Why the hate on 5e?

[EggKookoo]

Either way, setting it up as "by easy we mean it would be easy but...", and then assigning "easy" ~50%, and having nothing but that table, it actually makes the lack of clarity, the vagueness, worse.

I won't argue clarity. As I've said it took me a few years and this extended thread to really understand what the DMG is saying about it. I needed it to be a point of contention, I suppose, rather than just something I played with by myself as a DM. My players don't tend to push back on DCs so it doesn't come up as a problem I need to address at the table.

However, it's all clear to me now.

I see this thing with "rules = reality" being used by some to denigrate two different approaches they don't like, at once, by conflating those two approaches.

I see it as two largely-incompatible viewpoints on what makes a "good" game. I certainly have my opinion and I think it's clear which side I prefer. I don't think the opposition is wrong or worthy of denigration. I just think 5e isn't that kind of game (rules = reality) and isn't trying to be. If I lament anything, it's that 3e was more of that kind of game, or at least was straddling some kind of line, and it encouraged the growth of a playerbase that prefers that. That playerbase is bumping into the warm reception 5e is getting (it was easy to brush off 4e), and in turn is coming into conflict with 5e's new, fairly large playerbase.

[Max_Killjoy]

I see it as two largely-incompatible viewpoints on what makes a "good" game. I certainly have my opinion and I think it's clear which side I prefer. I don't think the opposition is wrong or worthy of denigration. I just think 5e isn't that kind of game (rules = reality) and isn't trying to be. If I lament anything, it's that 3e was more of that kind of game, or at least was straddling some kind of line, and it encouraged the growth of a playerbase that prefers that. That playerbase is bumping into the warm reception 5e is getting (it was easy to brush off 4e), and in turn is coming into conflict with 5e's new, fairly large playerbase.

3.x very much wasn't "rules = reality", that can easily be seen by reversing the equation and seeing what you get. The reality that comes out of a 3.x ruleset is something like the Tippyverse or some other twisted parody -- the rules don't reflect the reality of any of the published settings or the general quasi-medievaloid setting of D&D.

Further, there are two different approaches there under "rules = reality". Are the rules supposed to reflect the reality (fiction first / simulationist) or is the reality defined by the rules (rules first / gamist)? I'm arguing entirely for the former, "fiction first". IMO the rules should reflect the "reality" in which the campaign is taking place in, and should produce results consistent with a range of results reasonably expectable from the circumstances at present inside that "fiction layer".

In part because then you have something to judge the rules (and rulings) against, which is what I'm doing here.

[stoutstien]

It is telling that one of the most controversial part of a 5e is the idiosyncrasies of the ability check system. Quite an upgrade from 1/2 the game becoming unplayable due to ill-conceived class structure.

I doubt we will see a DND 6E anytime soon but I've seen this edition be a positive impact on the tabletop gaming genre as a whole.

I, like many others, may criticize aspects of it but my intentions are based on the drive to always try to improve my games.

[ad_hoc]

That's not a guide, it's circular reasoning.

Isn't saying "this is so because the rules say it is" actually in instance of saying that the rules define the reality of the setting?

It's not 'reasoning'. Merely stating a tautology.

3.x very much wasn't "rules = reality", that can easily be seen by reversing the equation and seeing what you get. The reality that comes out of a 3.x ruleset is something like the Tippyverse or some other twisted parody -- the rules don't reflect the reality of any of the published settings or the general quasi-medievaloid setting of D&D.

Further, there are two different approaches there under "rules = reality". Are the rules supposed to reflect the reality (fiction first / simulationist) or is the reality defined by the rules (rules first / gamist)? I'm arguing entirely for the former, "fiction first". IMO the rules should reflect the "reality" in which the campaign is taking place in, and should produce results consistent with a range of results reasonably expectable from the circumstances at present inside that "fiction layer".

In part because then you have something to judge the rules (and rulings) against, which is what I'm doing here.

And this is why you're having such trouble, because the rules are not simulationist.

It's not a fault of the game that they aren't either. It's just not to your liking, which is fine.

That playerbase is bumping into the warm reception 5e is getting (it was easy to brush off 4e), and in turn is coming into conflict with 5e's new, fairly large playerbase.

I think that is what is happening here.

4e wasn't successful. 5e is the first instance where 3e/Pathfinder is 'being replaced'.

