How is this contradictory to anything I said which, as a reminder, is about "asking for a check with a higher DC because the quality of the roleplaying was not up to my standard" ?
To be fair to everyone here, if that is all you are arguing, then I doubt many disagree with you.
The disagreements have come about from all the other things you have said are wrong to do.
1) The problem is that you are atomising the task too much for me, and I think for 5e in general. The task should simply be "getting over the wall". That's it. It does not change according to anything, it's just an inherent characteristic of the wall. This is the way it is presented in all publications and modules, and, once more, 5e NEVER tells you to modify the DC.
2) The DM should be thinking things like "They were clever enough to bring a ladder, good for them ! I will make sure to point out how great an idea that was and how simpler it made it for them to infiltrate the palace".
1) DMG p. 244, Tracking DCs: +5/day since the creature passed, -5 if it left a trail.
1) Perfectly fine, this has nothing to do with players' actions, it's just helping the DM set the initail DC for tracking.
Also p. 244, a creature’s attitude determines the DC for getting a reaction, and players can change that attitude over the course of a conversation “if the adventurers say or do the right thing”.
2) They change the attitude, that's fine, the NEXT task will be easier with a different DC. But it certainly does not retroactively modify the DC of changing the attitude in the first place.
1) Yes, but it shows that the DMG specifically suggests changing the DC based on circumstances. You claimed 5E never does that.
1) Nope. I wrote: "Show me any place in the rules where the DC is modified due to players actions"
It is NOT the same thing at all. Setting a DC due to external circumstances if of course fine, no one has ever said the contrary.
2) So DCs can be changed, and the official 5E ruleset explains this. That’s the point. Whether it does so retroactively or not isn’t pertinent to whether it does in the first place.
2) They are NOT changed, they are set at the beginning of the action that has a chance to fail. And because there are TWO tasks there, it's still fine, no DC change.
1) I literally quoted the exact words you wrote.
1) Show me.
2) the “changing attitude” part of resolving interactions doesn’t call for a roll. “Determining characteristics” does, but not “changing attitude”. There are no two rolls for determining the reaction, just one. And the DC for that one can be modified by the course of a conversation. It’s roleplay affecting a DC.
2) I don't see it saying this. What is the task that you are doing that has a chance of failure ? When does it start ? And, in particular, where does it say that the DC changes ?
Because, once more, you only set the DC when THAT attempts starts, not before. And this is exactly what the DMG says: "When the adventurers get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion — or if you decide the conversation has run its course — call for a Charisma check."
When you do this, and not before do you set the DC based on the attitude. The DC was NOT set before, because there was no task.
1) It’s literally still there in the quote thread.
A) The only thing here is the way you have worded it, which is not what I said.
2) the task is getting a reaction from the NPC. When the PCs strike up a conversation with a guard, it’s to try and get inside. When they start talking to the local magistrate, it’s to try and get acquitted from the crimes they may or may not have committed. When they start talking to the barkeep, it’s to try and get some sensitive info he doesn’t normally share with strangers. When they start talking to the wealthy merchant, it’s to try and convince him to hire them. And so on. Of course there is a task, and there was one all along.
B) No. Again, DMG: "When the adventurers get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion — or if you decide the conversation has run its course — call for a Charisma check." What they do until them is to prep him for this task, which is fine. But if they started the task earlier, they would have broached the point earlier and gotten a reaction at that point.
And of course you set the DC when you determine the check - you don’t know what kind of check they will attempt until they explain what they attempt. They could try lying, or arguing, or bullying, etc. You don’t know until they do. Nonetheless, the NPC had a starting attitude and has potentially a different attitude after the conversation/roleplaying part, no rolling required.
C) That is fine, it just gets to the point that there has been no DC so far, so nothing to change.
A different attitude likely means a different DC. If the players failed to change the attitude, it’s DC X. If they changed the attitude for the better it’ll be DC Y, if they made it worse it’ll be DC Z (with Y < X < Z). The no rolls needed roleplaying potentially changes the DC for the Charisma check. The specifics of how the PCs choose to try the check will almost certainly change the check itself (even if only be determining the skill involved), and possibly the DC as well - on top of the attitude factor.
D) Until the point where they get into the task itself, there is no DC, it's just the circumstances changing, but where is the specificity in that. By giving away some money to a beggar, they change the circumstances as well, no roll or DC needed. Then they broach the difficult subject, however, then a check comes in, based on the attitude. But how they broach it, how they do the specific action of convincing the beggar to give them information instead of just buttering him up, these are the actions that will influence the roll, and from my perspective, they should not influence the DC, just the roll.
B) You do realize that preparing for is the same as trying to affect for the better, right? As for it not being the task until they make a roll, that’s just silly. The PCs are for instance given specific instructions to convince a guard to turn a blind eye to some illicit goods getting smuggled in. Is this not their task until they make a roll?
C) Incorrect. The NPC has a starting attitude before the PCs even start to interact. That starting attitude has a DC associated with it.
D) It’d be really great if you could clarify the difference between what you consider a task and an action, especially mechanically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"For some reasons, some people seem to be really annoyed at losing a prerogative of setting DCs however they please, fine for their tables, just wanting to point out that there are really good RAW alternatives."
Finally you admit its a "RAW alternative"!
Now thats settled we can discuss why its not a good idea and only sticking to increments of 5 is bad too.
1. If you set a DC before a character even interacts with a situation you pretty much nullify player choice in influencing the DC which is anti-player
2. By setting a DC ahead of time you do not allow for additional features/spells/items/information to play into your DC setting which is not only prohibiting yourself as a DM but is actively against the spirit of the game to allow you do make modifications as you see fit to make things fun/interactive with your players.
just wanting to point out that there are really good RAW alternatives
There may have been a misunderstanding, then. Your comments have come across as if saying that any other technique of setting DCs than doing so, in advance and in the most generic way, is not RAW, and that "modifying" a DC in any way from that initial, generic value is wrong. By stating RAW so many times, you also strongly imply that you think that all other methods are not RAW.
