What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Kane0]

I'm with Pex. Even if every single possibility isn't outlined, a nice neat collection of 'This skill can be used for that thing and here are the sample DCs' in the DMG would be nice to have. Like everything else it can then be adjusted or ignored, but it's a starting point rather than 'the DM decides'. Existing stuff in the book has plenty of examples already and it's a case of formatting and ease of referencing those, just patch in some other skills that have been missed.

And as I've said before, preferably these examples be set in in three different 'tracks' reflecting different styles of play (or DM mentalities if you're feeling less charitable), which I think is a fair compromise and also provides additional context on its own (so you can just point to what you mean by 'easy' or 'hard').

[JNAProductions]

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.

Except you have a much better idea of what the approximate target number is with combat than you do with ability checks.

Full Plate? 18 (or higher, if it's magical or something).
Shield? +2 (or higher, again) over what their base is.
Leather? In the 11-15 range, though it can go lower or higher. But that would likely be obvious, as it'd either be exceedingly clumsy or nimble.

Now, let's take a stony wall. The surface is rough and jagged, and there are a few deeper notches in the wall. You need to climb 30'.
What's the DC? It's presumably a Strength (Athletics) check, but what's the DC?

[Theodoxus]

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.

While true, Pex's point is that if a DM throws a goblin at you wearing plate and shield, it doesn't matter who the DM is (as the number of DMs approach infinity), the AC is going to be 20.
If a DM throws a wall at you that is dry and has some protruding bricks and/or stones, it's completely arbitrary at the DM level if that's a DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 11, 13, 19 or impossible!

We get 8 types of armor. Pretty sure, at the most basic level, players will encounter 8 different types of wall (regardless if they're an obstacle or just something you're walking past) before they encounter someone in a suit of ringmail. So, to argue that it's based on commonly faced items, that's hogwash.

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.

And as mentioned upthread (or was it Skrum's skill thread) - there's no reason skills couldn't work the same way. I personally don't think they should outside of a skill challenge (and I think that's a pretty decent way to create a skill challenge). But I wouldn't be sad if there was an optional skill method that worked like combat.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm with Pex. Even if every single possibility isn't outlined, a nice neat collection of 'This skill can be used for that thing and here are the sample DCs' in the DMG would be nice to have. Like everything else it can then be adjusted or ignored, but it's a starting point rather than 'the DM decides'. Existing stuff in the book has plenty of examples already and it's a case of formatting and ease of referencing those, just patch in some other skills that have been missed.

And as I've said before, preferably these examples be set in in three different 'tracks' reflecting different styles of play (or DM mentalities if you're feeling less charitable), which I think is a fair compromise and also provides additional context on its own (so you can just point to what you mean by 'easy' or 'hard').

That the DMG could use improvement isn't disagreed, in term of Pex making the point of having to dig stuff out of it. Full agreement there.
How much is enough? If you get two more someone will want three. If you give five more someone will want seven.

Re organization would be handy, and for sure Xanathar's deep dive into using tools was handy sometimes. (I never needed it, but a few of my players really liked it so for their sake I adopted it for a few of the tools they chose).

[Kane0]

That the DMG could use improvement isn't disagreed, in term of Pex making the point of having to dig stuff out of it. Full agreement there.
How much is enough? If you get two more someone will want three. If you give five more someone will want seven.

Re organization would be handy, and for sure Xanathar's deep dive into using tools was handy sometimes. (I never needed it, but a few of my players really liked it so for their sake I adopted it for a few of the tools they chose).

DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 for eighteen skills, times three for gritty/normal/heroic makes for 216 examples. Personally i'd cull the number of skills somewhat (I drop to 16 but you could go as low as like 12) but I think you could fit that into 2-3 pages in an appendix or something. Good thing plenty of those already exist but it's not an insurmountable number.

[KorvinStarmast]

While true, Pex's point is that if a DM throws a goblin at you wearing plate and shield, it doesn't matter who the DM is (as the number of DMs approach infinity), the AC is going to be 20.
If a DM throws a wall at you that is dry and has some protruding bricks and/or stones, it's completely arbitrary at the DM level if that's a DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 11, 13, 19 or impossible!

Argument is dead on arrival.
Not every wall is the same thing. Some are better than others. Hence the variation. See also the story of the walls built by Three Little Pigs for their houses. The wall around our garden when I lived in Germany was quite different from the Berlin Wall, which was a few miles from our house. There is another piece of this, damage threshold for walls or ships or other objects, which I find useful. (It's nicely organized in Ghosts of Saltmarsh, though).

... there's no reason skills couldn't work the same way.

They don't need to. I've been DMing this edition for a while and quite frankly yours is a solution looking for a problem.

If you don't like playing a game with a DM or a GM, by all means play a GMless game, or play a CRPG. That way you don't have to bother with a GM.
See the quotes in my sig. Both of them apply here.

[Blatant Beast]

I'm with Pex. Even if every single possibility isn't outlined, a nice neat collection of 'This skill can be used for that thing and here are the sample DCs' in the DMG would be nice to have.

This is meant in a somewhat joking fashion, but the game has been out for 10 years.
If in 10 years, you can't think of ways to turn useless knowledge into profit, then you are not a geek nor nerd worthy of the name.