5e is not a continuation of 3e. It has much more in common with 2e and before. I think this is why the people who have the hardest time learning it are ones who come from 3e.

The only player in person who I've had trouble teaching the game to was a 3e player. Online I have seen countless threads (incl. this one) where people have trouble understanding the rules because they are looking at them through the lens of 3e.

On the surface they look similar. They use a d20 and share a lot of terms. The design philosophy and goals are very different though.

[noob]

It's not 'reasoning'. Merely stating a tautology.




And this is why you're having such trouble, because the rules are not simulationist.

It's not a fault of the game that they aren't either. It's just not to your liking, which is fine.



I think that is what is happening here.

4e wasn't successful. 5e is the first instance where 3e/Pathfinder is 'being replaced'.

5e is not a continuation of 3e. It has much more in common with 2e and before. I think this is why the people who have the hardest time learning it are ones who come from 3e.

The only player in person who I've had trouble teaching the game to was a 3e player. Online I have seen countless threads (incl. this one) where people have trouble understanding the rules because they are looking at them through the lens of 3e.

On the surface they look similar. They use a d20 and share a lot of terms. The design philosophy and goals are very different though.

did 2e made efforts to make attacks be as confusing as possible?

[NNescio]

did 2e made efforts to make attacks be as confusing as possible?

Nobody makes a deliberate effort to make a game mechanic "as confusing as possible", unless they're out to troll their audience for some weird reason.

2e's THAC0 was an improvement over the older "look up individualized Combat/To Hit Matrix tables" method. Those differ depending on class or what form of attack you're using or what kind of armor your attacking, or what... you get the point.

That said the THAC0 system wasn't without its issues. The main one that a lot of people like the mock is lower ACs being better (and AC can go into negatives), and that you subtract AC from your THAC0 (To hit AC 0) to figure out what number or higher you need to hit (some call this result THACX by analogy, or "To Hit AC X"). Note that subtracting a negative means you're adding it as a positive.

The second issue is that you need to know the target's AC to make the calculation, and that's... kinda metagaming because you're not supposed to know the monster's AC. So, what wound up happening is that you roll a number, remind your DM what your THAC0 score is, and then let the DM do the calculations. Every time someone makes an attack.

Some savvy players would then come up with converting it into a "minimum maximum AC that can be hit" figure to make things easier (and to avoid getting screwed over by a DM miscalculating.) This is practically the equivalent as the "total attack roll" you get in 3e and later by adding your overall attack bonuses to the d20, just with more mental gymnastics.

Note that the THAC0 method does make a lot of sense when you are rolling a lot of attacks against targets with similar AC. You group enemies according to their AC, apply THAC0 to figure out the target roll (or higher) you need for its group, then count the number of hits. Even some DMs/players of later editions use a similar method in mass combat or whenever they need to adjudicate the results of a large number of rolls, and this can be done very quickly for people with experience in wargaming (where players do this all the time).

(Of course 5e players would tend to just say "take the average" because it's simpler that way.)

So it wasn't pointlessly convoluted per se, but something that made a lot of sense when you approach the problem from a wargame perspective (which was the origin of D&D, after all). But it wasn't ideal for small-scale combat involving combatants with different individual AC values (especially if some of them are supposed to remain unknown to the player). Here, the later d20 system works much better.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not 'reasoning'. Merely stating a tautology.




And this is why you're having such trouble, because the rules are not simulationist.

It's not a fault of the game that they aren't either. It's just not to your liking, which is fine.



I think that is what is happening here.

4e wasn't successful. 5e is the first instance where 3e/Pathfinder is 'being replaced'.

5e is not a continuation of 3e. It has much more in common with 2e and before. I think this is why the people who have the hardest time learning it are ones who come from 3e.

The only player in person who I've had trouble teaching the game to was a 3e player. Online I have seen countless threads (incl. this one) where people have trouble understanding the rules because they are looking at them through the lens of 3e.

On the surface they look similar. They use a d20 and share a lot of terms. The design philosophy and goals are very different though.

You think that's what's going on here, even when someone tells you they didn't like 3e and barely played it?


PS: 3.x isn't "simulationist" either... no version of D&D has been.

[noob]

Nobody makes a deliberate effort to make a game mechanic "as confusing as possible", unless they're out to troll their audience for some weird reason.