I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm simply saying that... There are better ways to do this
You're not going to help your case by stating that your way is better than everyone else's. I'm not sure if that's how you intended this to come across, but it's likely to prolong any argument.
I'm going to make the assumption, for now, that this has all been a massive misunderstanding.
Incorrect it is about natural language and not adding anything to the language. Effects/spells/rules do what they say they do and nothing more.
You set the DC as a DM. That is it RAW. You do not RAW add any other information to this other than you as the DM get to decide how to do it. Thats it.
"For some reasons, some people seem to be really annoyed at losing a prerogative of setting DCs however they please, fine for their tables, just wanting to point out that there are really good RAW alternatives."
Finally you admit its a "RAW alternative"!
What I'm saying is that whereas the RAW never mentions changing the DC once it's set (in the very next paragraph, it mentions "the DC"), the alternative way of thinking that apparently shocks everyone is at least RAW...
Now thats settled we can discuss why its not a good idea and only sticking to increments of 5 is bad too.
I'm not sure that someone ever mentioned sticking to increments of 5, the table in the PH is just "typical DC".
1. If you set a DC before a character even interacts with a situation you pretty much nullify player choice in influencing the DC which is anti-player
I don't agree there, how is it anti-player when they can get all the bonuses and advantage possible by their interacting with the situation ?
2. By setting a DC ahead of time you do not allow for additional features/spells/items/information to play into your DC setting which is not only prohibiting yourself as a DM but is actively against the spirit of the game to allow you do make modifications as you see fit to make things fun/interactive with your players.
But all these do not have to play in to the DC, they actual place according to the RAW is in the roll: "As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC."
Putting them in the roll allows the DM to use advantage/disadvantage, which you cannot do on the DC, and does not prevent you at all to take into account any additional things in play. Why would it ?
Because maybe they use a feature to learn a new piece of information that could tie something together that would make the check a lot easier.
You saved a boy from a well earlier on and you find out the guard is his dad....you are saying the DC would be the same if they mention they are the one who saved his son?
Because maybe they use a feature to learn a new piece of information that could tie something together that would make the check a lot easier.
You saved a boy from a well earlier on and you find out the guard is his dad....you are saying the DC would be the same if they mention they are the one who saved his son?
The DC stays the same, but I now have advantage on my roll (or a heft bonus), making it obviously easier for me. Isn't this exactly what the DMG says here:
Consider granting advantage when …
Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character’s chance of success.
A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task.
Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success.
The environment is the lad in the well, a previous action is saving the lad, and you employ cunning in mentioning it to the guard.
You have all the ingredients for giving advantage without changing the DC, which would stay exactly the same for someone else who had not saved the guard's son.
1) The problem is that you are atomising the task too much for me, and I think for 5e in general. The task should simply be "getting over the wall". That's it. It does not change according to anything, it's just an inherent characteristic of the wall. This is the way it is presented in all publications and modules, and, once more, 5e NEVER tells you to modify the DC.
2) The DM should be thinking things like "They were clever enough to bring a ladder, good for them ! I will make sure to point out how great an idea that was and how simpler it made it for them to infiltrate the palace".
1) DMG p. 244, Tracking DCs: +5/day since the creature passed, -5 if it left a trail.
1) Perfectly fine, this has nothing to do with players' actions, it's just helping the DM set the initail DC for tracking.
Also p. 244, a creature’s attitude determines the DC for getting a reaction, and players can change that attitude over the course of a conversation “if the adventurers say or do the right thing”.
2) They change the attitude, that's fine, the NEXT task will be easier with a different DC. But it certainly does not retroactively modify the DC of changing the attitude in the first place.
1) Yes, but it shows that the DMG specifically suggests changing the DC based on circumstances. You claimed 5E never does that.
1) Nope. I wrote: "Show me any place in the rules where the DC is modified due to players actions"
It is NOT the same thing at all. Setting a DC due to external circumstances if of course fine, no one has ever said the contrary.
2) So DCs can be changed, and the official 5E ruleset explains this. That’s the point. Whether it does so retroactively or not isn’t pertinent to whether it does in the first place.
2) They are NOT changed, they are set at the beginning of the action that has a chance to fail. And because there are TWO tasks there, it's still fine, no DC change.
1) I literally quoted the exact words you wrote.
1) Show me.
2) the “changing attitude” part of resolving interactions doesn’t call for a roll. “Determining characteristics” does, but not “changing attitude”. There are no two rolls for determining the reaction, just one. And the DC for that one can be modified by the course of a conversation. It’s roleplay affecting a DC.
2) I don't see it saying this. What is the task that you are doing that has a chance of failure ? When does it start ? And, in particular, where does it say that the DC changes ?
Because, once more, you only set the DC when THAT attempts starts, not before. And this is exactly what the DMG says: "When the adventurers get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion — or if you decide the conversation has run its course — call for a Charisma check."
When you do this, and not before do you set the DC based on the attitude. The DC was NOT set before, because there was no task.
1) It’s literally still there in the quote thread.
A) The only thing here is the way you have worded it, which is not what I said.
2) the task is getting a reaction from the NPC. When the PCs strike up a conversation with a guard, it’s to try and get inside. When they start talking to the local magistrate, it’s to try and get acquitted from the crimes they may or may not have committed. When they start talking to the barkeep, it’s to try and get some sensitive info he doesn’t normally share with strangers. When they start talking to the wealthy merchant, it’s to try and convince him to hire them. And so on. Of course there is a task, and there was one all along.
