What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Kane0]

I want them tailored for specific scenarios/encounters, which is what modules are. If you or someone else then wants to use those to extrapolate some kind of general case, have at it.

There was a thread or two a ways back that catalogued all the check DCs found in adventures (up until that point), but my google-fu has proven weak and I can't find it. Anyone else got better luck?

[Amnestic]

There was a thread or two a ways back that catalogued all the check DCs found in adventures (up until that point), but my google-fu has proven weak and I can't find it. Anyone else got better luck?

I found this one which seems to be what you might be talking about? From 2020.

...unfortunately the google docs spreadsheet in the first post with all the info on it appears to have been deleted. :(

If there is another/more recent one I also wasn't able to find it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I do like the idea of tiers for skill proficiency (beyond just proficiency bonus, which just allows the dumb brute at any level to have as much luck in knowing something as everyone else).

No, it doesn't do that. There is an opportunity cost for each skill proficiency chosen. If the dumb brute has a low INT score there is a negative modifier to a roll, should a roll be called for.
Your proposed "let the die roll drive this" model at the end of that post is 180 out from the 5e skill system's intent.

The average green grocer would never have a chance, (and thus no dice are rolled), to convince a strange Knight to give them their sword. A PC does have a chance

Not necessarily. Depends on the situation. The dice don't drive the game. If in the situation it makes no sense for the knight to hand over his sword there is no roll.

The weakness of this is what makes a task DC 10, DC 15, DC 20?

Why did you leave out the numbers 13, 11 and 18?

However, if you still leave it to DM decides/Make it up, then we're no better off because what one DM says is DC 15 another will say DC 20

Depends on the situation. You can further modify that by assigning situational advantage or disadvantage, see Chapter 1 and Chapter 7 of the PHB. I do this with considerable frequency.

and we're back to my character can only do things based on who is DM that day.

No. The d20 is swingy enough that you can succeed or fail on any given check. (Also, thanks for your example on the Dragon Heist with two different groups.

I knew I would get to my infamous rant eventually.

There is no tree.

5e's Tactical complexity is more about the spacing, initiative, the variance between spell attacks and weapon attacks in terms of adding ability score modifiers to damage, and things like the line of sight rules that come into play once combat starts. Resolving how to hit and roll for damage is not very different from the Ability Check, mechanic.

There is no crit for an ability check, nor for a saving throw. I have found that I use partial or 3/4 cover assessments in battles which go through multiple areas or have terrain/furniture/crates in warehouses/boulders/trees/columns etc. It may be my original wargame roots that inform this, but terrain matters in most of the battles I DM in 5e.

The Rogue class is still tied a bit too much thematically with the old AD&D Thief, for my taste, sometimes. Why does a debuff have to be an attack, for example, is a design question I would ask myself, if I was on the WotC design staff.

Could it not be a bonus action? Could it be a reaction?

Instead static Tumble DCs, turned into a Character Optimization challenge, that actively killed any potential excitement from a Tumble check, because people only took enough points to achieve the auto-success threshold.

Well played.

Here we go again.

There is no tree.

[Theodoxus]

No, it doesn't do that. There is an opportunity cost for each skill proficiency chosen. If the dumb brute has a low INT score there is a negative modifier to a roll, should a roll be called for.

The luck I was speaking of, is the d20 roll. Everyone has the same die regardless of proficiency. A guy with +9 to an ability check can roll a 2. A guy with a -3 to an ability check can roll a 19... dumb brute luckily overheard (and remembered) the location to the mcguffin that the brilliant wizard couldn't research out of a wet paper sack.

Your proposed "let the die roll drive this" model at the end of that post is 180 out from the 5e skill system's intent.

Exactly. It'd be silly to reinvent a skill system that ended up in the original place... but I'll mark you down as 'not interested' :)

Not necessarily. Depends on the situation. The dice don't drive the game. If in the situation it makes no sense for the knight to hand over his sword there is no roll.

Doesn't stop the player from trying though... :)

No. The d20 is swingy enough that you can succeed or fail on any given check.

Why is it good here, but not good for the dumb brute?

There is no crit for an ability check, nor for a saving throw.

At my table, apparently at your table, this is true. But if podcasts are representative of the way folks around the world play, I'd guess at least a third of tables play "BG3 Style", where a nat 20 rules every roll. I get it, either from coming from older systems, or just the joy of rolling that 20 - but there's a reason people feel the need to call out 'Nat 20!' or 'Modified/Dirty 20!' regardless of what the roll is.

[Darth Credence]

So you're not even opposed to having DC examples, you just don't want them organized?

There are examples, and they are organized. DMG: Running the Game.

• Exploration has examples for exploring - using survival to track someone, with a list of DCs based on the ground type, and modifiers based on time or leaving a trail.
• Social has examples for social interactions - DCs for how hostile, friendly, and neutral people react, with the implication that there are varying degrees of success and failure based on how well one rolls.
• Chase has examples for chasing - when to give advantage or disadvantage, as well as typical DCs for things one might encounter during a chase.