2e's THAC0 was an improvement over the older "look up individualized Combat/To Hit Matrix tables" method. Those differ depending on class or what form of attack you're using or what kind of armor your attacking, or what... you get the point.

That said the THAC0 system wasn't without its issues. The main one that a lot of people like the mock is lower ACs being better (and AC can go into negatives), and that you subtract AC from your THAC0 (To hit AC 0) to figure out what number or higher you need to hit (some call this result THACX by analogy, or "To Hit AC X"). Note that subtracting a negative means you're adding it as a positive.

The second issue is that you need to know the target's AC to make the calculation, and that's... kinda metagaming because you're not supposed to know the monster's AC. So, what wound up happening is that you roll a number, remind your DM what your THAC0 score is, and then let the DM do the calculations. Every time someone makes an attack.

Some savvy players would then come up with converting it into a "minimum maximum AC that can be hit" figure to make things easier (and to avoid getting screwed over by a DM miscalculating.) This is practically the equivalent as a the "total attack value" you get in 3e and later by adding your overall attack bonuses to the d20, just with more mental gymnastics.

Note that the THAC0 method does make a lot of sense when you are rolling a lot of attacks against targets with similar AC. You group enemies according to their AC, apply THAC0 to figure out the target roll (or higher) you need, then count the number of hits. Even DMs/players of later editions use a similar method in mass combat or whenever they need to adjudicate the results of a large number of rolls, and thiscan be done very quickly for people with experience in wargaming.

(Of course 5e players would tend to just say "take the average" because it's simpler that way.)

So it wasn't pointlessly convoluted per se, but something that made a lot of sense when you approach the problem from a wargame perspective (which was the origin of D&D, after all). But it wasn't ideal for small-scale combat involving combatants with different individual AC values (especially if some of them are supposed to remain unknown to the player). Here, the later d20 system works much better.

exactly while 5e is convoluting everything by saying that many things that are clearly attacks are not Attacks and then making subtle differences between ranged ranged weapon Attacks and other things like that and even separating spellcasting and Attacks in the glossary then they make spells which are Attacks and spells which are attacks but not Attacks for maximum confusion.

THAC0 seems plain clear in relative to that random mess that is attacks and Attacks in 5e.

I think 5e should have not went toward being a 3e and 2e hybrid but be some sort of even simpler dnd basic (which is sadly not the case)

[Mongobear]

It's not 'reasoning'. Merely stating a tautology.


That's part of the complaint though. Being intentionally vague is one thing, but when asked to explain why things are the way they are and being told "Hard things are Hard" is not only not a real answer, but borderline insulting to a large swathe of the playerbase who might actually need a better example.


And this is why you're having such trouble, because the rules are not simulationist.
It's not a fault of the game that they aren't either. It's just not to your liking, which is fine.


I'm not personally asking for the game to be a 100% simulation of the real world. I just want some basic guidelines for how to properly build the fantasy world so that any given situation can logically be made.

I don't like the 'tautology' that the devs used for the design of skills and I won't use it to explain to my players why things work the way I told them it did.

The game has tables for a lot of things, why couldn't skills have been one, or even a UA for suggested examples?

I think that is what is happening here.

4e wasn't successful. 5e is the first instance where 3e/Pathfinder is 'being replaced'.


I wouldn't consider it a replacement, per se, but more like a 'worthy successor' to carry on it's legacy. The problem, atleast in my opinion, is that it was too drastic a change too quickly.

If 4e wasn't such a crapshoot, it would have been less offensive using 5e's methods if they would've began slowly evolving from 3.5e's methods to a hybrid where the DC examples were less specific and DM ruling based, then evolved naturally into current 5e design.

Instead, we have 3 consecutive editions that outside of a handful of shared terms, barely resemble one another, other than the logos on the books.



5e is not a continuation of 3e. It has much more in common with 2e and before. I think this is why the people who have the hardest time learning it are ones who come from 3e.

The only player in person who I've had trouble teaching the game to was a 3e player. Online I have seen countless threads (incl. this one) where people have trouble understanding the rules because they are looking at them through the lens of 3e.

On the surface they look similar. They use a d20 and share a lot of terms. The design philosophy and goals are very different though.

I've had different experiences with the 5e learning curve. My most difficult 'student' was a player who had only ever played GURPS, never touched a d20 in his life.