B) No. Again, DMG: "When the adventurers get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion — or if you decide the conversation has run its course — call for a Charisma check." What they do until them is to prep him for this task, which is fine. But if they started the task earlier, they would have broached the point earlier and gotten a reaction at that point.
And of course you set the DC when you determine the check - you don’t know what kind of check they will attempt until they explain what they attempt. They could try lying, or arguing, or bullying, etc. You don’t know until they do. Nonetheless, the NPC had a starting attitude and has potentially a different attitude after the conversation/roleplaying part, no rolling required.
C) That is fine, it just gets to the point that there has been no DC so far, so nothing to change.
A different attitude likely means a different DC. If the players failed to change the attitude, it’s DC X. If they changed the attitude for the better it’ll be DC Y, if they made it worse it’ll be DC Z (with Y < X < Z). The no rolls needed roleplaying potentially changes the DC for the Charisma check. The specifics of how the PCs choose to try the check will almost certainly change the check itself (even if only be determining the skill involved), and possibly the DC as well - on top of the attitude factor.
D) Until the point where they get into the task itself, there is no DC, it's just the circumstances changing, but where is the specificity in that. By giving away some money to a beggar, they change the circumstances as well, no roll or DC needed. Then they broach the difficult subject, however, then a check comes in, based on the attitude. But how they broach it, how they do the specific action of convincing the beggar to give them information instead of just buttering him up, these are the actions that will influence the roll, and from my perspective, they should not influence the DC, just the roll.
1) Obviously, this referred to actions taken during the accomplishment of the task. It did not refer to the fact that they stole a mule that morning or that they were nasty to their little sister when they were young. Sheesh...
And once, more you are not changing the DC in the social interaction. You are changing the attitude. There is no DC as long as you have not started the task of convincing. Buttering up and changing the attitude is not part of the attempt, itself, and the DMG makes this clear.
2) And the "I did not reword it" when my words were "This is the way it is presented in all publications and modules, and, once more, 5e NEVER tells you to modify the DC." and yours were "Yes, but it shows that the DMG specifically suggests changing the DC based on circumstances. You claimed 5E never does that."... What can I say apart from the fact that it's simply wrong to do this.
B) You do realize that preparing for is the same as trying to affect for the better, right?
3) No. Simply no. As a simple example, consider the social case of buttering someone up to make him buy something. The buttering part will almost always go well (some people might get suspicious). But as soon as you drop the ball about what you really want, it changes. This is again exactly what the DMG says. And at that point in time, the guy usually realises why you were doing the buttering up and what you really want and this is where the failure can come up, where you need the DC and the check. After that, trying to convince the guy to actually buy is the action/task in itself
As for it not being the task until they make a roll, that’s just silly. The PCs are for instance given specific instructions to convince a guard to turn a blind eye to some illicit goods getting smuggled in. Is this not their task until they make a roll?
C) Incorrect. The NPC has a starting attitude before the PCs even start to interact. That starting attitude has a DC associated with it.
4) No, it has a DC suggested for when you get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion. Before that, there is no task, so no DC. The DC only exists, RAW, from the point in time where something that has a chance of failure is attempted. It cannot be more clear than what is written in the DMG.
D) It’d be really great if you could clarify the difference between what you consider a task and an action, especially mechanically.
5) Why should I do this ? The PH uses them interchangeably in just one paragraph, and even adds "challenge" in the basket. And 5e is not about specific vocabulary anyway.
1) So what are they then? Actions taken during the accomplishment of the task, or actions taken in preparation for the task? For me that’s one and the same thing, but if I follow your logic so far there’s a difference.
If changing the attitude is not part of the attempt, what is it? Would it even be done if there was no attempt? The DMG clearly classifies at all as a single interaction, at least, and explicitly requires a PC to have taken part in the conversation to even be allowed to make a check.
2) So saying “5E never tells you to modify the DC” is not saying the DMG doesn’t suggest changing the DC based on circumstances?
3) So what if the NPC doesn’t realize you were buttering him up? The DMG doesn’t just explain what ‘usually’ happens, it explains how to handle whatever happens. I also don’t think NPCs usually realize this, and if they do that might just as easily be part of the conversation.
4) Which is the same DC if there’s no time for a conversation. The conversation also doesn’t set the attitude, it changes the starting attitude. There has to be something in the first place in order to be able to change it.
5) So people can understand your arguments and we can have a meaningful discussion instead of talking about different things?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
just wanting to point out that there are really good RAW alternatives
There may have been a misunderstanding, then. Your comments have come across as if saying that any other technique of setting DCs than doing so, in advance and in the most generic way, is not RAW, and that "modifying" a DC in any way from that initial, generic value is wrong. By stating RAW so many times, you also strongly imply that you think that all other methods are not RAW.
There is no method in the rules that allows you to change a DC once set for a given task, basically when you commit to the action. But nothing says that preparatory work inside the task is not possible. It happens to me every day at work, i want to do a task but realise that it's really difficult. So I start doing it, but I do a lot of actions to make it easier. And hopefully, in the end, I succeed because of all the actions that I have done, I have enough bonuses and advantages to succeed.
It does not change the fact that, from the start, the task was really difficult. It has not changed in itself. I just made it easier for me. Anyone else attempting the same task would have to find their own way or trust their abilities or their luck, who knows, it might even work.
The wall is too high for me, I go fetch a ladder, it does not change the height of the wall.
So you climbed a ladder, instead of climbing a wall.
If I take on a monumental piece of work, it’s difficult to complete. If I break it into small steps, it becomes easier - because I’m not doing the monumental piece of work, I’m doing a bunch of smaller, easier things. The result may be the same, but what I did wasn’t. The work was changed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because maybe they use a feature to learn a new piece of information that could tie something together that would make the check a lot easier.