Why does the DMG, the PHB or any other book have to tell you that for someone to treat the poisoned condition it requires a radish and DC 10 Wisdom(Medicine) check?

Why would anyone assume that a skill that is in the game, is meant to do nothing?
If Medicine is an blank page, try to use Medicine on everything....and then empirically the player and the DM will work out what the skill can be used for.

The issue with delineation, is the more you delineate in todays reading climate, the more misconstrued the delineated thing becomes....either people say because something is not listed X cannot do it, or because something is delineated then Y cant do what X does...because reasons...or a whole host of similar assumptions and reasonings that we see all the time here in the Playground.

There is a skill called Medicine, and we know what the recommend DCs for Easy, Moderate, and Hard tasks are. Seems like there is enough information for a DM to determine a singular case of what a DC for sucking poison out of a wound is.

Yes, a better presentation on how to fish, would be nice, but there is enough information for a motivated DM to figure out the basics of fishing, which in this metaphor is a stand in for setting Ability Check DCs.

[Darth Credence]

Except you have a much better idea of what the approximate target number is with combat than you do with ability checks.

Full Plate? 18 (or higher, if it's magical or something).
Shield? +2 (or higher, again) over what their base is.
Leather? In the 11-15 range, though it can go lower or higher. But that would likely be obvious, as it'd either be exceedingly clumsy or nimble.

Now, let's take a stony wall. The surface is rough and jagged, and there are a few deeper notches in the wall. You need to climb 30'.
What's the DC? It's presumably a Strength (Athletics) check, but what's the DC?

DC for the wall is 0 - you don't roll to climb a wall, since PCs climb at half their walking speed. It would have to be a different wall than what you described to have a roll. This is covered in the basic rules, chapter 8.

While true, Pex's point is that if a DM throws a goblin at you wearing plate and shield, it doesn't matter who the DM is (as the number of DMs approach infinity), the AC is going to be 20.
If a DM throws a wall at you that is dry and has some protruding bricks and/or stones, it's completely arbitrary at the DM level if that's a DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 11, 13, 19 or impossible!

We get 8 types of armor. Pretty sure, at the most basic level, players will encounter 8 different types of wall (regardless if they're an obstacle or just something you're walking past) before they encounter someone in a suit of ringmail. So, to argue that it's based on commonly faced items, that's hogwash.



And as mentioned upthread (or was it Skrum's skill thread) - there's no reason skills couldn't work the same way. I personally don't think they should outside of a skill challenge (and I think that's a pretty decent way to create a skill challenge). But I wouldn't be sad if there was an optional skill method that worked like combat.

Same for this - it is not completely arbitrary what they set for the wall. For the wall you described, the books absolutely have set a DC - none, because a player can climb that wall at half speed. I'm not sure why people keep pointing to the thing that is unambiguous as an example of how DCs are arbitrary.

A goblin with plate and a shield is not necessarily 20. If that armor or shield is magical with a bonus, it can be a higher number. If the DM has homebrewed their own version of the armor - say, poor quality stuff that a goblin can acquire - it could be anything. Perhaps standard "plate armor" one gets in a major city is made of steel and has an AC of 18. But the goblins don't know how to work steel, so they've been casting plate out of iron, which only gets them to a 15 (or 14, or 16, or whatever they decide is the right number). If they do so, they should describe the armor differently, but no reason they can't do it.

[JellyPooga]

DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 for eighteen skills, times three for gritty/normal/heroic makes for 216 examples. Personally i'd cull the number of skills somewhat (I drop to 16 but you could go as low as like 12) but I think you could fit that into 2-3 pages in an appendix or something. Good thing plenty of those already exist but it's not an insurmountable number.

Yes indeed, a 3 page index telling me what DC I need to set for every skill is just the handy-dandy crib sheet I need to adjudicate my game. No way that could possibly cause any argument or misunderstandings. I would literally ignore it. Seriously. My eyes would slide right over such a list as irrelevant suggestions. On the other hand, there's players in this very thread that have admitted to not reading even the salient parts of the DMG, that are clearly laid out in a convenient and easily accessible plain-language fashion and you expect them to pay attention to a dry list of suggested DC's except to argue over them when their GM sets a DC that contradicts it?

[Theodoxus]

DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 for eighteen skills, times three for gritty/normal/heroic makes for 216 examples. Personally i'd cull the number of skills somewhat (I drop to 16 but you could go as low as like 12) but I think you could fit that into 2-3 pages in an appendix or something. Good thing plenty of those already exist but it's not an insurmountable number.

Eh, at that point, I'd just use the Ability Check sans skills the DMG has an optional rule. 1/3 as many as 18 skills...

DC for the wall is 0 - you don't roll to climb a wall, since PCs climb at half their walking speed. It would have to be a different wall than what you described to have a roll. This is covered in the basic rules, chapter 8.



Same for this - it is not completely arbitrary what they set for the wall. For the wall you described, the books absolutely have set a DC - none, because a player can climb that wall at half speed. I'm not sure why people keep pointing to the thing that is unambiguous as an example of how DCs are arbitrary.