Those sections contain at least one example for every ability score that has a skill associated with it. They contain examples of bonuses and penalties that can be applied. They contain examples of how to look at it from a partial success or failure standpoint. There are examples of when to call for a new check. All in the part of the Dungeon Master's Guide that a DM should read to know how to run the game.

If you do not like how they are organized, that's fine - I wouldn't have organized them like that, but I see why they did it that way and in that section. But a whole bunch of people keep claiming that there is no guidance on how to use skill checks when there clearly is.

[KorvinStarmast]

The luck I was speaking of, is the d20 roll. Everyone has the same die regardless of proficiency. A guy with +9 to an ability check can roll a 2. A guy with a -3 to an ability check can roll a 19... dumb brute luckily overheard (and remembered) the location to the mcguffin

This is a good thing. Every one gets a chance to contribute.

Exactly. It'd be silly to reinvent a skill system that ended up in the original place... but I'll mark you down as 'not interested' :)

Indeed.

At my table, apparently at your table, this is true. But if podcasts are representative of the way folks around the world play, I'd guess at least a third of tables play "BG3 Style", where a nat 20 rules every roll.

BG3 isn't a TTRPG. And I'll stop right there. (I am also glad that it was a great success - the beta was buggy enough that I got frustrated and stopped. One of these days I'll get the release version and enjoy it from start to finish).

[Blatant Beast]

(Here we go again indeed...)

If you truly see no difference between those examples and how ability checks are resolved, then you're never going to understand why the designers did what they did, and you're probably better off with a third-party skill system if not a different game.

While I find the response, a bit on the harsh side, I have to admit I agree with it. There is a huge difference about assigning the abstraction known as a "longsword" a certain damage die, compared to the system stating that swinging on a chandelier is always a DC 15.

What is worrying is Pex is seemingly not saying that he want to make set DCs for set actions in their campaign, but rather they want DMs everywhere to obey their desired schemata. Hard pass on that notion.

Not necessarily. Depends on the situation. The dice don't drive the game. If in the situation it makes no sense for the knight to hand over his sword there is no roll.

You overlooked the crucial sentence above that, that referenced Destiny. PCs have always had a chance to survive impossible events, and do seemingly impossible things, even if those chances are slim. That is a principle Gary Gygax himself describes with some gusto in a number of places. A Charitable Knight might give someone the clothes off their body, if the mood strikes them. Rather than a DM trying to divine all the possible mental states the knight could have, pick a DC and let the dice determine it.

That is one of the major reasons for rolling through out the history of the game, in my opinion. (Of course some things can be ruled impossible by a DM).

There is no crit for an ability check, nor for a saving throw. I have found that I use partial or 3/4 cover assessments in battles which go through multiple areas or have terrain/furniture/crates in warehouses/boulders/trees/columns etc. It may be my original wargame roots that inform this, but terrain matters in most of the battles I DM in 5e.

Terrain matters for me as well, probably for the same reason. In regards to Critical Hits, AD&D did not technically have Critical Hits for combat. It was a widespread houserule, that was canonized. One thing I have noticed is the people I have played with commonly assume that a 1 is always a failure, and a 20 is always a success even outside of combat, despite that not be the 5e way.

This heuristic is applied with such frequency that as a DM, I have stopped correcting it. As a matter of gameplay, a 5% chance to either succeed or fail regardless of the task, (presuming a DM allows a die roll, of course), is something that is appealing, it would seem

Even with all that stated, an attack roll is not that different from an ability check. Yes, there may be some extra considerations, like a critical hit, but it still boils down to an ability check + some extra steps.

[Snowbluff]

Despite, as I've pointed out a ton of times, the relative tight ship that the combat rules are (and character creation for that matter). Turns are neatly defined, attack rolls, spells, movement on a grid, hit points, AC, everything; like it's right there. Plenty of room for creativity, tons of tactical play, but rules are neatly defined and everyone knows (well, anyone who wants to know) exactly how what their options are, how things interact, the whole nine yards.

But bringing even a fraction of this rigor to ability checks, and the game just loses something essential about it. Totally collapses like a bad souffle. IMO, if ability checks really are supposed to be the "make it up, live your best life" part of the game, why do they even have numbers? Just have proficiencies and the Rule of Cool.

Like I know we decided to agree to disagree about ability check rigor upthread, but I'm just mystified about this position. I really don't get it lol.

I think the largest part of this is that the game isn't necessarily one setting where everything is handled identically. If you have a table, you are working with an individual, the DM, who is crafting a game world with the players. The idea of being difficult is a subjective one, and everyone is going to have a different idea on how to handle it. Invariably, when you take a real task and assign a DC to it, you will have people who are good at climbing trees tell you that it's too high because climbing a tree is beneath trivial, or people saying that a Formalist interpretation of those events is inappropriate, or that a Doylist reasoning is never needed only events that follow a Wattsonian one should be allowed.