You saved a boy from a well earlier on and you find out the guard is his dad....you are saying the DC would be the same if they mention they are the one who saved his son?
The DC stays the same, but I now have advantage on my roll (or a heft bonus), making it obviously easier for me. Isn't this exactly what the DMG says here:
Consider granting advantage when …
Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character’s chance of success.
A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task.
Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success.
The environment is the lad in the well, a previous action is saving the lad, and you employ cunning in mentioning it to the guard.
You have all the ingredients for giving advantage without changing the DC, which would stay exactly the same for someone else who had not saved the guard's son.
Why not change the DC? As the DM RAW you have the opportunity to change it...just do it. Why put a hard DC on something that would be easy?
just wanting to point out that there are really good RAW alternatives
There may have been a misunderstanding, then. Your comments have come across as if saying that any other technique of setting DCs than doing so, in advance and in the most generic way, is not RAW, and that "modifying" a DC in any way from that initial, generic value is wrong. By stating RAW so many times, you also strongly imply that you think that all other methods are not RAW.
There is no method in the rules that allows you to change a DC once set for a given task, basically when you commit to the action. But nothing says that preparatory work inside the task is not possible. It happens to me every day at work, i want to do a task but realise that it's really difficult. So I start doing it, but I do a lot of actions to make it easier. And hopefully, in the end, I succeed because of all the actions that I have done, I have enough bonuses and advantages to succeed.
It does not change the fact that, from the start, the task was really difficult. It has not changed in itself. I just made it easier for me. Anyone else attempting the same task would have to find their own way or trust their abilities or their luck, who knows, it might even work.
The wall is too high for me, I go fetch a ladder, it does not change the height of the wall.
So you climbed a ladder, instead of climbing a wall.
If I take on a monumental piece of work, it’s difficult to complete. If I break it into small steps, it becomes easier - because I’m not doing the monumental piece of work, I’m doing a bunch of smaller, easier things. The result may be the same, but what I did wasn’t. The work was changed.
This....its the same for a social encounter. By your logic you would never change a DC regardless only add advantage which mathematically is a terrible way to do it.
You set a Very Hard DC on a social check: 25 DC...by your logic this is set in stone and will not change.
A fighter wants to do the talking as he feel he has an in....he thinks he recognizes this guy from his old unit. He uses his background feature from Soldier to warm up to the guard. He has a +3 to persuasion. Even by adding advantage to this check you have set the fighter up to fail...he literally cannot win in this situation even if he rolls a natural 20.
You have invalidated a very reasonable course of action by being completely inflexible with your DC. The fighter player will likely never try this tactic again...why would he? He has no chance at succeeding even by using all his resources at his disposal.
Now instead look at it the opposite way:
You lower the DC Check to 20. The fighter now at least has a chance to succeed vs 0% chance. Its still representing a difficult check (The fighter must roll a 17+ to succeed) but its not impossible.
Because maybe they use a feature to learn a new piece of information that could tie something together that would make the check a lot easier.
You saved a boy from a well earlier on and you find out the guard is his dad....you are saying the DC would be the same if they mention they are the one who saved his son?
The DC stays the same, but I now have advantage on my roll (or a heft bonus), making it obviously easier for me. Isn't this exactly what the DMG says here:
Consider granting advantage when …
Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character’s chance of success.
A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task.
Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success.
The environment is the lad in the well, a previous action is saving the lad, and you employ cunning in mentioning it to the guard.
You have all the ingredients for giving advantage without changing the DC, which would stay exactly the same for someone else who had not saved the guard's son.
I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but it works differently from assigning a lower or higher DC.
Let’s say convincing a guard to do something they shouldn’t through Persuasion is a DC 20 under normal circumstances, and the PC has a +5 modifier to Cha checks for Persuasion. This translates to needing to roll a 15 or better on 1d20, or 25% chance of success. It turns out circumstances aren’t normal, because the PC helped the guard’s son in his time of need.
If I decide to apply a +5 modifier to the roll or a -5 modifier to the DC (functionally the same thing), the PC needs to roll 10 or better on a single 1d20 roll and has a 50% chance of success. If I decide to give advantage on the check, the PC needs to roll 15 or better on at least one of two 1d20 rolls. This gives a success chance of 2x25%x75% + 25%x25%, or 37.5%+6.25%=43.75%.
Basically, the benefit of having advantage goes down as the check itself becomes more difficult. As DM you might favour using advantage in some situations and reducing the DC in others. In extreme cases you might even decide the DC is too low to bother with a roll or it might mathematically become an autosuccess whereas with advantage there would still be a (presumably slim, but mathematically non-zero) chance of failure. In some cases it might be best to do both: if a PC attempts to do something under favourable circumstances you could set a lower DC, and another PC helping out would give advantage on top of that.
"The only thing I'm saying is that the DC of the overall task does not change because I eat my cake in small bites, if it's the right bites."
It is easier to eat something in small bites....trying to shove an entire cake in your mouth is harder than spending 12 mins to eat it in small bites. The difference is time.
Allowing a PC to get around a difficult check by spending time is a fair trade off....unscrewing the hinges of a door is an option but takes a LOT longer to do than being able to smash it down or unlock it.
1) And this is what I try to explain when I mean "atomising the task". The overall task has not changed. But if you want to roll 20 times for smaller things on the way and conclude that it gets the overall task done, I'm also fine with it.
2) The only thing I'm saying is that the DC of the overall task does not change because I eat my cake in small bites, if it's the right bites. And looking at it globally allows me to resolve it in a single roll if I'm convinced that the list of smaller things that the PC is going to do will be enough. I most of the time don't need to get the details of opening the door of the barn as it's unlocked, getting the ladder across the ground, raising it, etc. Or the same with a grappling hook or a climbing kit.