I suspect you didn't notice that JNA and I posted within the same minute. It was pure coincidence that we chose the same type of wall. Doesn't make a spit of difference though - the point is, not every DM reads everything (as seen in this thread alone), nor do they need to. It's their game, they decide. Again, Pex's point is that if he's playing the same basic character in two games, and DM A is a rules lawyer, he'll say 'yeah that's a DC0 wall, no roll.' But DM B is a goomba and states the wall is a DC25 check, because reasons. Note, this is hyperbole, since I know you or someone will come back about how no one in their right DMing mind would do such a thing. Maybe not that wall. Maybe it's a wall made of smooth obsidian covered in an acid waterfall at a 60 degree overarching incline. (magic acid, obvs). One DM will say 'no check' and another will say 'impossible' and a third will say 'DC 15'. Meh.

A goblin with plate and a shield is not necessarily 20...

You missed, 'as the number of DMs approach infinity.' Yes, a specific DM can make the plate and shield whatever they want. But as you group more and more DMs running plate and shield clad goblins, more and more will be bog standard plate and shield, meaning they'll average out to 20. Which is the natural expectation when you see a goblin wearing goblin sized plate and wielding a shield. Only when you test it, do you realize if your DM is playing to the averages or going for something special.

Yes indeed, a 3 page index telling me what DC I need to set for every skill is just the handy-dandy crib sheet I need to adjudicate my game. No way that could possibly cause any argument or misunderstandings. I would literally ignore it. Seriously. My eyes would slide right over such a list as irrelevant suggestions. On the other hand, there's players in this very thread that have admitted to not reading even the salient parts of the DMG, that are clearly laid out in a convenient and easily accessible plain-language fashion and you expect them to pay attention to a dry list of suggested DC's except to argue over them when their GM sets a DC that contradicts it?

Well, you couch the language in 'suggested DCs for common skill checks' and that gives the DMs the grace they need to make any DC they actually want, if they're comfortable doing so.

If you're running a module, you never fudge the DCs as printed? Every DM has different strengths and weaknesses. I'm crap at running combat. This is known (if you read my posts). I've never gotten a complaint from players about a DC being out of balance with the challenge presented. About the only guidance I'd prefer is how whomever wrote the Jump rule adjudicates rolling a Strength (Athletics) check for distance. Just to see if our thoughts match or not.

[Kane0]

I would literally ignore it. Seriously. My eyes would slide right over such a list as irrelevant suggestions. On the other hand, there's players in this very thread that have admitted to not reading even the salient parts of the DMG, that are clearly laid out in a convenient and easily accessible plain-language fashion and you expect them to pay attention to a dry list of suggested DC's except to argue over them when their GM sets a DC that contradicts it?

Oh good, because I literally mentioned that. You can play the game with just the PHB, or just the SRD for that matter. The entire DMG can be ignored by players and DMs alike. This is not new. If you don't need those examples to keep you and your table happy and running smoothly, that's a good thing.

Eh, at that point, I'd just use the Ability Check sans skills the DMG has an optional rule. 1/3 as many as 18 skills...

Oh yeah fair point, you could absolutely do it per ability rather than per skill to cut it down to one-third.

[Psyren]

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

Indeed; this is exactly why I'm so against further codification.

How much is enough? If you get two more someone will want three. If you give five more someone will want seven.

This too.

While true, Pex's point is that if a DM throws a goblin at you wearing plate and shield, it doesn't matter who the DM is (as the number of DMs approach infinity), the AC is going to be 20.
If a DM throws a wall at you that is dry and has some protruding bricks and/or stones, it's completely arbitrary at the DM level if that's a DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 11, 13, 19 or impossible!

Okay, and?

"The wall is DC:Impossible, you fail, lol!" "Great, so I guess I'll just sit here then."

What comes after that? Why is "omg but my DM might differ from some hypothetical different one!!!11!" always seen as some impassable end state?

[Blatant Beast]

Well, you couch the language in 'suggested DCs for common skill checks' and that gives the DMs the grace they need to make any DC they actually want, if they're comfortable doing so.

If you're running a module, you never fudge the DCs as printed?

There is still an opportunity cost, as D&D books have limited space. Devoting 3 pages to a chart of DCs, is three pages that could have been used for something else, and for many people, those 3 pages of DCs would be skimmed, and not used.

That particular issue becomes further exacerbated, when we remember things that happened in prior editions, like 3e's Epic rules adding new uses for skills, or 3e splatbooks adding new skills or new uses with new charts with DCs for things to do.

Potentially, one could be losing many, many pages to reprinting this now 3+ page of DCs in future books, or codifying new skill uses.

Why do, and why should those people that are not interested in this sort of material, have to subsidize those that are interested in lists of DCs?

I am personally fine in giving up pages to facilitate access for those with learning differences, but the issue that Pex is describing is not a matter of access, but of gaming preference. Pex, seems to want standard DCs, so they have the same experience, regardless of the DM.

By no means, do I wish to pick on Pex, (I appreciate their point of view), but I am pretty sure that is not the type of experience I want.

[GooeyChewie]

While true, Pex's point is that if a DM throws a goblin at you wearing plate and shield, it doesn't matter who the DM is (as the number of DMs approach infinity), the AC is going to be 20.
If a DM throws a wall at you that is dry and has some protruding bricks and/or stones, it's completely arbitrary at the DM level if that's a DC 5, 10, 15, 20, 11, 13, 19 or impossible!