Hell, people are just regularly not handling what abstractions that game does give you solid numbers for. There are endless debates about whether an AC number is too high or how the hand crossbow (a device that could kill you in real life) should do no damage. Now, I think there should be numbers. I think that inviting that discussion into something as subjective as a narrative and then having the designers come down on people by telling them how they are talking to each other in game is somehow wrong by establishing a singular narrative baseline would be very destructive to the hobby as a whole.The d20 is a device for resolving a conflict with a random element. Removing it would mean you would just have people saying exactly something would go with little room for surprise. But how people use it should be up to the people who are playing that game.

I think the question as to why combat gets more structure is a really good one. If I were to pin it down, I think firstly because how combat is put together has a more common baseline as to how it should go. Most people have an idea of a fantasy battle like Lord of the Rings should go, just simply due to pop culture osmosis.

Secondly, while DnD has this swords and sorcerery image of combat, the narrative around it has always be very different between tables, and other editions have had problems with extending a rigid structure onto social systems. You could almost say that it's not because this dual nature of the game works well, but because doing it otherwise was demonstrably untenable.

Third, I just think it's more fun this way. Talking to someone is simply something I consider more freeform and flexible. Fluff is mutable, as people are wont to say. Stabbing someone has X effect. What makes a wizard mechanically different from a bard is this. But the bard doesn't have to be a meme and a wizard doesn't have to live in a library. Optimizing for combat and building a character's narrative are both interesting aspects of the game that don't need to tread on eachother.

[Theodoxus]

There is a huge difference about assigning the abstraction known as a "longsword" a certain damage die, compared to the system stating that swinging on a chandelier is always a DC 15.

Why? What makes the abstract that is "longsword" always and forever, without fail, a d8? The system makes no mention of swinging on a chandelier. Therefore, my conclusion to your statement is that this "huge difference" is strictly the amount of ink given between them. Appeal to Authority isn't a strong argument. Or, at least, using it to naysay someone else's desire for additional codification is bad form.

What is worrying is Pex is seemingly not saying that he want to make set DCs for set actions in their campaign, but rather they want DMs everywhere to obey their desired schemata. Hard pass on that notion.

And yet, you're apparently perfectly ok with the desired schemata already printed. A longsword is d8. Platemail is AC18. A wolf's knockdown is DC11... I'm sure you follow Psyren's advice that a specific instance might be altered; a specific longsword might be d8+1; a specific platemail is AC17; a specific wolf has a DC14. But in general, codified schemata are relatively static. I get it, to play otherwise is flirting with chaos at best and disaster at worst. But to bemoan someone who'd like added structure because "they want DMs everywhere to obey their desired schemata" looks really bad when you're literally already doing it with combat...

[KorvinStarmast]

Rather than a DM trying to divine all the possible mental states the knight could have, pick a DC and let the dice determine it. That is one of the major reasons for rolling through out the history of the game, in my opinion. (Of course some things can be ruled impossible by a DM).

Yes.

In regards to Critical Hits, AD&D did not technically have Critical Hits for combat. It was a widespread houserule, that was canonized. One thing I have noticed is the people I have played with commonly assume that a 1 is always a failure, and a 20 is always a success even outside of combat, despite that not be the 5e way.

And IIRC it was formalized in 3.x.
That is where that comes from, I think. We had a variety of Critical Hit articles in dragon magazine that people tried out in AD&D days. We also worked with the hit by location options (Blackmoor being one of the first ones) to include the ones for arial combat in the Wilderness and Underworld Adventures (third brown book).

All in all it could be quite clunky.

This heuristic is applied with such frequency that as a DM, I have stopped correcting it.

I choose not to do that. I make the correction on the spot. Have been since we started playing this edition. It is one of the changes that I appreciate. (I could also live with the crit hit being removed).

Even with all that stated, an attack roll is not that different from an ability check. Yes, there may be some extra considerations, like a critical hit, but it still boils down to an ability check + some extra steps.

It's the d20 system, go figure.

[Psyren]

At my table, apparently at your table, this is true. But if podcasts are representative of the way folks around the world play, I'd guess at least a third of tables play "BG3 Style", where a nat 20 rules every roll. I get it, either from coming from older systems, or just the joy of rolling that 20 - but there's a reason people feel the need to call out 'Nat 20!' or 'Modified/Dirty 20!' regardless of what the roll is.

Of course a natural 20 succeeds for most people. If not even a natural 20 can succeed, why the heck are you calling for a roll in the first place?

While I find the response, a bit on the harsh side, I have to admit I agree with it. There is a huge difference about assigning the abstraction known as a "longsword" a certain damage die, compared to the system stating that swinging on a chandelier is always a DC 15.

My intent wasn't to be harsh, I'm genuinely offering a practical suggestion. WotC won't (and imo shouldn't) print a bunch of DCs nor codify things like "DC of a typical tree", so this is fertile ground for third parties to deliver something that a vocal contingent of the playerbase seem to want, and get fairly compensated for doing so. Similar to the folks who want a ToB-style universal maneuver system in 5e.

What is worrying is Pex is seemingly not saying that he want to make set DCs for set actions in their campaign, but rather they want DMs everywhere to obey their desired schemata. Hard pass on that notion.

Yep.