1) the overall task hasn’t changed, but the odds of succeeding in one almost impossible DC are probably not the same as the odds of succeeding in a number of considerably lower DCs. In other words, how you choose to complete an overall task can affect your chances of success.
2) If the DC stays the same, what’s the point of doing it a certain way and not another? Before you answer this, just because I don’t want it to be overlooked, I’ll again point out that applying advantage or disadvantage doesn’t change the math if you’re reducing DCs instead of giving bonuses to rolls or vice versa. It’s still the same thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"I'm trying to see if someone has a valid reason for changing DCs once set"
I thought I had explained why I considered it better to use a DC which incorporates all the circumstances, but I will explain in case I had missed it.
The DC, in my mind, is a numerical expression of the difficulty of a task. Modifiers to the dice roll, on the other hand, are more about how good a character is at performing the task.
Taking the wall climbing example again, a smooth, well made wall will be difficult to climb without any equipment. That's a difficult task with a high DC. However, climbing that wall with a grappling hook is easier. The DC is going to be lower for that task. Further, using a long enough ladder to climb the wall is pretty easy. That task would have a low DC.
If my players were approaching that wall, I may at time have a provisional DC in my head. Let's say I know they have grappling hooks, so I would assume they would use them and make it, say, a DC10 provisionally in my head. However, I haven't called for the check yet. I will wait for my players to tell me what they want to do. If what they describe is a different action, I will adjust my provisional DC in my head, or may throw it away entirely if they decide to play things completely differently. I'll actually decide on the DC at the point where I call for the check, when I actually know what my party is trying to do. The initial, provisional DC was just a rough estimate to help me later.
Now, if I am using that set DC plus modifiers, I need to track those modifiers throughout the setup. I've given +1 for finding a slightly less smooth part, +3 for a good throw with the grappling hook, -1 because it has started to rain. I need to keep a running total, and I need to think of 2 separate things just to track the difficulty of the task. As this is often going to be a custom campaign, I will be making these up on the hoof. It is far easier to just consider the circumstances at the end and say, "The method they have chosen is fairly easy and gives a DC 10", or "That's gonna be difficult, I'll do a DC 25".
Now we come to the crux: The less time I am spending tracking numbers, the more time I can spend making the game interesting for my players. I don't normally share DCs anyway, but my players will get hints from me about how things are going or have gone, and how difficult the actions they are considering will be. When (and if) I finally call for a check, that is the moment I decide on a set DC, but that's also the point where the player rolls. The game stops, the roll happens, and then the game resumes and the consequences are played out.
Deciding on a fixed, unchangeable DC in advance without considering anything about the situation at the moment I call for the check either makes a mockery of player agency, ignoring anything they have done, or makes my job a heck of a lot harder, reducing the amount of effort I have available to put into "fun", for very little reward.
I am not saying your way of doing things is wrong, but it would not work as well for me or my group in most situations as just deciding to call the check slightly later.
I think the significant thing to me is that the DC is only "set" at the point you call for a check (as per RAW). If you have called for a check, why is RP still happening? Why are your players not rolling to see the outcome of the check? I pretty much agree with you that, when you've called the check, you don't modify the DC, but that's because (to me) play has stopped until the check is rolled. They can't do anything to modify that roll at that point, the check is rolled as is unless I allow the check to be cancelled while they continue. If the check has been cancelled, the old DC no longer applies, so it is not changing or modifying the set DC, it is coming up with a new one for the new check when (and if) it is called.
I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but it works differently from assigning a lower or higher DC.
I know it does, and I know that math works differently, and nothing in my reasoning prevents you from applying a straight bonus ("As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC.") in addition or instead of the advantage/disadvantage. But I still do not modify the DC.
Where I'm a bit stuck I confess is why you absolutely want to modify the DC if your reasoning is that it's technically the same as applying a bonus.
Why are you resisting so much the perspective of the bonus instead of changing the DC when the description in the PH is so straightforward and it's so much better for the player to see openly a bonus on his roll ?
I’m not advocating DC modifiers over modifiers to rolls, I’m saying they’re equal mathematically. As for better for the player, that isn’t inherent in any if these methods. What you’re saying is that it’s better for the player to know when something is easier and why, but the DM can just as easily tell the players that doing something a certain way gives a lower DC as he can hide the bonus he’s giving to the roll. There is no meaningful difference in methodology, only in communication.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Of course I stick with the DC (the height of the chandelier has not changed after all) but nothing says that I even have to ask for the roll
I think this is where we differ the most. To me, you have not called for the check here, or decided that a check is necessary. At the point you do, they need to roll. If you have not called for the check, you need not have decided on the DC, so nothing is set.
You, instead, are deciding on the DC and fixing it at that constant value, before you have determined if a check is even necessary. That's fine, if that works for you, but it's a very different way of playing.
1) And this is what I try to explain when I mean "atomising the task". The overall task has not changed. But if you want to roll 20 times for smaller things on the way and conclude that it gets the overall task done, I'm also fine with it.
2) The only thing I'm saying is that the DC of the overall task does not change because I eat my cake in small bites, if it's the right bites. And looking at it globally allows me to resolve it in a single roll if I'm convinced that the list of smaller things that the PC is going to do will be enough. I most of the time don't need to get the details of opening the door of the barn as it's unlocked, getting the ladder across the ground, raising it, etc. Or the same with a grappling hook or a climbing kit.
1) the overall task hasn’t changed, but the odds of succeeding in one almost impossible DC are probably not the same as the odds of succeeding in a number of considerably lower DCs. In other words, how you choose to complete an overall task can affect your chances of success.
Of course it does, which is why I will very openly give different bonuses for the choice of the small tasks and how they are being done.
If they are different small tasks, why would it even be the same check? Why couldn’t the choice of smaller tasks and how they are being done make a different check altogether (or likely a few of them) more appropriate?