Yes, if the DM throws a goblin with plate mail and a shield at you, it will (most likely) be AC 20. But the DM could just as easily choose a different type of armor or even a completely different type of AC calculation. In other words, the enemy AC is just as arbitrary as that wall's DC. The difference is that the combat math has a layer of obfuscation to hide its arbitrariness.

We get 8 types of armor. Pretty sure, at the most basic level, players will encounter 8 different types of wall (regardless if they're an obstacle or just something you're walking past) before they encounter someone in a suit of ringmail. So, to argue that it's based on commonly faced items, that's hogwash.

I'm not sure I understand? I'm not claiming anything is based on commonly faced items. The DM can base the enemy AC on a combination of armor, Dex modifier, magic items, alternate AC calculations or even just setting it to whatever they want. The DM can base the difficultly of any given ability check on how much of a challenge they want it to present to the player characters.

For that matter, the DM can decide everything about the combats. They decide how many enemies, what type of enemies, how the enemies are equipped, what spellcasting capabilities the enemies have, everything. They even decide if the combat will be Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly, similar to how they decide if an ability check will be Very easy/Easy/Medium/Hard/Very hard/Nearly impossible.

[Kane0]

There is still an opportunity cost, as D&D books have limited space.

True, hopefully the process of cleaning up the existing sections holding current examples scattered around will yield such space. Two stones for one bird, in a manner of speaking.

Yes, if the DM throws a goblin with plate mail and a shield at you, it will (most likely) be AC 20. But the DM could just as easily choose a different type of armor or even a completely different type of AC calculation. In other words, the enemy AC is just as arbitrary as that wall's DC. The difference is that the combat math has a layer of obfuscation to hide its arbitrariness.

But what you won't typically get is the DM putting down a goblin in leather with an AC of 19, or a goblin in plate with an AC of 12. Well, at least without telegraphing things to be out of the ordinary in some way, like mentioning the unusual coloration and bulk of the leather or the rusted, piecemeal state of the plate.

There is a reference point being used which is visible to the player, and called out when not in effect. That's kinda the idea.

[Skrum]

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.

Sorry, I have to be sarcastic here...

Well, look at that, the hobgoblins are varied but the stat block is plainly printed and the DM didn't have to make it up on the fly.

-----------------

So let's look at climbing. Suppose there was a small section in the PHB with the following information

Climbing DC's
DC 0. Very easy to climb, does not require a roll barring other factors (examples: an extremely steep staircase, a ladder, a tree with low, closely spaced branches)

DC 5. Easy to climb, though not trivial (examples: a knotted rope, a tree with sparse but reachable branches, a very rough rock wall with many handholds)

DC 10. A challenging climb (examples: a tree with few branches, a rough rock wall with well-spaced handholds, a rope with no knots)

DC 15. An expert climb (examples: a smooth-bark tree with no branches but the trunk is small enough to reach around, a rock wall with some handholds)

DC 20. An extremely challenging climb (examples: a masoned wall, a very large diameter tree with only rough bark to hold)

DC 25. Extraordinary climb (examples: a rock wall with scant finger holds)

DC 30. Almost impossible (examples: a nearly smooth wall with scant finger holds)

Additional factors
The conditions or context of the surface to be climbed can change the DC, as detailed

Notably slippery, like from oil or grease: +5 DC
A near-perpendicular surface to brace against, like at the corner of a room: -5 DC
An opposing surface to brace against, like a narrow shaft: -10 DC

--------

Now in y'all's estimation, the presence of this information in the PHB would make the game worse. It would infringe upon the raw creativity that a DM or player may bring to bear, and otherwise make the game less interesting, less exciting, and less fun. Do I have that right.

[Pex]

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.

That's the deal. All goblins in platemail and shield will have AC 20 in every campaign a DM decides to have one. You have the statistics. It's up to the DM to decide to put the goblin in platemail and shield, just like it's up to the DM to place a tree in a spot. Any DM can change any number he wants for anything. That is irrelevant. The point is having a starting point number in the first place. The DM chose to have a goblin in plate mail for whatever reason he wants. He is the why the goblin is there in plate mail. The rules determine how that works - the goblin has AC 20. The player decides what he wants to do about it - talk to the goblin, ignore the goblin, fight the goblin, cast a spell on the goblin, or whatever he wants to do.

Argument is dead on arrival.
Not every wall is the same thing. Some are better than others. Hence the variation. See also the story of the walls built by Three Little Pigs for their houses. The wall around our garden when I lived in Germany was quite different from the Berlin Wall, which was a few miles from our house. There is another piece of this, damage threshold for walls or ships or other objects, which I find useful. (It's nicely organized in Ghosts of Saltmarsh, though).
They don't need to. I've been DMing this edition for a while and quite frankly yours is a solution looking for a problem.

If you don't like playing a game with a DM or a GM, by all means play a GMless game, or play a CRPG. That way you don't have to bother with a GM.
See the quotes in my sig. Both of them apply here.