You overlooked the crucial sentence above that, that referenced Destiny. PCs have always had a chance to survive impossible events, and do seemingly impossible things, even if those chances are slim. That is a principle Gary Gygax himself describes with some gusto in a number of places. A Charitable Knight might give someone the clothes off their body, if the mood strikes them. Rather than a DM trying to divine all the possible mental states the knight could have, pick a DC and let the dice determine it.

That is one of the major reasons for rolling through out the history of the game, in my opinion. (Of course some things can be ruled impossible by a DM).

You inserted "the DM can rule some things impossible" almost as an afterthought, but that's actually the key point. No, the party can't simply convince the king to disown his children and make them his sole heirs with a Persuasion check, nor can they jump from his courtyard to the moon's surface with an Athletics check. Walking up to a knight and having him hand over his sword to a bunch of eloquent strangers would/should fit this as well.

Magic can come into play to bridge some of these gaps - if you Dominate the king or that knight, you can get them to do a number of things they wouldn't otherwise do even with a stupendous check. But magic has drawbacks, limitations, and counterplay of its own.

[Snowbluff]

Of course a natural 20 succeeds for most people. If not even a natural 20 can succeed, why the heck are you calling for a roll in the first place?

Devil's Advocate, but there is probably a separate discussion to be had in the utility of kayfabe in DMing. Sometimes I let people roll dice even when it won't matter either way. Of course, this causes its own problem with the infamous "Snobly Dice"* call my bluff and the person rolls a nat 20, but that does provide me with interesting improvisational opportunities. Making up a partial success whenever this happens is probably my advice for when this turns out wrong.



* My luck is really bad. Like "rolling nat 1 four times in a row" bad.

[Pex]

While I find the response, a bit on the harsh side, I have to admit I agree with it. There is a huge difference about assigning the abstraction known as a "longsword" a certain damage die, compared to the system stating that swinging on a chandelier is always a DC 15.

What is worrying is Pex is seemingly not saying that he want to make set DCs for set actions in their campaign, but rather they want DMs everywhere to obey their desired schemata. Hard pass on that notion.

That is why rogues have a poor reputation and other skill use problems. Without that universal guidance you have DMs who make DCs too high or some tasks impossible. Those DMs aren't playing the game wrong. They just disagree on the difficulty of a task with rogue players who are having a grand old time doing stuff because their DMs use lower DCs or allow things the frustrated players' DM won't. I stand by my point. The game does not fall apart into the unplayable mess if there was a standardize rule that climbing a tree is DC 10 just like there's a standardized rule a long sword does 1d8 damage. The DM's job is to decide if the tree exists. The player's job is to decide if he wants to climb it. The rules' job is to explain how that climbing works.

[Psyren]

Sometimes I let people roll dice even when it won't matter either way.

If you really see value in kayfabe via unnecessary rolls, fine, it's your table. But DMG 237 explicitly tells you NOT to do that. So you're already deviating from designer intent and therefore it's entirely on you at that point.

Without that universal guidance you have DMs who make DCs too high or some tasks impossible. Those DMs aren't playing the game wrong.

If the rogue player feels like they can't do anything and therefore isn't having fun, and the DM refuses to do anything to fix that problem, then they are absolutely playing the game wrong. I stand by my point too.

[Darth Credence]

Why? What makes the abstract that is "longsword" always and forever, without fail, a d8? The system makes no mention of swinging on a chandelier. Therefore, my conclusion to your statement is that this "huge difference" is strictly the amount of ink given between them. Appeal to Authority isn't a strong argument. Or, at least, using it to naysay someone else's desire for additional codification is bad form.

Amount of variation, and how often things are used. Almost every campaign uses combat - almost no two campaigns will use the same skill checks.

A longsword has a relatively narrow definition, while a chandelier is much more wide open as to what counts as a chandelier. A longsword weighs 3 pounds and is of a size that will allow the wielder to use it with one or two hands effectively. While this leaves some room for customization, where you can describe it in different ways, it still has the same weight and it will be in a length that allows for that type of wielding. If, instead, your "longsword" is actually only 2 pounds, and not really big enough to wield with two hands, it's a shortsword and does less damage. If it's really 6 pounds and too massive to wield with one hand, then it's a greatsword and does more. If you went broader, and just compared "swords" with "chandeliers" - much closer in what the category covers, although chandelier is still a broader term - then you would find that swords actually do not always do the same thing. One must specify based on the characteristics of the sword at hand.

For the chandelier, the game could define one as a large ceiling decoration that weighs 25 pounds and hangs on a 3-foot chain. Then, one could always say that a "chandelier" is the same height, so leaping onto it and swinging will be the same DC. Then all that would matter would be bonuses, like someone's dexterity and skill, in the same manner that someone attacking with a longsword always does the same damage, with adjustments for abilities and skill. But that would be a fairly boring world, in the same way that only having one type of sword would be fairly boring. So they could make a wide chandelier, and define it as huge with a 4' chain, and a tall chandelier as large with a 1' chain but more tiers, and a small chandelier which is only medium and has a 3' chain. And they could define what the DC would be for each of those.