My 3e alumni were fine, they liked the simpler math, and less book-keeping skill/attack rolls. It took them a few sessions to get the hang of combat actions, being able to move and full attack, DCs for abilities being fixed, and other minor things, but largely it was a quick and easy transition.

More difficult were the people who came from AD&D/1e. It took them awhile to grasp the new modifiers for attacks, AC going up being better, not having THAC0, actually having modifiers to skills and saves. After 4 years, I still catch them almost reflexively reaching for percentile dice when they try to pick a lock, or asking what their attack/damage bonus is for a high strength, and the look of awe that Finesse is a thing. Then, they have a split second where it dawns on them, and I can see the "oh, derp" in their mind as they grab the right dice and realize an 18 is +4.

As far as the design philosophy and goals, I suppose you're correct there. But would it have been that bad to have a Variant/Optional section in the DMG/UA to help people transitioning from a more rules-heavy version?

If you've done nothing but drive a Clutch for 25 years, then buy an automatic, you're still gonna reflexively stomp where the clutch pedal should be for awhile.

[NNescio]

exactly while 5e is convoluting everything by saying that many things that are clearly attacks are not Attacks and then making subtle differences between ranged ranged weapon Attacks and other things like that and even separating spellcasting and Attacks in the glossary then they make spells which are Attacks and spells which are attacks but not Attacks for maximum confusion.

THAC0 seems plain clear in relative to that random mess that is attacks and Attacks in 5e.

I think 5e should have not went toward being a 3e and 2e hybrid but be some sort of even simpler dnd basic (which is sadly not the case)

Oh, so it was a rhetorical question. Oops, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Rhyltran]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

I am not one to insult people and I don't usually post here on the 5th edition forums as I play primarily 3.5/Pathfinder or sometimes a mix between the two. I will point out that the DM's behavior wasn't very becoming of a DM. I usually have more system mastery than anyone in my group (nearly full time DM) so if I see someone making a sub-optimal build I will often lend my advice (with permission of course) and give the player insight on how to make their concept come to life in a way that would work out. As an aside there's nothing wrong with 5th edition and if I had to choose between 5th and 4th it would be 5th hands down. A few of my players play both 3.5/Pathfinder and 5th edition. They can also play them interchangeably without problems. Playing 5th edition does not make you a "bad" player or a "noob" of any sort. I personally prefer 3.5 because I find it more customizable with plenty more character options. I like building more than I do playing. The spreadsheet nature of it tickles my inner GM. I also know that isn't for everyone.

Don't worry about what edition you play. Remember, in the end, you're still one of us. You're a dnd and tabletop player. Cheers!

[EggKookoo]

Instead, we have 3 consecutive editions that outside of a handful of shared terms, barely resemble one another, other than the logos on the books.

Four, if you include 2e. The 2e -> 3e transition was far more extreme than the 3e -> 5e transition (if you ignore the blip of 4e).

[Mongobear]

Four, if you include 2e. The 2e -> 3e transition was far more extreme than the 3e -> 5e transition (if you ignore the blip of 4e).

I don't play even numbered editions. (Funny enough, the even editions seem to be the most controversial.)

So I didn't account for them. I bought the original starter set of 4e knowing nothing, read them, saw how arsed up it was, and returned them within a week. Never played or DMed a session of 4e.

[NNescio]

I don't play even numbered editions. (Funny enough, the even editions seem to be the most controversial.)

(It's like Microsoft.)

[EggKookoo]

(It's like Microsoft.)

Or the inverse of Trek movies.

[Mongobear]

(It's like Microsoft.)

Or the inverse of Trek movies.

LOL, I never actually made that connection...

[AdAstra]

Do you, the person, in real life, fail about half the time at tasks you'd consider "easy"? If you tell someone else that something is "easy", do you think they'll expect 50/50 odds of getting it right?

Just on this descriptive element, things are starting to fall apart.




Indeed, if the game lacked any reference for what armor resulted in what AC beyond "bad armor is AC this, good armor is AC that", I wonder if the response to complaints about the AC rules being incomplete and vague would be greeted by "if you want specific armor details, this isn't the game for you", or "if you can't make up your own AC values, your imagination sucks" or "you don't understand how this game works, and I doubt you've ever actually played it".