Not every object in the multiverse is the same thing, but they managed to narrow it down to a couple of tables on object hardness and hit points. Not every weapon in the multiverse is the same thing, but they managed to narrow it down to one page of a table listing their basic characteristics. They even forgo past game weapons. In 3E a katana was an exotic weapon you can wield two handed with martial weapon proficiency but needed a feat for one handed. In 5E it's just another name for long sword as flavor text of a campaign in an Orient-like setting. Speaking of, 3E did have a climb table that included walls of different types, so it's not as if this is an impossible task don't bother trying.

[Sorinth]

Sorry, I have to be sarcastic here...

Well, look at that, the hobgoblins are varied but the stat block is plainly printed and the DM didn't have to make it up on the fly.

-----------------

So let's look at climbing. Suppose there was a small section in the PHB with the following information

Climbing DC's
DC 0. Very easy to climb, does not require a roll barring other factors (examples: an extremely steep staircase, a ladder, a tree with low, closely spaced branches)

DC 5. Easy to climb, though not trivial (examples: a knotted rope, a tree with sparse but reachable branches, a very rough rock wall with many handholds)

DC 10. A challenging climb (examples: a tree with few branches, a rough rock wall with well-spaced handholds, a rope with no knots)

DC 15. An expert climb (examples: a smooth-bark tree with no branches but the trunk is small enough to reach around, a rock wall with some handholds)

DC 20. An extremely challenging climb (examples: a masoned wall, a very large diameter tree with only rough bark to hold)

DC 25. Extraordinary climb (examples: a rock wall with scant finger holds)

DC 30. Almost impossible (examples: a nearly smooth wall with scant finger holds)

Additional factors
The conditions or context of the surface to be climbed can change the DC, as detailed

Notably slippery, like from oil or grease: +5 DC
A near-perpendicular surface to brace against, like at the corner of a room: -5 DC
An opposing surface to brace against, like a narrow shaft: -10 DC

--------

Now in y'all's estimation, the presence of this information in the PHB would make the game worse. It would infringe upon the raw creativity that a DM or player may bring to bear, and otherwise make the game less interesting, less exciting, and less fun. Do I have that right.

Well it directly contradicts the part where anyone can climb at half speed barring any unusual/difficult circumstances so yeah that would make the game worse. Especially since I don't want any heroic PC to fail at climbing a knotted rope even if they are a wizard who dumped strength.

But ignoring that contradiction, do you not think that what success and failure look like should have an impact the DC? Let's say the party wants to climb a 100ft cliff that is "rock wall with some handholds." In one instance there's a single roll where success is you climb the whole cliff and failure is you can't climb it and are stuck at the bottom. And in the other instance success is you can move half your speed and failure means you fall, so your going to have to succeed multiple times in a row to actually climb the cliff and the higher you get the more damage you'll take if you fall. I'm not sure I see how you can have the same DC for those two cases even if you have the exact same cliff because the task is inherently different, one is climb the entire cliff with nothing bad if you fail, and the other is climb part of the cliff with increasing severe penalties.

[Skrum]

Well it directly contradicts the part where anyone can climb at half speed barring any unusual/difficult circumstances so yeah that would make the game worse. Especially since I don't want any heroic PC to fail at climbing a knotted rope even if they are a wizard who dumped strength.

But ignoring that contradiction, do you not think that what success and failure look like should have an impact the DC? Let's say the party wants to climb a 100ft cliff that is "rock wall with some handholds." In one instance there's a single roll where success is you climb the whole cliff and failure is you can't climb it and are stuck at the bottom. And in the other instance success is you can move half your speed and failure means you fall, so your going to have to succeed multiple times in a row to actually climb the cliff and the higher you get the more damage you'll take if you fall. I'm not sure I see how you can have the same DC for those two cases even if you have the exact same cliff because the task is inherently different, one is climb the entire cliff with nothing bad if you fail, and the other is climb part of the cliff with increasing severe penalties.

Heh, I actually had ideas for How To Resolve A Climb, but I was distracted by Super Smash Bros and forgot to write it before posting...so to your point!

Resolving a Climb Check
Each turn that a character is climbing, they must make a climb check. Succeed, and they may move half their speed in the direction they desire. Rolling below the DC causes the character to make no progress in that turn; they remain in the same place. Fail by more than 5, and the character slips. They make an additional climb check vs the DC of the climbing surface minus 5. Succeed, and they manage to catch themselves. Fail this check, and the character falls.

======

Now these rules are probably most appropriate for a Gritty Realism game. One could gear them more for Heroic Fantasy by 1) knocking all of the categories down 1 (i.e., reducing the DC by 5 across the board....this would make climbing a knotted rope DC 0 and unfailable without other factors at play), and also reducing the amount of checks required to climb something. Probably instead of checking each turn, the character would instead make a single check.

======

The point with this though isn't whether the DCs are incontrovertibly correct such that no one could possibly disagree - the point is for the writers of the game to provide context and clarity for what their vision of [insert skill here] is. This in turn leads to "a rogue is expected to have +X to this skill at Y level, allowing them to reliably accomplish Z." That's what's missing from rogue, and why they feel so lackluster if the DM doesn't essentially free-form RP how cool the rogue is.

[stoutstien]

Heh, I actually had ideas for How To Resolve A Climb, but I was distracted by Super Smash Bros and forgot to write it before posting...so to your point!