But I have to ask whether that is actually a good use of anyone's time? If one is a DM, and wants to place a chandelier in the tavern they are creating, is it useful to them to have a list of chandeliers of various sizes, and they can call that a large chandelier and all of the players can instantly know based on it being called a large chandelier that it is something they can swing on and if they do it is a DC15 to use it to swing and get an extra 10' of movement that turn?

I would submit that yes, that can be very useful for a given DM, although not nearly as useful for a generic DM. For a DM that does many things in taverns and banquet halls, this might come up often enough that it will save a lot of angst and everyone knows things are as codified as any other part of combat. Meanwhile, for the DM that does only wilderness adventures, the chandelier definition is just taking up space. Meanwhile, that DM would be much better off with defined trees - different trees can be defined to help quantify DCs for climbing them if they desire. This could be "low branch trees - DC5", "smooth bark - DC10", perhaps with modifiers like "large diameter - +5" or something. And then that is all taken care of, but offered the city or dungeon campaigns little help.

And there are so, so many different things that can be done with skills, the design space to start to define everything become huge. Where do you draw the line at codifying chandeliers? Are the ones I mentioned already enough? What about for the grand foyer of the palace, with 50' high ceilings and a chandelier that is 30' across and hangs 20' off the ground? Should that chandelier be defined in the books, or should a DM take care of that on their own? What about the equivalent of a bare lightbulb hanging from a cord in a shed? Is that a "chandelier", and does it need a space in the table? Just how many different examples of a chandelier are going to be needed to make sure that anyone making a chandelier a part of their game has a defined DC ready to go that fits their vision?

And not everything is defined for combat issues, either, just the basics. I needed a bolt launcher for some ogres to use - a crossbow for a giant. There wasn't anything, and a giant wouldn't just use a regular one, so I had to make it and had to assign a damage die that fits. I thought that slings were not up to what a real sling could do, so I created elven slings to go along with my desert elves that are much larger than a standard sling and have a greater range and damage if one is trained in it specifically. Or, how about a katana? That has a mystical place for a lot of people, and so may players think a katana should be its own thing with its own properties (as the best sword ever, most of the time). But we don't get a katana, it's just a longsword. And I've seen enough people complain about that to realize that a drawback to defining everything is when people think you haven't gotten granular enough for their particular thing.

So to sum up, there is a major difference, and while it could be defined as the amount of ink spent, I think that is too reductive. A lot of ink (or pixels) are used for combat, and while it defines combat to an acceptable degree for most, it still cannot account for everything and DMs often make changes to those standardized things (not all DMs, to be sure, but any DM who has home brewed a combat item has done so). Not nearly as much has been used to define skills, but the reasons for that are, IMO, good ones. The amount of variation in skill scenarios absolutely overwhelms combat - a combat with cool variation is usually about adding skills to the combat rather than adding more variation to the combat itself, IME. A narrow bridge over a lava flow separating the ritual you are trying to stop from the entrance where guards are stationed doesn't (and shouldn't) change what damage your longsword does, it just means you can use skills to do things in the room to interact with the environment. (To be sure, some things can spice up combat that aren't skills, like shoving someone into the lava in this case, but a lot of those get to improvised damage where the DM is making a call just like a skill check, and there are just a few examples of how to decide that, much like skills.) If WotC were to attempt to quantify skills nearly as much as combat, there would be books worth of skill tables that would mostly not apply for anyone who buys the book. There would be a few that work really well for any given DM, because they use that type of thing often, but a lot would see the majority of the book as a waste and complain about how much it costs. Instead, they have basic guidelines for how to set DCs in the running the game chapter, and let everyone loose to do what works for their campaign.

[Xervous]

If the rogue player feels like they can't do anything and therefore isn't having fun, and the DM refuses to do anything to fix that problem, then they are absolutely playing the game wrong. I stand by my point too.

The big question this raises is what appropriate fixes are to the problem. Would pointing the rogue towards achievable tasks be a solution? What limits are there to the scope of the proffered alternative tasks that keep the GM comfortably in the realm of good faith? In other words, how low can the GM set the potency of skills in a fashion that lets the players know where the intended play space is without the GM ‘doing it wrong’ in a vacuum?

[Snowbluff]

If you really see value in kayfabe via unnecessary rolls, fine, it's your table. But DMG 237 explicitly tells you NOT to do that. So you're already deviating from designer intent and therefore it's entirely on you at that point.

This is entirely correct. Like I said, I am frequently lifted on my on petard.

If the rogue player feels like they can't do anything and therefore isn't having fun, and the DM refuses to do anything to fix that problem, then they are absolutely playing the game wrong. I stand by my point too.

Furthermore, the rules do call out the highest DC as "Nearly Impossible." Having something be impossible is part of the game to begin with. I think having a hard limit on doing the impossible in your setting is useful. I wouldn't remove a tool purely on the basis that people choose to misuse it.

[KorvinStarmast]

The game does not fall apart into the unplayable mess if there was a standardize rule that climbing a tree is DC 10 just like there's a standardized rule a long sword does 1d8 damage.

One thing is not the same as the other.