No, you're just interpreting "easy" to mean "objectively easy for everyone". As I said, if you're calling for a check as a DM, you are saying "this is a task with a meaningful chance of failure". That is the metric. Easy doesn't mean "everyone can do it all the time without fail", it means something along the lines of "an easy-level challenge". because that's what DCs are for in the first place (at least in 5e), challenges. Things that are by nature difficult, even if they are "easy" when compared to other difficult things. Could that have been explained better? Sure, but examining the math at even a basic level should make the meaning of "Easy" pretty clear. Even a person bad at dice math should be able to intuit that a straight d20 roll will succeed on a DC 10 about half the time.

EDIT: oops, just noticed the thread was winding down. I'll leave this here, but I think I'm gonna think about core goals for a DC-Setting Guide thread rather than argue with people complaining about the lack of suggested DCs. Hopefully you'll see it today or tomorrow? Unless someone beats me to it.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, you're just interpreting "easy" to mean "objectively easy for everyone". As I said, if you're calling for a check as a DM, you are saying "this is a task with a meaningful chance of failure". That is the metric. Easy doesn't mean "everyone can do it all the time without fail", it means something along the lines of "an easy-level challenge". because that's what DCs are for in the first place (at least in 5e), challenges. Things that are by nature difficult, even if they are "easy" when compared to other difficult things. Could that have been explained better? Sure, but examining the math at even a basic level should make the meaning of "Easy" pretty clear. Even a person bad at dice math should be able to intuit that a straight d20 roll will succeed on a DC 10 about half the time.

EDIT: oops, just noticed the thread was winding down. I'll leave this here, but I think I'm gonna think about core goals for a DC-Setting Guide thread rather than argue with people complaining about the lack of suggested DCs. Hopefully you'll see it today or tomorrow? Unless someone beats me to it.

Of course I'm looking at it objectively, the rules need to be objective across all characters, and the list doesn't say "subjectively easy for highly competent characters", it just says "easy". Part of what distinguishes a highly-skilled character is that they're capable of succeeding even against very difficult tasks.

And the list also doesn't say "easy compared to other difficult things".

The question here needs to be "should a task with a meaningful chance of failure (whatever "meaningful" means here) for the average person in this setting ever be called "easy""?

[Aequos]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that if you read the skill DC descriptions as "for someone in the party to pass", they make a lot more sense.

Assuming a 4 man party at level 1, with skill modifiers +5, +2, +0, -1 for any given skill (reflecting 1 party member with proficiency + stat, 1 party member with proficiency or stat, one party member with neither, and one party member with the stat dumped on the standard array):

DC			5	10	15	20	25	30	
Modifier
5		        1	0.8	0.55	0.3	0.05	0
2		        0.9	0.65	0.4	0.15	0	0
0		        0.8	0.55	0.3	0.05	0	0
-1		        0.75	0.5	0.25	0	0	0

Any succeed		1	0.98425	0.85825	0.43475	0.05	0
All Succeed		0.54	0.143	0.0165	0	0	0

Read the percentages in the table above as 1 = 100%, 0.95 = 95%, etc.

Spoiler: How I derived the stats

Show

Percent chance for a character with a given modifier to pass a check was determined by CLAMP(20 - (MODIFIER + 1)/20, 0, 1)
Percent chance for any character to succeed was determined by 1 - (Chance of every character failing), while the chance of a character failing was determined by 1 - (Chance of user passing). The chance of every character failing was determined by multiplying the chance of each character failing together.
Percent chance for all characters to succeed was determined by multiplying the percent chance of each individual user to succeed together.

I would have done "group average passes DC" as well, but I honestly was unsure of the code to do so. My suspicion would be that it would lie someplace between the two in probability.

I would argue that a 98% chance for at least one member of the party to pass a check is "Easy", an 86% chance for at least one member to pass a check is "Medium", and a 43% chance for at least one member to pass a check is "Hard".

Many checks that are encountered by a party are set at the "1 pass allows the party to proceed" level; identifying wounds on a body, paddling a boat through rapids, noticing a secret passage, etc. are all things that benefit the party fully as long as at least one person passes.

Spoiler: Pure speculation

Show

I suspect that most checks in the game were intended to be done by anyone, which is why the number distribution falls out the way it does.