Resolving a Climb Check
Each turn that a character is climbing, they must make a climb check. Succeed, and they may move half their speed in the direction they desire. Rolling below the DC causes the character to make no progress in that turn; they remain in the same place. Fail by more than 5, and the character slips. They make an additional climb check vs the DC of the climbing surface minus 5. Succeed, and they manage to catch themselves. Fail this check, and the character falls.

======

Now these rules are probably most appropriate for a Gritty Realism game. One could gear them more for Heroic Fantasy by 1) knocking all of the categories down 1 (i.e., reducing the DC by 5 across the board....this would make climbing a knotted rope DC 0 and unfailable without other factors at play), and also reducing the amount of checks required to climb something. Probably instead of checking each turn, the character would instead make a single check.

======

The point with this though isn't whether the DCs are incontrovertibly correct such that no one could possibly disagree - the point is for the writers of the game to provide context and clarity for what their vision of [insert skill here] is. This in turn leads to "a rogue is expected to have +X to this skill at Y level, allowing them to reliably accomplish Z." That's what's missing from rogue, and why they feel so lackluster if the DM doesn't essentially free-form RP how cool the rogue is.

You get way more payout by taking the time to actually make interesting challenges (rolling dice isn't a challenge) rather than trying to use overly complex resolution mechanics to make up for it.

Trying to force everything into categories would hurt rogues rather than help because rolling dices inevitably favors failure.

[Skrum]

Trying to force everything into categories would hurt rogues rather than help because rolling dices inevitably favors failure.

This kinda confirms my thoughts on rogue; they're a poorly written class that overly relies on DMs doing extra work to function. I don't think a class should be constantly asking "can I do this??" as a matter of course.

Instead, make general categories and guidelines for skill usage (btw this would potentially MASSIVELY help martial out of combat options as what's possible with a skill check can be properly thought out and balanced), and then if rogue really is supposed to be the "expert" class, make them extra good at using those skills.

[Sorinth]

Heh, I actually had ideas for How To Resolve A Climb, but I was distracted by Super Smash Bros and forgot to write it before posting...so to your point!

Resolving a Climb Check
Each turn that a character is climbing, they must make a climb check. Succeed, and they may move half their speed in the direction they desire. Rolling below the DC causes the character to make no progress in that turn; they remain in the same place. Fail by more than 5, and the character slips. They make an additional climb check vs the DC of the climbing surface minus 5. Succeed, and they manage to catch themselves. Fail this check, and the character falls.

======

Now these rules are probably most appropriate for a Gritty Realism game. One could gear them more for Heroic Fantasy by 1) knocking all of the categories down 1 (i.e., reducing the DC by 5 across the board....this would make climbing a knotted rope DC 0 and unfailable without other factors at play), and also reducing the amount of checks required to climb something. Probably instead of checking each turn, the character would instead make a single check.

======

The point with this though isn't whether the DCs are incontrovertibly correct such that no one could possibly disagree - the point is for the writers of the game to provide context and clarity for what their vision of [insert skill here] is. This in turn leads to "a rogue is expected to have +X to this skill at Y level, allowing them to reliably accomplish Z." That's what's missing from rogue, and why they feel so lackluster if the DM doesn't essentially free-form RP how cool the rogue is.

So no chance of a situation like a climber becomes frightened and can't move up or down until someone gets within 5ft and takes the help action or no chance that the climb is part of a travel/wilderness survival where failure is a level of exhaustion. So to go back to your original question, yes putting that type of thing in the PHB not only runs roughshod over the DM's creativity, it makes climbing worse, if you want to scale a 300ft cliff which honestly shouldn't be that hard for even a low level PC who has proficiency even in a Gritty Realism game, it's 20 skill checks which is not only boring, it's almost certainly going to end up in failure making PCs even worse then the guy at the gym at doing stuff.

You get way more payout by taking the time to actually make interesting challenges (rolling dice isn't a challenge) rather than trying to use overly complex resolution mechanics to make up for it.

Trying to force everything into categories would hurt rogues rather than help because rolling dices inevitably favors failure.

Well said!

[Psyren]

Well it directly contradicts the part where anyone can climb at half speed barring any unusual/difficult circumstances so yeah that would make the game worse. Especially since I don't want any heroic PC to fail at climbing a knotted rope even if they are a wizard who dumped strength.

It also encourages the exact roll-first-think-later mentality that we just spent two editions getting away from. How far does a success get you? What's the meaningful consequence of failure?

This kinda confirms my thoughts on rogue; they're a poorly written class that overly relies on DMs doing extra work to function. I don't think a class should be constantly asking "can I do this??" as a matter of course.

Everyone should be asking that constantly. PHB 6: "The players describe what they want to do... the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions."

[GooeyChewie]

But what you won't typically get is the DM putting down a goblin in leather with an AC of 19, or a goblin in plate with an AC of 12. Well, at least without telegraphing things to be out of the ordinary in some way, like mentioning the unusual coloration and bulk of the leather or the rusted, piecemeal state of the plate.

There is a reference point being used which is visible to the player, and called out when not in effect. That's kinda the idea.

Likewise, you won't typically get a DM telling the player that a task is "Easy" with a DC of 20, or a task is "Hard" with a DC of 10. That's kinda the idea of having those labels.