Each lock a rogue needs to pick has its own DC, so there is no reason for you to assert that each tree doesn't have its own unique DC.

There is more than one kind of lock, there is more than one kind of tree.

As but one example, there's a lock in Sunless Citadel adventure that has something like a DC 25 to pick it and that's a first level adventure.
It's a lot easier to succeed if your party/team has someone casting guidance, and or bardic inspiration, but even a standard rogue with 16 Dex and expertise in thieves tools has a chance to succeed, and a larger chance to fail. That rogue can roll up to a 27 before any magic is considered.

But more importantly, as Morpheus once again intones:
There is no tree.

[Psyren]

The big question this raises is what appropriate fixes are to the problem. Would pointing the rogue towards achievable tasks be a solution? What limits are there to the scope of the proffered alternative tasks that keep the GM comfortably in the realm of good faith? In other words, how low can the GM set the potency of skills in a fashion that lets the players know where the intended play space is without the GM ‘doing it wrong’ in a vacuum?

I truly don't understand what's complicated about this. If the players aren't having fun and they communicate that they're not having fun - the DM should have a conversation with them, then change something and see if that fixes it. If that doesn't work, the DM should change something else and try again, or in the extreme, they should consider stepping down to let someone else try DMing. But if the DM knows the players aren't having fun and refuses to change anything, the DM is the problem. It's that simple.

[Xervous]

I truly don't understand what's complicated about this. If the players aren't having fun and they communicate that they're not having fun - the DM should have a conversation with them, then change something and see if that fixes it. If that doesn't work, the DM should change something else and try again, or in the extreme, they should consider stepping down to let someone else try DMing. But if the DM knows the players aren't having fun and refuses to change anything, the DM is the problem. It's that simple.

To clarify, it is just the rogue who was not having fun due to a misalignment of the player’s expectations with the GM’s handling of the skill system. Am I to read this as “unless the GM changes things to make sure all players are having fun, the GM is the problem”? Because that completely excuses the rogue having unreasonable expectations unless of course we look at the option of making the rogue an ex-player to satisfy the statement.

I know there isn’t a line that can be pointed to for determining if the rogue or the GM is being the problem when it comes to expectations for skills. But the vague boundary can at least be probed beyond placing the entire burden of the matter on the GM.

[Psyren]

To clarify, it is just the rogue who was not having fun due to a misalignment of the player’s expectations with the GM’s handling of the skill system. Am I to read this as “unless the GM changes things to make sure all players are having fun, the GM is the problem”? Because that completely excuses the rogue having unreasonable expectations unless of course we look at the option of making the rogue an ex-player to satisfy the statement.

If it's truly just the rogue then clearly removing the rogue (or the player opting to remove themselves) from that table is an option, albeit one that shouldn't be the first resort. However, to remind you of two things:

(a) the post from Pex I was responding to when you inserted yourself said frustrated players' (plural);
(b) if the fun-disconnect is coming from ability checks being perpetually/unreasonably hard, I can't imagine how that would affect only one player at the table - especially when that one player has Expertise and the most proficiencies right from level 1 - unless literally no one else is rolling them.

I know there isn’t a line that can be pointed to for determining if the rogue or the GM is being the problem when it comes to expectations for skills. But the vague boundary can at least be probed beyond placing the entire burden of the matter on the GM.

The problem with this is that there isn't actually any probing happening. To again refer to the post I was responding to, Pex said the following:

That is why rogues have a poor reputation and other skill use problems. Without that universal guidance you have DMs who make DCs too high or some tasks impossible. Those DMs aren't playing the game wrong. They just disagree on the difficulty of a task with rogue players who are having a grand old time doing stuff because their DMs use lower DCs or allow things the frustrated players' DM won't.

"Frustrated players" is what should prompt the probe, and find out why and what needs to change regarding task difficulty. It's not an end-state - certainly not a viable one if the campaign is expected to survive, let alone succeed.

[Blatant Beast]

My intent wasn't to be harsh, I'm genuinely offering a practical suggestion. WotC won't (and imo shouldn't) print a bunch of DCs nor codify things like "DC of a typical tree", so this is fertile ground for third parties to deliver something that a vocal contingent of the playerbase seem to want, and get fairly compensated for doing so.

Thanks for the clarification.

You inserted "the DM can rule some things impossible" almost as an afterthought, but that's actually the key point.

Writing that part out, is an afterthought, because normally when having a D&D discussion, that is a common point of agreement, that does not need to be spelled out, lest someone comment on it.

The key takeaway, is as a DM, sometimes I do not know what the motivation of a particular NPC is, especially if I am creating on the fly. One technique I will use to spur creativity, is letting the dice decide. In the example of the knight, I might let the PCs roll, and then after seeing the result, try to create a plausible personality that would support the result.

If the roll is a failure, there is no need to think of anything other than a gruff "p*ss off". If the roll succeeds, the overly generous Knight, seems a fun NPC to play around with.

Why? What makes the abstract that is "longsword" always and forever, without fail, a d8?

Weapons are going to be assigned an arbitrary number at some point...if you want to use a d6, be my guest. It makes sense for a game that often features killing things and taking their stuff, to have universal rules for how a longsword works, as players will probably be stripping a few magical longswords off fallen foes.