I'd also guess that based on how Thieves' Tools works, it was originally intended that certain types of checks would be gated by having proficiency in the required tools for them. If you wanted to make a Charisma (Deception) or Dexterity (Deception) check to impersonate documents in a very early playtest, I'd guess that it would probably limit trying the ability check to someone who was proficient in Forger's tools. I suspect that when they got to simplifying the design later in the process, they removed most of this, and migrated Thieves' Tools to its own weird place as a semi-skill.

Finally, I'd guess that the Ability Check DCs are meant to be almost entirely gamist (as opposed to realist). I do a fair amount of rock climbing, so could probably identify with some degree of accuracy what an "Easy" versus a "Hard" rock face would look like. However, I have almost no talents at survival type tasks. If you assume that the system is gamist, I can say something like: "The wall has very shallow divots, thinly spaced with few handholds. It looks hard to climb." for a Strength (Athletics) check, and "It would be hard to set a camp up without being spotted." for a Wisdom (Survival) check, without saying something obviously stupid and immersion breaking for my players (at least 1 of whom actively does Search and Rescue).

[AdAstra]

Of course I'm looking at it objectively, the rules need to be objective across all characters, and the list doesn't say "subjectively easy for highly competent characters", it just says "easy". Part of what distinguishes a highly-skilled character is that they're capable of succeeding even against very difficult tasks.

And the list also doesn't say "easy compared to other difficult things".

The question here needs to be "should a task with a meaningful chance of failure (whatever "meaningful" means here) for the average person in this setting ever be called "easy""?

That first one has nothing to do with what I said. I did not say it was “easy for highly competent characters”, I said it was an easy challenge. Things that are challenging and risky (ie things that you’d use a check for) are by nature not mundane tasks. They’re a step above that by nature.

I mean there are only so many words for difficult, and most don’t really “rank” against each other in a consistent manner. Let’s say that you decided to start the DC scale at “difficult”, for a DC 5. What would you fill in for the next five tiers?

And... that lasted about an hour. Welp, only human.

[Max_Killjoy]

That first one has nothing to do with what I said. I did not say it was “easy for highly competent characters”, I said it was an easy challenge. Things that are challenging and risky (ie things that you’d use a check for) are by nature not mundane tasks. They’re a step above that by nature.

I mean there are only so many words for difficult, and most don’t really “rank” against each other in a consistent manner. Let’s say that you decided to start the DC scale at “difficult”, for a DC 5. What would you fill in for the next five tiers?

And... that lasted about an hour. Welp, only human.

"An easy challenge" is then an oxymoron.

If the odds are 50/50 or worse, it's simply not an easy thing, regardless of whatever word you stick after "easy".

[Mongobear]

I'm going to start a separate thread where those of us who want examples and tables can discuss that topic without getting lost in conversation.

Check back in a bit for it.

[EggKookoo]

Even Monty and Kelly gave up and just created their own DC list.

[AdAstra]

"An easy challenge" is then an oxymoron.

If the odds are 50/50 or worse, it's simply not an easy thing, regardless of whatever word you stick after "easy".

Easy challenges are a thing. Easy is relative.

And again, my earlier question still stands. How would you arrange the DC scale? I could see DC 10 representing medium, in fact that was my first thought when actually reading the book. Then I realized that the upper end of the table starts sounding a little silly if you start with that. I guess you could crib Halo’s difficulty scale once you got past Hard, with Heroic, Legendary, and Mythic (though mythic originated from the fans I think) difficulties, but then you start getting into less abstract definitions of difficulty. What does it mean in ana abstract sense to be Legendary compared to Heroic? Hard and Very Hard don’t really have the same issue. One’s a more extreme version of the other.

[Mongobear]

Thread is up for this.

[ad_hoc]

Easy challenges are a thing. Easy is relative.

And again, my earlier question still stands. How would you arrange the DC scale? I could see DC 10 representing medium, in fact that was my first thought when actually reading the book. Then I realized that the upper end of the table starts sounding a little silly if you start with that. I guess you could crib Halo’s difficulty scale once you got past Hard, with Heroic, Legendary, and Mythic (though mythic originated from the fans I think) difficulties, but then you start getting into less abstract definitions of difficulty. What does it mean in ana abstract sense to be Legendary compared to Heroic? Hard and Very Hard don’t really have the same issue. One’s a more extreme version of the other.

I like Medium for DC 15.