I need to get to the other side of a wall. Climbing it seems difficult, with a high risk of falling and getting hurt. I could try anyway, and that’d mean a high Str/Athletics DC. Or I could go looking for a spot that would look easier to climb - probably Int/Investigation, with a DC that has nothing to do with the high one for climbing in the first approach, followed by Str/Athletics again but presumably at a lower DC. Or I could find a fallen tree, get that up against the wall (probably Str/Athletics as well, again with a completely separate DC), and climb up that way with a second, relatively low Str/Athletics check. If I had to fell a tree first, there might be a different check for that. Or I could climb a tree, throw a rope over the wall to another tree and go across that way. I could construct a catapult, if I was a thrillseeker with good construction skills and little common sense. I could go looking for a tunnel underneath. Maybe I might even devise a plan that would get whatever I want that’s on the other side to me, instead of having to go over there.
Why are you so adamant about sticking with a fixed DC without even knowing what the players will do?
"Call my DC your "provisional DC" and just say that every action that they take, instead of modifying the DC, gives them a modifier to the roll, and it's exactly equivalent"
Except that my provisional DC often doesn't happen. As I'm deciding on a DC at the point I make a call, based on how difficult the action is at that point, I didn't need to think about DCs until that point. I may start to shape a rough idea in my mind, but that's often about it.
The only DC that matters is the DC I set when I call for the check. The players get hints of how difficult something is, but never a numerical value. It's very difficult to meta-game when you don't know the numbers, and it keeps them (and me) focused on the narrative rather than the numbers.
Again, your way works for you, mine works for me. For every advantage you can state for your method, I can state one for mine. I don't think my way is inherently better, but it works better for me.
I’m not advocating DC modifiers over modifiers to rolls, I’m saying they’re equal mathematically.
1) But Adv/Dis, which is the favoured method to deal with these only works on rolls. So putting everything on rolls is simpler and in line with the RAW.
So, with both of these in mind, why insist on changing the DC ?
As for better for the player, that isn’t inherent in any if these methods. What you’re saying is that it’s better for the player to know when something is easier and why, but the DM can just as easily tell the players that doing something a certain way gives a lower DC as he can hide the bonus he’s giving to the roll. There is no meaningful difference in methodology, only in communication.
2) The difference is huge for me, really, especially since I don't announce DCs. Getting a +5 or advantage to your check is evident, visible and the player will be happy about it.
Telling them that the DC has change does not let them roll higher, and if you are not announcing the DC (which I think is good policy), there will be absolutely nothing visible.
1) what exactly is it advantage/disadvantage can’t work on? Modifiers to rolls or modifiers to DCs are mathematically the same when advantage or disadvantage is applied. Adv/disadv is something that’s applied to a check.
2) I’m sure it’s huge for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s huge for everyone. I don’t tell my players the exact DCs, but I give them an indication of how difficult* something is (easy, doable, hard, you-may-want-to-try-something-else, you’ll-need-a-miracle; that kind of thing) and I take all modifiers into account for that, whether they would apply to the DC or the roll. Another DM I know will tell her players almost nothing, since they never ask in the first place. This has nothing to do with the mechanics, it’s all a matter of style and preference.
edit: *if they can conceivably estimate this, anyway. I don’t tell them if offering a guard money is going to be an easy way to convince him, they’ll have to try to find out. Same with a lot of social interactions. But judging how hard it is to scale a wall, or get across slippery ice without falling over, they can do that. And they can assess how much harder if they have to hurry, or how much easier if they can take it slow or have appropriate tools. It depends on the type of challenge.
To be fair to everyone here, if that is all you are arguing, then I doubt many disagree with you.
The disagreements have come about from all the other things you have said are wrong to do.
A) it’s a quote, in a quote box, with a link to your original post (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/91318-dm-pushing-role-play?comment=111). The words are a literal quote. It’s what you said. I did not reword it.
B) You do realize that preparing for is the same as trying to affect for the better, right? As for it not being the task until they make a roll, that’s just silly. The PCs are for instance given specific instructions to convince a guard to turn a blind eye to some illicit goods getting smuggled in. Is this not their task until they make a roll?
C) Incorrect. The NPC has a starting attitude before the PCs even start to interact. That starting attitude has a DC associated with it.
D) It’d be really great if you could clarify the difference between what you consider a task and an action, especially mechanically.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"For some reasons, some people seem to be really annoyed at losing a prerogative of setting DCs however they please, fine for their tables, just wanting to point out that there are really good RAW alternatives."
Finally you admit its a "RAW alternative"!
Now thats settled we can discuss why its not a good idea and only sticking to increments of 5 is bad too.
1. If you set a DC before a character even interacts with a situation you pretty much nullify player choice in influencing the DC which is anti-player
2. By setting a DC ahead of time you do not allow for additional features/spells/items/information to play into your DC setting which is not only prohibiting yourself as a DM but is actively against the spirit of the game to allow you do make modifications as you see fit to make things fun/interactive with your players.
There may have been a misunderstanding, then. Your comments have come across as if saying that any other technique of setting DCs than doing so, in advance and in the most generic way, is not RAW, and that "modifying" a DC in any way from that initial, generic value is wrong. By stating RAW so many times, you also strongly imply that you think that all other methods are not RAW.
You're not going to help your case by stating that your way is better than everyone else's. I'm not sure if that's how you intended this to come across, but it's likely to prolong any argument.
I'm going to make the assumption, for now, that this has all been a massive misunderstanding.
"And 5e is not about specific vocabulary anyway."
Incorrect it is about natural language and not adding anything to the language. Effects/spells/rules do what they say they do and nothing more.
You set the DC as a DM. That is it RAW. You do not RAW add any other information to this other than you as the DM get to decide how to do it. Thats it.
Because maybe they use a feature to learn a new piece of information that could tie something together that would make the check a lot easier.