That's the deal. All goblins in platemail and shield will have AC 20 in every campaign a DM decides to have one. You have the statistics. It's up to the DM to decide to put the goblin in platemail and shield, just like it's up to the DM to place a tree in a spot. Any DM can change any number he wants for anything. That is irrelevant. The point is having a starting point number in the first place. The DM chose to have a goblin in plate mail for whatever reason he wants. He is the why the goblin is there in plate mail. The rules determine how that works - the goblin has AC 20. The player decides what he wants to do about it - talk to the goblin, ignore the goblin, fight the goblin, cast a spell on the goblin, or whatever he wants to do.

Yes, a goblin in platemail and a shield will have AC 20 in every campaign a DM decides to have one. That is irrelevant. The point is that for the claim "Everyone follows the same math for attacking with a weapon or casting a spell" to be true, everyone has to be fighting identical enemies. That's akin to saying everyone follows the same math for ability checks, because a "Hard" ability check will be DC 20 in every campaign a DM decides to have one. Of course in reality the math won't be the same for everybody in combat or for ability checks, because DMs won't use the same DCs or the same enemies.

Mind you, I'm not saying the ability check and skills rules couldn't be improved or at least better explained. And I do think an improved skill check system would help out Rogues as a class with expertise. I just don't believe such checks varying from DM to DM is really any different than pretty much any other DM-controlled aspect of the game, or that having a list of example DCs would substantially change that variance.

[Skrum]

So no chance of a situation like a climber becomes frightened and can't move up or down until someone gets within 5ft and takes the help action or no chance that the climb is part of a travel/wilderness survival where failure is a level of exhaustion. So to go back to your original question, yes putting that type of thing in the PHB not only runs roughshod over the DM's creativity

I thought it was quite obvious this is intended as a *starting place* - context for DMs to use in the process of making their final decision. This kind of task should be roughly this DC, this other kind of task should be roughly this DC.

But apparently you think I'm advocating for boxes that cause the game to crt alt delete itself if someone even thinks of deviating.

Whatever dude. Play your game, I'll play mine.

[Pex]

Well it directly contradicts the part where anyone can climb at half speed barring any unusual/difficult circumstances so yeah that would make the game worse. Especially since I don't want any heroic PC to fail at climbing a knotted rope even if they are a wizard who dumped strength.

But ignoring that contradiction, do you not think that what success and failure look like should have an impact the DC? Let's say the party wants to climb a 100ft cliff that is "rock wall with some handholds." In one instance there's a single roll where success is you climb the whole cliff and failure is you can't climb it and are stuck at the bottom. And in the other instance success is you can move half your speed and failure means you fall, so your going to have to succeed multiple times in a row to actually climb the cliff and the higher you get the more damage you'll take if you fall. I'm not sure I see how you can have the same DC for those two cases even if you have the exact same cliff because the task is inherently different, one is climb the entire cliff with nothing bad if you fail, and the other is climb part of the cliff with increasing severe penalties.

But once you have a DM who disagrees with you believing climbing a wall is a difficult circumstance your argument falls apart because that DM will have a DC, another DM who disagrees with you believing climbing a wall is a difficult circumstance will have a different DC and yet another DM who disagrees with you believing climbing a wall is a difficult circumstance will say a PC can't climb it at all so rogues in these games have a difficult time of it climbing walls and thus get a poor reputation. None of these DMs are playing the game wrong. They just disagree with you on the difficulty of climbing a wall. If there was a baseline standard ink on paper in the rules about this then there wouldn't be an issue. All DMs will have an idea of how difficult the game says climbing a wall is possibly even differentiating on the type of walls for different DCs, but there will be a DC all DMs can reference and use. Players will know how difficult the game says climbing a wall is and can plan and play accordingly if climbing walls is important to them.

Since climbing is such a common thing players want to do then yes, the game designers should take the time and physical pages of the book to go into some detail of how climbing works if a small blurb and table isn't suffice. The current PHB uses 5 1/2 leaves of paper to talk about gods of many pantheons and the outer planes. If cost is a factor such information can easily be removed as unimportant to a player for something more important, such as rules of climbing. Pantheons and outer planes information is for the DM. I doubt climbing would need that many leaves, so there is room for other skills.

So no chance of a situation like a climber becomes frightened and can't move up or down until someone gets within 5ft and takes the help action or no chance that the climb is part of a travel/wilderness survival where failure is a level of exhaustion. So to go back to your original question, yes putting that type of thing in the PHB not only runs roughshod over the DM's creativity, it makes climbing worse, if you want to scale a 300ft cliff which honestly shouldn't be that hard for even a low level PC who has proficiency even in a Gritty Realism game, it's 20 skill checks which is not only boring, it's almost certainly going to end up in failure making PCs even worse then the guy at the gym at doing stuff.

