol]

I do enjoy the ideas and discussion, but I do take umbrage with the obvious meta-gaming from a player perspective in your example. For example, what if the DM had decided to make a more athletic ogre, or one that has proficiency, or expertise in Strength (athletics). As for the rules in the DMG pg. 279. If you want a monster to be proficient in a skill you can give a bonus equal to its proficiency ability on checks related to that skill... You can double the proficiency to account for heightened mastery. So in your example what if I, as the DM, decide to have an ogre with mastery in athletics, say with a prof bonus of +2 doubled to +4 now it has +8 to Strength (athletics). If the DC for pushing over the tree is 25 (a midsize tree), and roll and its successful. I can not fathom how this is "cheating" in some form, as the characters, need not have some prior meta-game knowledge about every single ogre. Consider reality, can you look at a professional lineman in football and know what he is able to bench, or his ability to pass block (closest corollary, I have to the strength of an ogre, no offense to any athletes). So as a DM, since I have that toolset to make the change based on rules provided, how is that being "unfair"?

As far as I care, nothing is wrong with your example. You've assigned a DC that, should the Fighter get enlarged, he too can try to hit. Pushing over a mid-size tree for you is DC 25 (which means a levelled athletic Fighter-type really doesn't have too much trouble doing that task and a higher level Bard can guarantee it).

In other DM's minds, pushing over a tree pretty much requires serious machinery or a least something sized like an elephant taking 10 minutes or more. In their universes, pushing over a tree as part of a round action is probably more like a DC <you-can't-roll-this-high>. In that type of universe, the ogre gets to do it not because the ogre can roll that high, but because the DM thinks it is a cool move and cool moves should be used and rewarded. So the game degenerates to the players trying to figure out what dramatic//cool/neat-o move the DM can be talked into accepting.

 

[Satyrn]

So the game degenerates to the players trying to figure out what dramatic//cool/neat-o move the DM can be talked into accepting.

What is degenerate to you is my preferred playstyle.

I want to be a DM who can be talked into accepting what the players want to try.

 

[CrashFiend82]

I think the more relevant question to ask is, how closely should the skill system try to model real world physics. The granularity necessary, would make for an intensely complicated rules system. If we are going to enjoy a system where we use a to hit vs. AC model to demonstrate all of the complexity of real world combat, are we doing a disservice to expect the ability check system to do so. I think I agree on the premise of what Nagol, or other posters may be saying. In that monsters and/or NPCs should follow the same chances of PCs. That would seem fair, otherwise it would be arbitrarily punishing the players for nothing more than story purposes. Going back to earlier postings about whether PCs know what exactly the characters can achieve from session 0, in most cases. Isn't that what part of the exploration portion of the game is partly modeling. When we set out to explore a DM's world or even a published one, isn't part of "gaining" experience the idea that the characters will interact with the world and generally come to figure out what is possible?

 

[Nagol]

What is degenerate to you is my preferred playstyle.

I want to be a DM who can be talked into accepting what the players want to try.

There are a lot of great games based around that premise. I like running FATE, TFOS, and BESM, for examples of that playstyle. D&D in general, and 5e specifically, is a poor fit for that style of game.

In any event the example we're working with isn't the players want to try something; it's the DM wanting to pull off a particular cool move. ManBearCat uses this sort of move (I expect) in his DungeonWorld campaigns -- another good game for this playstyle.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Are you saying first time players don't trust their new GM?

Are you asking if new players distrust their new DM, or if they have no reason to trust their new DM?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the more relevant question to ask is, how closely should the skill system try to model real world physics. The granularity necessary, would make for an intensely complicated rules system. If we are going to enjoy a system where we use a to hit vs. AC model to demonstrate all of the complexity of real world combat, are we doing a disservice to expect the ability check system to do so. I think I agree on the premise of what Nagol, or other posters may be saying. In that monsters and/or NPCs should follow the same chances of PCs. That would seem fair, otherwise it would be arbitrarily punishing the players for nothing more than story purposes. Going back to earlier postings about whether PCs know what exactly the characters can achieve from session 0, in most cases. Isn't that what part of the exploration portion of the game is partly modeling. When we set out to explore a DM's world or even a published one, isn't part of "gaining" experience the idea that the characters will interact with the world and generally come to figure out what is possible?

I can certainly understand the thinking behind having NPCs and PCs using the same mechanics; there's a sense of fairness and equality to that line of thinking.

But are NPCs meant to be equal to PCs? Most folks would say "no", I would think. So then why feel the need to treat them equally?

To me, NPCs, especially monsters, are there to serve as some form of obstacle for the PCs. The story that the game is telling is about whether or not the PCs succeed or fail, not about the NPCs. So the rules are there to determine the PCs' success or failure.

When it comes to NPCs, I think the rules are most important when they are directly interacting with the PCs because that is directly tied to the PCs and their overall chance of success or failure. But as far as interacting with the environment, I don't know of it's as important.

But as I said above, depending on the players and their level of meta-thinking, you may have to come up with an explanation for the reasoning. It's a mix of personal preference and level of trust in the DM.

 

[Satyrn]

When it comes to NPCs, I think the rules are most important when they are directly interacting with the PCs because that is directly tied to the PCs and their overall chance of success or failure. But as far as interacting with the environment, I don't know of it's as important.

Aye, that's how I roll - Really, I just whittle the who thing down to an improvised weapon. It just so happens that after the attack is resolved there's a tree on the ground as a side effect.

 

[CrashFiend82]

I agree that the PCs and NPCs should not follow the same guidelines. I think that was done for 3.5 and you often wonky or down right terrible effects. I also like that monsters and NPC creation uses a different set of guides since the goals are not really the same. Based on the original post by Bearmancat it does seam like the PCs are interacting with the monster, since it is making an attack against them (using the tree). I agree with Satyrn more on the improvised attack since that is what really is occurring. I don't think a check would need to be made, but the ogre would have disadvantage on trying to hit one (or possibly more PCs). If it is just an ogre shoving over trees out in the woods, is a roll necessary. More importantly, does it matter if the PCs are not their to witness it? Probably not, but I could readily see a PC fighter getting angry that his character couldn't even attempt to knock over a tree, if the ogre can. It might be a high check say DC 25 or 30 (if your comparing it to what a giant can do), but shouldn't he get the chance. I was more trying to point out that using physics or mathematical modeling to set DCs is not just over thinking, it is adding unnecessary complexity (which most DMs are not doing in regards to combat, hit vs AC, with or without advantage).