More Importantly, however, is that the weapon and armor tables also make a mini rules ecosystem. A longsword does not have to do a 1d8 in damage, but whatever arbitrary amount you decide on-should be a greater amount than a dagger, to preserve the system assumption that larger weapons do more damage.

There is guidance about standardized numbers for ability checks, it is the section in the Dungeon Master's Guide that states a game would run fine if you use 10,15, and 20 as the only DCs you use.

The system is not designed to make an ecosystem of DCs. Pex and others are free to make those for their game, they are free to purchase third party products that make those ecosystems, and I would not be surprised to see some more guidance in the 2024 game regarding adjudicating skills.

What was clear however, is the set DC 2024 Playtest rules for jumping and the like, were wildly unpopular.

That is why rogues have a poor reputation and other skill use problems. Without that universal guidance you have DMs who make DCs too high or some tasks impossible.

As I stated to Dr. Samurai, I disagree with the quoted premise. Skrum and myself have very different views on skills, and yet we have had a great amount of overlap of opinion regarding this topic.

I do not think one table calling for a DC 15 Ability check to climb a certain tree, and another DM requesting a DC 12 Ability Check to climb their tree, and a third DM coming up with a different number altogether for their particular tree, is a detriment to a Rogue PC.

Expertise in Athletics, would position the Rogue to excel at succeeding at any of the DCs.

[Theodoxus]

To clarify, it is just the rogue who was not having fun due to a misalignment of the player’s expectations with the GM’s handling of the skill system. Am I to read this as “unless the GM changes things to make sure all players are having fun, the GM is the problem”? Because that completely excuses the rogue having unreasonable expectations unless of course we look at the option of making the rogue an ex-player to satisfy the statement.

I know there isn’t a line that can be pointed to for determining if the rogue or the GM is being the problem when it comes to expectations for skills. But the vague boundary can at least be probed beyond placing the entire burden of the matter on the GM.

One would hope that these are adults, able to talk to one another about expectations. Sometimes they truly are irreconcilable, but for a game, I've yet to meet anyone completely obstinate when it comes to compromise. The rogue player should modify their expectations to fall more in line with the established physics of the current game. The DM should consider where the player is coming from with their expectations and adjust if possible, or explain without condescending why a change would disrupt the game as they see it.

If the player is a minor, this would be a great teaching opportunity about setting reasonable expectations, or working on compromising with others.

[Pex]

As I stated to Dr. Samurai, I disagree with the quoted premise. Skrum and myself have very different views on skills, and yet we have had a great amount of overlap of opinion regarding this topic.

I do not think one table calling for a DC 15 Ability check to climb a certain tree, and another DM requesting a DC 12 Ability Check to climb their tree, and a third DM coming up with a different number altogether for their particular tree, is a detriment to a Rogue PC.

Expertise in Athletics, would position the Rogue to excel at succeeding at any of the DCs.

It's not about the tree. That is just a stand-in for any ability check. Knowing something about the creature you're fighting, jumping more than your strength score, curing a disease, anything for which a DM would call for a check. Everyone follows the same math for attacking with a weapon or casting a spell. It is not uncalled for to want everyone to follow the same math on how skills work. I guarantee you would have players start complaining if one DM says long swords do 1d6 damage, another says 2d12 damage, and a third says no fighter you cannot use a long sword at all if the rules did not specify how much damage they do. As much as spells are codified they do have a few irregularities. Why do you think people argue about Illusions and Suggestion spell? Because unlike most other spells their resolution is based on DM fiat. Their power is based on who is DM that day.

However, not all skills are vaguely defined. Want to break an object? DMG pg 246 & 247. DC tables for object hardness and hit points. Note they don't list every object in existence. It's small tables based on material. All wooden objects are AC 15, all stone objects AC 17. Hit points based on size and fragility. It even lists chandelier specifically as an example! A dainty glass chandelier would thus be AC 13, 1d8 hit points. A sturdy steel chandelier is AC 19, 4d8 hit points.

Want to influence an NPC with Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation? DMG pg 245. Three small tables based on the NPC's initial attitude towards you.

Are you tracking a person or creature with Survival? DMG pg 244. Small DC table based on surface, how long since traversed, and if the creature left obvious signs such as a blood trail. The rules tell you how long it takes to find the tracks and at what events the DM should consider a check be made.

The game already has static rules for some skills. It is not unreasonable to want the same for all of them.

[Psyren]

The key takeaway, is as a DM, sometimes I do not know what the motivation of a particular NPC is, especially if I am creating on the fly. One technique I will use to spur creativity, is letting the dice decide. In the example of the knight, I might let the PCs roll, and then after seeing the result, try to create a plausible personality that would support the result.

At the risk of sounding blunt, a Knight who would even consider giving away their sword to a bunch of strangers they met on the road just because they asked (regardless of how eloquently) isn't a personality quirk, they're probably touched in the head. D&D worlds are places where traveling even a day or so outside of any settlement all but guarantees running into someone or something that wants to turn you into a snack or loot your corpse. The wilderness is dangerous for most people; that's what random encounter tables represent.