It is not Skrum's responsibility to create absolutely perfect climbing rules or forget the whole thing. He gave an example of what they could look like. He showed such rules are possible. It is the game designers' job to do it. No matter what they do people will have opinions about it. Perfection is an ideal, not the must have outcome or don't do it at all. However, if you do care about what ifs, such as a PC wanting to climb but is frightened, that is what DM adjudication is for. It's enough there is a baseline, and the DM can extrapolate from there. A veteran DM won't have an issue, but for a novice DM having a baseline is important. There are already existing rules for when adverse conditions affect something - Advantage/Disadvantage. A PC frightened? Disadvantage. A PC's speed increased by magic? Advantage. Or don't roll with Disadvantage/Advantage if you don't think the condition warrants affecting climbing or whatever skill. That's the DM doing his job of adjudication. No, rules cannot cover every circumstance of everything everywhere of all possible imaginations and things you don't know could happen. That does not mean there should thus be nothing.

[JellyPooga]

I just want to interject regarding the goblin wearing platemail and shield...No. They don't have AC 20. That's not how NPCs and their AC work and I think that illustrates beautifully the issue at hand here.

Can you, as GM, give a goblin an AC of 20 and describe them as wearing plate & shield? Of course you can, but that's not the point; giving a goblin plate & shield isn't what is giving them AC 20, it's rather that the GM has increased the Challenge of that goblin to reflect an increased difficulty. Is the GM obligated to offer the PCs that player & shield as a reward for defeating that challenge? No. Is the GM obligated to give that goblin any of the same limitations a PC might face for wearing plate & shield, such as weight & encumbrance? No. All that's happened is the GM has made a rule decision (give the goblin AC 20 and increased its Challenge as a result) and made a narrative choice (to describe the goblin wearing heavy armour). NPCs don't function the same way PCs do.

By the same token, for example, an NPC can have a feature called Jump and it lets them jump 60ft from a standing start. Does it need an explanation in terms of strength scores, Athletics skill, spellcasting or otherwise? No. It doesn't. It's just something that NPC can do and the GM can describe it however they want, so long as it's consistent with the game tone and style. It doesn't have to be consistent with PC rules any more than it has to be consistent with other NPC features.

This is one of the reasons, I suspect, that NPC statblocks are notoriously light on skills and other player-facing rules (e.g. Feats) or have consistent damage for given weapons (e.g. where's the standard rule for how much damage a Claw does?). If you, the GM, need them to be able to do something, the statblock isn't where you'll put the information you need, but rather it's in the encounter and that will change not only from GM to GM, player to player, but encounter to encounter for any given combination of GM and Players.

Offering a chart of DCs kind of misses the point in the same way that saying a goblin in plate has AC 20. Can it? Yes. Can it also have AC 15? Yes. Can it also have any other AC? Yes. The most important question is, however, is Should a player expect a goblin NPC in plate & shield to have AC 20? The answer to that question should be a resounding No. They can expect a higher AC, for sure, but to what magnitude is entirely GM dependent and the GM is under no obligation to realise that expectation at all because that's not how the rules of the game tell the GM how to adjucate NPC Armour Class.

Offering a handy-dandy chart of DCs only offers a misleading chart of player vs. GM expectations in which the GM is still having to do the work of setting DCs and the Players are still having to constantly ask the GM what the DC is or what is possible. All you're adding is a look-up chart that is functionally useless because it's not climbing a knobbly tree that has DC 10, it's climbing this tree in this encounter, under these circumstances that has a DC 10. Telling a player or GM that knobbly trees are DC 10 to climb isn't a useful expectation, it's misleading.

[Psyren]

Since climbing is such a common thing players want to do then yes, the game designers should take the time and physical pages of the book to go into some detail of how climbing works if a small blurb and table isn't suffice.

It does suffice for most people. It would be impractical for them to try spoonfeeding everyone.

It is not Skrum's responsibility to create absolutely perfect climbing rules or forget the whole thing. He gave an example of what they could look like. He showed such rules are possible.

"Possible" and "beneficial/desirable" are very different things. Skrum's example works fine for their table; I don't want it, or anything like it, anywhere near my books.

Offering a handy-dandy chart of DCs only offers a misleading chart of player vs. GM expectations in which the GM is still having to do the work of setting DCs and the Players are still having to constantly ask the GM what the DC is or what is possible. All you're adding is a look-up chart that is functionally useless because it's not climbing a knobbly tree that has DC 10, it's climbing this tree in this encounter, under these circumstances that has a DC 10. Telling a player or GM that knobbly trees are DC 10 to climb isn't a useful expectation, it's misleading.

Exactly this - the DM still has to tailor DCs to their party and encounters, but now they also have a look-up chart (and let's be real, it'd have to be a bunch of charts for every skill or else both sides of the divide are right back here again) that's equal parts tumor and minefield taking up space in their books, ready to be a source of added conflict both in-game and online.

[Witty Username]

I still don't understand why example DCs create these detrimental expectations when things like monsters, spells, magic items and equipment don't?

Especially when a reasonably common complaint around here is DC 15 is used too often. Which by the DMG advice the majority of checks being around 15 should be game working as intended.

[stoutstien]

I still don't understand why example DCs create these detrimental expectations when things like monsters, spells, magic items and equipment don't?

Especially when a reasonably common complaint around here is DC 15 is used too often. Which by the DMG advice the majority of checks being around 15 should be game working as intended.

So your suggestion is the people who couldn't double check their own math as far as setting the median DC should also be the ones to set the standards for individual actions?

I'd rather they stay very far away from it as they been doing. If anything they should step back more in other areas.