You saved a boy from a well earlier on and you find out the guard is his dad....you are saying the DC would be the same if they mention they are the one who saved his son?
The DC stays the same, but I now have advantage on my roll (or a heft bonus), making it obviously easier for me. Isn't this exactly what the DMG says here:
Consider granting advantage when …
The environment is the lad in the well, a previous action is saving the lad, and you employ cunning in mentioning it to the guard.
You have all the ingredients for giving advantage without changing the DC, which would stay exactly the same for someone else who had not saved the guard's son.
1) So what are they then? Actions taken during the accomplishment of the task, or actions taken in preparation for the task? For me that’s one and the same thing, but if I follow your logic so far there’s a difference.
If changing the attitude is not part of the attempt, what is it? Would it even be done if there was no attempt? The DMG clearly classifies at all as a single interaction, at least, and explicitly requires a PC to have taken part in the conversation to even be allowed to make a check.
2) So saying “5E never tells you to modify the DC” is not saying the DMG doesn’t suggest changing the DC based on circumstances?
3) So what if the NPC doesn’t realize you were buttering him up? The DMG doesn’t just explain what ‘usually’ happens, it explains how to handle whatever happens. I also don’t think NPCs usually realize this, and if they do that might just as easily be part of the conversation.
4) Which is the same DC if there’s no time for a conversation. The conversation also doesn’t set the attitude, it changes the starting attitude. There has to be something in the first place in order to be able to change it.
5) So people can understand your arguments and we can have a meaningful discussion instead of talking about different things?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So you climbed a ladder, instead of climbing a wall.
If I take on a monumental piece of work, it’s difficult to complete. If I break it into small steps, it becomes easier - because I’m not doing the monumental piece of work, I’m doing a bunch of smaller, easier things. The result may be the same, but what I did wasn’t. The work was changed.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why not change the DC? As the DM RAW you have the opportunity to change it...just do it. Why put a hard DC on something that would be easy?
This....its the same for a social encounter. By your logic you would never change a DC regardless only add advantage which mathematically is a terrible way to do it.
You set a Very Hard DC on a social check: 25 DC...by your logic this is set in stone and will not change.
A fighter wants to do the talking as he feel he has an in....he thinks he recognizes this guy from his old unit. He uses his background feature from Soldier to warm up to the guard. He has a +3 to persuasion. Even by adding advantage to this check you have set the fighter up to fail...he literally cannot win in this situation even if he rolls a natural 20.
You have invalidated a very reasonable course of action by being completely inflexible with your DC. The fighter player will likely never try this tactic again...why would he? He has no chance at succeeding even by using all his resources at his disposal.
Now instead look at it the opposite way:
You lower the DC Check to 20. The fighter now at least has a chance to succeed vs 0% chance. Its still representing a difficult check (The fighter must roll a 17+ to succeed) but its not impossible.
Which method seems better to you?
I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but it works differently from assigning a lower or higher DC.
Let’s say convincing a guard to do something they shouldn’t through Persuasion is a DC 20 under normal circumstances, and the PC has a +5 modifier to Cha checks for Persuasion. This translates to needing to roll a 15 or better on 1d20, or 25% chance of success. It turns out circumstances aren’t normal, because the PC helped the guard’s son in his time of need.
If I decide to apply a +5 modifier to the roll or a -5 modifier to the DC (functionally the same thing), the PC needs to roll 10 or better on a single 1d20 roll and has a 50% chance of success.
If I decide to give advantage on the check, the PC needs to roll 15 or better on at least one of two 1d20 rolls. This gives a success chance of 2x25%x75% + 25%x25%, or 37.5%+6.25%=43.75%.
Basically, the benefit of having advantage goes down as the check itself becomes more difficult. As DM you might favour using advantage in some situations and reducing the DC in others. In extreme cases you might even decide the DC is too low to bother with a roll or it might mathematically become an autosuccess whereas with advantage there would still be a (presumably slim, but mathematically non-zero) chance of failure. In some cases it might be best to do both: if a PC attempts to do something under favourable circumstances you could set a lower DC, and another PC helping out would give advantage on top of that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"The only thing I'm saying is that the DC of the overall task does not change because I eat my cake in small bites, if it's the right bites."
It is easier to eat something in small bites....trying to shove an entire cake in your mouth is harder than spending 12 mins to eat it in small bites. The difference is time.
Allowing a PC to get around a difficult check by spending time is a fair trade off....unscrewing the hinges of a door is an option but takes a LOT longer to do than being able to smash it down or unlock it.
1) the overall task hasn’t changed, but the odds of succeeding in one almost impossible DC are probably not the same as the odds of succeeding in a number of considerably lower DCs. In other words, how you choose to complete an overall task can affect your chances of success.
2) If the DC stays the same, what’s the point of doing it a certain way and not another? Before you answer this, just because I don’t want it to be overlooked, I’ll again point out that applying advantage or disadvantage doesn’t change the math if you’re reducing DCs instead of giving bonuses to rolls or vice versa. It’s still the same thing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"I'm trying to see if someone has a valid reason for changing DCs once set"
I thought I had explained why I considered it better to use a DC which incorporates all the circumstances, but I will explain in case I had missed it.
The DC, in my mind, is a numerical expression of the difficulty of a task. Modifiers to the dice roll, on the other hand, are more about how good a character is at performing the task.
Taking the wall climbing example again, a smooth, well made wall will be difficult to climb without any equipment. That's a difficult task with a high DC. However, climbing that wall with a grappling hook is easier. The DC is going to be lower for that task. Further, using a long enough ladder to climb the wall is pretty easy. That task would have a low DC.