Now granted, this is why context is important. Why is the Knight out there? Do they see, not just a random group of strangers, but a capable adventuring band that look like they can take on a thread the knight themself can't, and just need their sword to help them accomplish that objective? (You'd probably have to establish how a party that needs a sword also looks like they can put it to good use, but I digress.) That to me is a different - and much more plausible - scenario than just forking it over for no reason, and thus a roll of some kind would be possible.

If the roll is a failure, there is no need to think of anything other than a gruff "p*ss off". If the roll succeeds, the overly generous Knight, seems a fun NPC to play around with.

Deciding possibility should be done before the roll is called for. If you truly have no preference and want the dice to arbitrate, then all the outcomes should be justified, even if retroactively.

I do not think one table calling for a DC 15 Ability check to climb a certain tree, and another DM requesting a DC 12 Ability Check to climb their tree, and a third DM coming up with a different number altogether for their particular tree, is a detriment to a Rogue PC.

Expertise in Athletics, would position the Rogue to excel at succeeding at any of the DCs.

Agreed - and adding to this - even if one of those GMs goes "Well, I think trees should be DC 25!" and the rogue fails... Okay, now what? Do they just sit there and point/laugh at the rogue player for the next 15 minutes? Does the campaign screech to a halt? How do they keep the action moving?

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not about the tree. That is just a stand-in for any ability check. Knowing something about the creature you're fighting, jumping more than your strength score, curing a disease, anything for which a DM would call for a check. Everyone follows the same math for attacking with a weapon or casting a spell.

It is not uncalled for to want everyone to follow the same math on how skills work.

Yes it is. Those sub systems are not required to be identical except inside of your thought process.

Why do you think people argue about Illusions and Suggestion spell? Because unlike most other spells their resolution is based on DM fiat. Their power is based on who is DM that day.

Illusion spells have been a right PITA in every edition which has nothing to do with your complaint about the 5e use of skills and proficiencies.

However, not all skills are vaguely defined. Want to break an object? DMG pg 246 & 247. DC tables for object hardness and hit points.

HP gets into attack and defense. You are not comparing alike things.

Note they don't list every object in existence. It's small tables based on material. All wooden objects are AC 15, all stone objects AC 17. Hit points based on size and fragility. It even lists chandelier specifically as an example! A dainty glass chandelier would thus be AC 13, 1d8 hit points. A sturdy steel chandelier is AC 19, 4d8 hit points.

Want to influence an NPC with Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation? DMG pg 245. Three small tables based on the NPC's initial attitude towards you.

Are you tracking a person or creature with Survival? DMG pg 244. Small DC table based on surface, how long since traversed, and if the creature left obvious signs such as a blood trail. The rules tell you how long it takes to find the tracks and at what events the DM should consider a check be made.

The game already has static rules for some skills. It is not unreasonable to want the same for all of them.

"All of them"adds up to a thing called infinity. Your proposal ends in restricting what a player can do.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the guidance has to come out and let DMs know that players can do amazing things. The oft repeated example for stunts is "swinging from a chandelier".

[GooeyChewie]

Everyone follows the same math for attacking with a weapon or casting a spell.

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Just like the DM gets to decide the DC for ability checks, they also get to decide what ability scores and armor enemies have. You might be fighting a goblin with plate mail and shield (AC 20) while I'm fighting a goblin with leather armor, no shield and +2 Dex (AC 13). The DM gets to decide the math both for combat and for ability checks; combat just gives the DM more tools to obfuscate that fact.

[stoutstien]

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Just like the DM gets to decide the DC for ability checks, they also get to decide what ability scores and armor enemies have. You might be fighting a goblin with plate mail and shield (AC 20) while I'm fighting a goblin with leather armor, no shield and +2 Dex (AC 13). The DM gets to decide the math both for combat and for ability checks; combat just gives the DM more tools to obfuscate that fact.

You also have to consider that combat inherently is one giant catch-up subsystem to prevent PCs from going splat. Having a bunch of incremental actions favors the PC so that those rare occurrences where the math rocks are particularly being uncooperative still doesn't immediately become a failfunnel.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Just like the DM gets to decide the DC for ability checks, they also get to decide what ability scores and armor enemies have. You might be fighting a goblin with plate mail and shield (AC 20) while I'm fighting a goblin with leather armor, no shield and +2 Dex (AC 13). The DM gets to decide the math both for combat and for ability checks; combat just gives the DM more tools to obfuscate that fact.

If I may follow this with a concrete example, which is presented in the stat block of the creature involved:

1. Hobgoblins have long swords and chain mail, and they may or may not use a shield.
2. With a shield, their AC is 18 and their weapon damage is 1d8. (+2d6 if their martial advantage kicks in).
3. Without a shield, their AC is 16 and their weapon damage is 1d10. (+2d6 if their weapon damage is 1d10).

Within the same combat you may be fighting slightly different Hobgoblins.

A rogue faced with this lot will probably apply the disengage feature of Cunning action, or flee.