I think you are misunderstanding the point of the minion rules.
I don't think so. They're there to provide both a moment to shine for the PCs (mowing the minions down with ease) while also providing something akin to a challenge (by doing reasonable damage). Matt's minion rules provide the first but not the second.
Just a quick addendum: if the plot relies on the intimidation being successful, it's not a problem with the rules on intimidation.
Right. The problem there is the DM is running a railroad where specific things
must happen, and they're further compounding the problem by locking the things that
must happen behind random rolls. That's just bad DMing.
Oh, and as with all DCs the number given is just a starting point that can be adjusted based on DM's discretion. If nothing else, do you have a way to change someone's attitude toward you? If not, why would it be easy to convince someone who is actively hostile to give you info?
I think part of the problem is that people don't read the social rules for 5E. There's three steps. DM determines starting disposition. Players try to adjust that disposition. DM asks for a roll when the players finally come to the point or ask for something.
And every seems to skip over this bit:
"That said, a hostile creature might be so ill-disposed toward the party that no Charisma check can improve its attitude, in which case any attempt to sway it through diplomacy fails automatically."
Negotiating with hostile creatures isn't a thing PCs should be doing.
But then...that's why there are reaction tables in older editions. Not every monster you face is automatically hostile and trying to murder you.
So, back to the thread, 5E is missing reaction tables.
I could respond with "why do DM's think the players have to have a high chance of failure? Why is the expected baseline a 60% chance to succeed instead of 75%? It's so odd, I can't think of a single interesting story where the protagonist fails at everything. Why is that the prevailing fantasy of modern D&D dungeonmasters?
Unless there's a fair chance of success or failure there's no point in rolling. If you've stacked things so well in your favor, it should be automatic. If things are so lop-sided against you, it should be automatic. No need to roll for a foregone conclusion. Most rolls should be in that vast excluded middle.
But that's not exactly the problem. The problem is a task that is difficult for a optimized high level character
Two things. First, max level with max stat and proficiency isn't optimized. Second, the problem is we define difficult differently so that's making us talk past each other. "Difficult" isn't 60% chance of success. That's about twice as likely as MLB's all-time best hitter hitting a ball while at bat. That's the opposite of "difficult". That's easy. Difficult is something like 25% chance of success.
should not be a task that is reasonable, or an expected option for a character of any level. At any level of the game, characters should be allowed to have reasonable chances of success at reasonable things.
It almost reads like we define a lot of things differently. In an RPG the expectation is players have the freedom to
try anything. Literally anything...as long as it's within bounds of the genre and the PC's capabilities.
Chance of success is never guaranteed. You can
try to fast-talk the king into giving up your crown...that in no way implies that you have any
chance of success.
The problem is the bolded bits. What's reasonable to one is insane to another. Thinking that you have a chance to fast-talk the king into giving up his crown might seem reasonable to a player with max CHA and expertise in persuasion, while also being insane to the DM. There's no objective standard for what's "reasonable". When there's a conflict between what the player and DM expect, the DM is the final arbiter. If the DM's call seem arbitrary or unreasonable to you as a player, ask the DM why they made that call.
Also, you're talking about reasonable here. But you're the one who set the example DC at 20. That is, by definition, not something with a reasonable chance of success. The DCs are largely based around an assumed +0 roll. So something that for the average person has a 5% chance of success is not what I'd call reasonable. That your PC has a bonus to that task makes it easier to accomplish, but that's a show of how awesome the PC is compared to an average person.
If my party has no Charisma-based characters, and our best diplomat has a Persuade check of +3 which should be viable for play since the rules never enforce someone being better than this (and in fact, people tell me all the time you don't need to optimize for 5e), and you go "wait, wouldn't it be better if we work together instead of fight each other needlessly?" your DC shouldn't be 20.