If my players were approaching that wall, I may at time have a provisional DC in my head. Let's say I know they have grappling hooks, so I would assume they would use them and make it, say, a DC10 provisionally in my head. However, I haven't called for the check yet. I will wait for my players to tell me what they want to do. If what they describe is a different action, I will adjust my provisional DC in my head, or may throw it away entirely if they decide to play things completely differently. I'll actually decide on the DC at the point where I call for the check, when I actually know what my party is trying to do. The initial, provisional DC was just a rough estimate to help me later.
Now, if I am using that set DC plus modifiers, I need to track those modifiers throughout the setup. I've given +1 for finding a slightly less smooth part, +3 for a good throw with the grappling hook, -1 because it has started to rain. I need to keep a running total, and I need to think of 2 separate things just to track the difficulty of the task. As this is often going to be a custom campaign, I will be making these up on the hoof. It is far easier to just consider the circumstances at the end and say, "The method they have chosen is fairly easy and gives a DC 10", or "That's gonna be difficult, I'll do a DC 25".
Now we come to the crux: The less time I am spending tracking numbers, the more time I can spend making the game interesting for my players. I don't normally share DCs anyway, but my players will get hints from me about how things are going or have gone, and how difficult the actions they are considering will be. When (and if) I finally call for a check, that is the moment I decide on a set DC, but that's also the point where the player rolls. The game stops, the roll happens, and then the game resumes and the consequences are played out.
Deciding on a fixed, unchangeable DC in advance without considering anything about the situation at the moment I call for the check either makes a mockery of player agency, ignoring anything they have done, or makes my job a heck of a lot harder, reducing the amount of effort I have available to put into "fun", for very little reward.
I am not saying your way of doing things is wrong, but it would not work as well for me or my group in most situations as just deciding to call the check slightly later.
I think the significant thing to me is that the DC is only "set" at the point you call for a check (as per RAW). If you have called for a check, why is RP still happening? Why are your players not rolling to see the outcome of the check? I pretty much agree with you that, when you've called the check, you don't modify the DC, but that's because (to me) play has stopped until the check is rolled. They can't do anything to modify that roll at that point, the check is rolled as is unless I allow the check to be cancelled while they continue. If the check has been cancelled, the old DC no longer applies, so it is not changing or modifying the set DC, it is coming up with a new one for the new check when (and if) it is called.
I’m not advocating DC modifiers over modifiers to rolls, I’m saying they’re equal mathematically. As for better for the player, that isn’t inherent in any if these methods. What you’re saying is that it’s better for the player to know when something is easier and why, but the DM can just as easily tell the players that doing something a certain way gives a lower DC as he can hide the bonus he’s giving to the roll. There is no meaningful difference in methodology, only in communication.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think this is where we differ the most. To me, you have not called for the check here, or decided that a check is necessary. At the point you do, they need to roll. If you have not called for the check, you need not have decided on the DC, so nothing is set.
You, instead, are deciding on the DC and fixing it at that constant value, before you have determined if a check is even necessary. That's fine, if that works for you, but it's a very different way of playing.
If they are different small tasks, why would it even be the same check? Why couldn’t the choice of smaller tasks and how they are being done make a different check altogether (or likely a few of them) more appropriate?
I need to get to the other side of a wall. Climbing it seems difficult, with a high risk of falling and getting hurt. I could try anyway, and that’d mean a high Str/Athletics DC. Or I could go looking for a spot that would look easier to climb - probably Int/Investigation, with a DC that has nothing to do with the high one for climbing in the first approach, followed by Str/Athletics again but presumably at a lower DC. Or I could find a fallen tree, get that up against the wall (probably Str/Athletics as well, again with a completely separate DC), and climb up that way with a second, relatively low Str/Athletics check. If I had to fell a tree first, there might be a different check for that. Or I could climb a tree, throw a rope over the wall to another tree and go across that way. I could construct a catapult, if I was a thrillseeker with good construction skills and little common sense. I could go looking for a tunnel underneath. Maybe I might even devise a plan that would get whatever I want that’s on the other side to me, instead of having to go over there.
Why are you so adamant about sticking with a fixed DC without even knowing what the players will do?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Call my DC your "provisional DC" and just say that every action that they take, instead of modifying the DC, gives them a modifier to the roll, and it's exactly equivalent"
Except that my provisional DC often doesn't happen. As I'm deciding on a DC at the point I make a call, based on how difficult the action is at that point, I didn't need to think about DCs until that point. I may start to shape a rough idea in my mind, but that's often about it.
The only DC that matters is the DC I set when I call for the check. The players get hints of how difficult something is, but never a numerical value. It's very difficult to meta-game when you don't know the numbers, and it keeps them (and me) focused on the narrative rather than the numbers.
Again, your way works for you, mine works for me. For every advantage you can state for your method, I can state one for mine. I don't think my way is inherently better, but it works better for me.
1) what exactly is it advantage/disadvantage can’t work on? Modifiers to rolls or modifiers to DCs are mathematically the same when advantage or disadvantage is applied. Adv/disadv is something that’s applied to a check.
2) I’m sure it’s huge for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s huge for everyone. I don’t tell my players the exact DCs, but I give them an indication of how difficult* something is (easy, doable, hard, you-may-want-to-try-something-else, you’ll-need-a-miracle; that kind of thing) and I take all modifiers into account for that, whether they would apply to the DC or the roll. Another DM I know will tell her players almost nothing, since they never ask in the first place. This has nothing to do with the mechanics, it’s all a matter of style and preference.
edit: *if they can conceivably estimate this, anyway. I don’t tell them if offering a guard money is going to be an easy way to convince him, they’ll have to try to find out. Same with a lot of social interactions. But judging how hard it is to scale a wall, or get across slippery ice without falling over, they can do that. And they can assess how much harder if they have to hurry, or how much easier if they can take it slow or have appropriate tools. It depends on the type of challenge.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].