D&D 5E What is your "Sweet Spot" of Success? (poll)

[clearstream]

Here's the scenario:

• Your PC is "good" at a task (whatever "good" means to you), not great, but definitely above average.
• You are trying a "difficult" task (whatever "difficult" means to you).

What chance of success is perfect for you, the "sweet spot" if you will; where the enjoyment of success meets the risk of failure?

So, if you choose 50%, you are saying you want your PC to succeed at the task half the time and fail half the time, making success rewarding and failure a bit painful.

You have two votes for your response, in case you want a slightly wider range.

I use the rules on DMG242, so answered for success and success with hindrance.

 

[Yaarel]

I should add that with regard to Legend Lore, I would use the spell to tell the caster something no could possibly know about the thing in question.

I get that. But "DM whim" is also a problem with some of these legacy divination spells.

 

[CleverNickName]

I understand it is a game and that there must be the risk of failure, but we demand a level of failure from adventures that we would not tolerate from any professional (or most amateurs) in real life. And we demand that failure all the time, not just in the high stakes play.
We are not satisfied that the thief has a 20% chance of picking the door to the sanctum of The Clockmaker a fiendishly clever fellow renowned in 5 kingdoms for complex locks and puzzle traps but a similar failure rate from every damn door and garden gate along the way.

I find that very amusing.

I mean, we demand the possibility of that failure at all times. As far as I know, nobody is sitting around with an abacus keeping track of the number of times a rogue successfully opens a lock, and saying "nope, that's four successes in a row--you automatically fail this fifth one, that's just how the math works."

Because that's not how the math works. Statistics ≠ arithmetic.

Not sure what to say about your garden gate example, though...I'd have a lot of questions about why a horologist would need so many locks. It's not entirely unprecedented, though: I remember how much of a pain in the butt it was to have to swipe a keycard at every. single. door. in the campus Engineering Building, just to get from one class to another. Even the restroom had the same high-security electronic lock as the labs, lecture halls, and the front door....and presumably the same "Open Locks DC," though I'm not a rogue and I never tried. I can only imagine what it would be like to work in a hospital, a prison, or a military installation.

 

[overgeeked]

Something that's difficult is not easy, by definition. It's synonymous with hard. So roughly 25% sounds about right.

 

[James Gasik]

But hard for whom? That's the question, isn't it? Do we set difficulties for:

*Talented but unskilled guy (16 stat, no proficiency).
*Average but skilled guy (10 stat, proficiency).
*Reasonably talented but skilled guy (12-14 stat, proficiency).
*Talented and skilled guy (16-18 stat, proficiency).
*Supremely talented and skilled guy (20 stat, proficiency).
*The GOAT. (20 stat or higher, proficiency and expertise).

Who gets the 25%? Who gets the coin flip? Who gets 55% or higher?

 

[overgeeked]

But hard for whom? That's the question, isn't it? Do we set difficulties for:

*Talented but unskilled guy (16 stat, no proficiency).
*Average but skilled guy (10 stat, proficiency).
*Reasonably talented but skilled guy (12-14 stat, proficiency).
*Talented and skilled guy (16-18 stat, proficiency).
*Supremely talented and skilled guy (20 stat, proficiency).
*The GOAT. (20 stat or higher, proficiency and expertise).

Who gets the 25%? Who gets the coin flip? Who gets 55% or higher?

It really helps to quote people when you ask them something. I'll assume you're asking me as I just posted and said 25% and hard in my response.

You have it backwards. Something being a hard/difficult task means the character has a 25% chance to do it. What's hard/difficult depends on the character. What's hard for the GOAT is impossible for the average schmoe. What's hard for the average schmoe is laughably easy for the GOAT. It's not a fixed scale of "this is a hard task" but "this is an easy task." It's relative.

If you want to turn it into a fixed scale, determine what would be a 25% for each of those characters. Keeping things flexible and relative is a much simpler way to run things and there's a lot less math and spreadsheets involved.

 

[Charlaquin]

60-65%

 

[DND_Reborn]

But hard for whom? That's the question, isn't it? Do we set difficulties for:

"Hard" for someone who is "good", that was in the OP.

You have to decide for yourself (which is why I left it open-ended) what constitutes "good" (what modifier total) and what DC would be "hard" for that individual. Once you make those choices, you get the % chance and vote.

Now, you can do it the other direction as well:

For instance, given for most PCs the range is -1 (ability score 8) to +17 (ability score 20, tier 4, expertise), you might decide someone is "good" at +8. They aren't great (maybe +10-12) or incredible (+13 or whatever...), and they are better than someone who is decent (maybe just +5?).

It is entirely subjective, of course.

Then, you think: "How likely should someone who is good succeed at a difficult task?" Perhaps 35%? 50%? 65%? 90%?

Again, entirely subjective and you have to decide for yourself.

Doing a bit of algebra will then decide the DC. In the example above, if you are +8 and want a 35% chance of success. Well, 35% is a roll of 14 or better, adding 8 makes the DC 22. Hmm... is that too high? Maybe, maybe not...

50% would be DC 19, 65% would be DC 16, and 90% would be just DC 11!

So, what seems most "right" to you? Is "good" +8? Is "difficult" DC 22, 19, 16, or 11? And of course, ultimately, what are then their chances?

You can go as in-depth in your thinking or just go with your gut on what feels like the chance should be for someone good doing something difficult.

 

[James Gasik]

The next question is, what counts as "good"?

(I'm not quoting anyone because it's an open question).

 

[DND_Reborn]

The next question is, what counts as "good"?

(I'm not quoting anyone because it's an open question).

You have to decide for yourself (which is why I left it open-ended) what constitutes "good" (what modifier total)

For instance, given for most PCs the range is -1 (ability score 8) to +17 (ability score 20, tier 4, expertise), you might decide someone is "good" at +8. They aren't great (maybe +10-12) or incredible (+13 or whatever...), and they are better than someone who is decent (maybe just +5?).