I think that is a good place for the majority of Ability Checks to be.

Every character is expected to be able to attempt anything (that isn't tool related). A DC 15 allows any character to succeed. While not being a pushover for characters with starting aptitude.

If DC 10 were the 'medium' standard then medium challenges would not be very exciting for characters with aptitude. At level 5 they can have a +7, so only failing on 1-2.

In other words, a game where most challenges are DC 10 would be easy. Sounds like a good description to me.

DC 20 too, is too high for 'medium'. Characters without aptitude will barely have a chance to succeed. Those who are supposed to shine will still have a hard time doing them. A game where the typical DC is 20 for Ability Checks would be 'hard'.

[AdAstra]

I like Medium for DC 15.

I think that is a good place for the majority of Ability Checks to be.

Every character is expected to be able to attempt anything (that isn't tool related). A DC 15 allows any character to succeed. While not being a pushover for characters with starting aptitude.

If DC 10 were the 'medium' standard then medium challenges would not be very exciting for characters with aptitude. At level 5 they can have a +7, so only failing on 1-2.

In other words, a game where most challenges are DC 10 would be easy. Sounds like a good description to me.

DC 20 too, is too high for 'medium'. Characters without aptitude will barely have a chance to succeed. Those who are supposed to shine will still have a hard time doing them. A game where the typical DC is 20 for Ability Checks would be 'hard'.

Yeah that's a good line of thinking.

[Pex]

Why don't we have a chart describing what each amount of damage is?

1pt: A minor glancing blow.
2pts: A stronger hit, perhaps scraping the skin.
3pts: A hit that causes a bruise, maybe some surface bleeding.

And so on?

We don't because that would be silly. Even if they broke it into 10pt chunks, or by die type, or something. We play the game just fine somehow understanding that when I roll and deal 10pts of damage, that means something to the character. We even know intuitively to kind of scale it based on their max hp (10pts off a 12 hp creature is more severe than 10pt off a 100 hp creature). Why is it okay to play at the numbers for 90% of the game but not for skills?

Put into an example, if I create two hobgoblins for you to fight, and I roll each one's hit points independently instead of just giving them both the average from the MM, do I need to provide an explanation to you why their hp are different? I mean I might with some flavor (one looks bulkier, tougher, etc.) but that's in response to me giving him more hp. If another DM always goes with just using the MM average, so you know that you can kill the thing with X amount of damage in his campaign but can't predict how much damage you need to deal it in my campaign, did we just shift into the same kind of problem you've been citing with DCs?

People have been arguing what hit points represent for ages, but that's irrelevant here. The game rules are clear. When you take 3 damage you subtract 3 from your hit points. If your hit points are greater than 0 you can act normally. Otherwise you drop unconscious and deal with the consequences of having 0 or less hit points. When it comes to combat 5E is quite defined on how it works. The DM does not have to make anything up. He can add flavor text if he wants for a descriptive encounter, but the game math is clear and consistent. Doesn't matter if he thinks 3 points of damage is a scratch or a mortal wound, everyone understands what it means and how it works to take 3 damage regardless of who is DM that day.

[Great Dragon]

{snip}

That's closer to the generally used meanings for those words.

Well, it's at least progress. Thanks for replying to me.

I can't help but think of all the things that AD&D and even 3x had charts for.
And that people still argued over, endlessly.

Now, the Armor into AC example comes to mind.
in 3x D&D - What, exactly, does AC 50+ look like?
Let me see if I can recall all the things that could apply to AC for 3x D&D

Armor (+5/+10 magic). Shield (+5/+10 magic). Dexterity. Natural Armor. Deflection. Dodge. Insight. Luck. Circumstance. Divine/Profane.

I can get some examples from various Video games for a clue, but for me - it tends to cap out after around AC 30.
(Golden) Full Plate Mail with Visored Helm that has a (Silver) glow around it with a Shield that glows a different color.

Variations of color or small changes to Armor appearance don't really convey how the 50th Level Knight is better protected than the 25th level version of themselves. (A poke at Level-based AC)

[Ignimortis]

in 3x D&D - What, exactly, does AC 50+ look like?

Impossibly fluid movement. Parries so fine you could swear the target predicts your moves ten actions ahead. Skin harder than steel. Scales thicker than a grown man's arm. Etc, etc.