No. You've got it backwards. The world does not mold and transform to suit the PCs and the load-out they bring to the table. NPCs don't suddenly become more easily negotiated with simply because none of the players wanted to run a face character. Likewise, doors that would be locked don't magically become unlocked if the party has no rogue or PC with proficiency with thieves' tools. That's not how any of this works. The PCs shouldn't have a reasonable chance to overcome every obstacle. Some things will be harder, others easier. That's kind of what I was asking about up thread. Why would you assume that no matter what you and your party should always be able to tackle every obstacle and challenge no matter what? That's the opposite of reasonable.
The social interaction rules give you opportunities to lower the DC or possibly gain advantage- but that's out of a player's control. They have to convince the DM for this to be a viable or reasonable course of action.
Yes, exactly. Welcome to a human-run RPGs. That's literally how the game works. Everything is an interaction between the player and the DM. You have to present your case that something is reasonable to the human running the game.
So let's say our hypothetical +3 Persuade guy drops the DC to 15. And you get that help action. You still need to roll a 12 or better, and what is that at this point, a 37.5% chance of success? Not even a coin flip.
Um...no. A 12 or better with 2d20 is 69.75% chance of success. Load up anydice and drop this in "output [highest 1 of 2d20]" then click "at least". Look at the # line for 12.
Is it any wonder why there's so many murderhobos out there who decide "man, it's just easier to beat monsters up than to talk to them"?
Well, that's down to there being no reaction tables in the game and the assumption that every single monster is there to fight. Both players and DMs make that mistake. But yeah, sometimes you're not going to be able to talk to the monsters trying to eat you.
The social pillar is woefully undersupported, mechanically speaking. yet people think they need to resort to dice as often as with the combat pillar. That's the problem.
Dice are only used if there is uncertainty in the outcome.
Exactly. It's so odd. Players want the dice to solve everything...and to use them all the time...yet want their chances of success to be so high that there's no point in bothering with the roll. I honestly don't get it. The fun of rolling is the anticipation of the result...not the sound the math rocks make on the table. Like opening a present. It could be DragonQuest for the NES or a pair of socks or noting or a glitter bomb or dog poo.
Because "check to get hostile creatures to cooperate as long as they aren't taking a risk or sacrificing anything by doing so", doesn't sound to me like it should require a ridiculously high DC.
We're defining hostile differently then. Hostile means they don't like you, are not disposed to listening to you, and consider themselves your enemy. There's almost zero chance of saying "hey, could you not" to a creature who actively wants to harm you. That's not a reasonable expectation.
Since, in most respects, your chance at succeeding at a skill check is often the same as your chance to hit, it comes down to, what level would you expect players to face an AC of 20?
You probably shouldn't see DC's of 20 any sooner than that.
I expect players to face AC20 around the same time they have AC20...so 1st or 2nd level...in most cases.
5e, IMO, needs rules for "degrees of success". The social interaction rules take a stab at it, but I think it could be done better for all aspects of the system.
It does, sort of. In the DMG. There's an optional rule for degrees of failure on page 242. It's not hard to use a similar framework for degrees of success. There's also pass/fail, critical/fumble as degrees of success.
You are descending into a hole in the earth filled with weird and deadly monsters, for the purpose of pulling shiny baubles out of the ground. What would you expect?
Now, obviously, that's only one style of game and one sort of story you can tell with D&D. Sometimes certainty is good as a foundation on which to build a different kind of game that tells a different kind of story. But I like wonder in my games, even the terrifying kind, and I think most of my players appreciate it.
It really is weird to me. I agree with what you're saying here. If you're going somewhere dangerous to do dangerous things...you should, I dunno, expect some...danger. It's odd that some players want this weird mish-mash of "danger" as a veneer we all pretend is there but really isn't. Like most combat in 5E is so wildly tipped in the players' favor that it's a foregone conclusion...to the point where rolling dice is just wasting table time...yet players seem to honestly think it's somehow dangerous...when it really isn't. I want danger in my games. I want risk. I want consequences. I want wonder. I want terror. I appreciate it when I'm on either side of the screen. I don't get when, why, and how "let's play a game of pretend with actual in-game risks" morphed into "let's pretend we're playing a game with actual in-game risks."
