My only argument against NEVER adjusting the DC and instead applying bonus to rolls is that THAT method (bonus) does not effectively reflect the facts around the situation. Scaling the wall is a 15DC, ok, fine. Climbing a ladder is also a DC 15 (for reasons I cannot understand) BUT, because you put a ladder up, you bet a magical bonus to your acrobatics or athletics, making the task easier. Putting a ladder against the wall doesn't make me any better at climbing, nor does a rope and grapple. My mind (and physics) indicate that the ladder or grapple make the TASK easier to accomplish. My actions, PRIOR to tacking this task, make the task easier. The adding bonus to my roll indicates I perform this task with greater skill than I otherwise would, which.......well........is silly.
Dropping the DC might be too big a term and might bruise those who interpret RAW in a pinpoint view, unable to see anything not printed and approved in one of the source books. If you are setting the DC "on the spot", then fine, the DC for your wall is 5 if they put a ladder on it, 10 if they use a grapple and hook and 15 if they try to spider man it. In most cases, I set a DC for a task (breaking a door, climbing a wall, convincing the guard to let you in) as part of setting up the area, so it is "decided" before the characters reach said task. Their actions, prior to undertaking said task CAN adjust how difficult it is.
That said, I see the bonus/advantage ruling to be better in other situations, where perhaps you set up that the Rogue will get a run off, and the Fighter will try to offer a stirrup boost to increase his jump height. I might give a bonus to the Rogue's Athletics roll equal to the Fighter's strength, to show how it helps them accomplish the task.
Finally, I see note of making everything transparent, so the DM isn't hiding things? So when the group approaches your guard, you tell them immediately "It's a 15 DC to convince him to let you in"? If not, and they don't know the DC (which I don't usually reveal) then where is this transparency? I press this point because a lot of tone here is that only ONE way works and is right according to RAW. Having read the RAW over several times, there is enough vagueness to allow any of the aforementioned methods to "work" with the exception of the DM who is simply ruling on player ability without even considering character ability. Linking a DC to a task needs to depend on the situation, as opposed to a flat number, considering only a single method. Sometimes it fits, other times, adjustments are required, to allow the process and what the roll and DC are tied to make sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I’m not advocating DC modifiers over modifiers to rolls, I’m saying they’re equal mathematically.
"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 ?"
Why insist on some nebulous "Bonus"? In my fighter example you stated you would give a "Bonus" to the fighter to help them with the challenge....which is exactly the same as just lowering the DC.
It does. But so does "changing" the DC or setting it later when the details have emerged. There is nothing really wrong with either technique. Both fit RAW, and both have their pros and cons, but each person is entitled to their own preference. I think you will find that most people are arguing with you because all your posts suggest you are telling us that yours is the One True Way, the only way which fits RAW, and/or all other methods are stupid. I, and others, have tried to take a conciliatory tone, to suggest that both methods can work well and it comes down to personal preference and play style, and yet we have just received more sermons on the One True Way. We have tried to show that there are advantages to our method, only for those advantages to be dismissed.
Frankly, I think this argument has run its course and am going to try to detach myself from it.
It’s your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn’t give you one. Sometimes you’ll even want to change such established DCs.
So, it's not RAW to adjust a DC?
Please stop it now. Both methods work, both fit RAW, it's DM's choice how he deals with it.
there has not been a single argument showing that it's better
I could go through the posts and highlight dozens of arguments which show why the people posting think it is a better method for them, including my own. Just because you have dismissed them and disagree with them doesn't mean they do not exist or have not been presented.
My point is that once set for a task, you should not change the DC but use modifiers. How you set the DC is according to the guidelines in the rules or in the module, but again, when you do the roll, you use the DC.
And here we get back to "only my way fits the rules, Praise Be to the One True DC!"
If anything significant has changed about what is happening, it is no longer necessarily the same task, therefore the original DC doesn't necessarily apply. If a person initially said they would climb a wall, and you "set the One True DC" for that, but then went and found a ladder, that is no longer necessarily the same task. They are climbing a ladder up the wall, not climbing the wall. Similar things can be said about using a grappling hook.
In the same way, if a player initially says they will try to deceive a guard, but then brings up a specific method of doing so (e.g. pretending to have orders from a high ranking officer), the task is different. They are no longer just trying to trick their way past a guard, they are trying to convince him that they have orders to pass. This can be viewed as a different task: It is much more specific.
Taking this into the real world: I'm a web developer. If a client gave me some content and designs and asked me to build a website, that's one task. I could quote them. If they tagged on a requirement to use a specific platform or framework, the task has changed enough that I would need to update the quote. I could do that one of two ways: I could tell them "it'll cost you £x extra to do it that way", which is your way, or I could say "That's a very different job, the new quote for this job is £y". Both are completely valid.
My comment. You had points you disagreed with, but it does show arguments as to why I consider this way to be better for me. Note that I didn't say that you were ignoring the PC actions. I said that, in order to take into account PC actions you need to track both the One True DC and the modifiers you are going to apply to it. I find that more difficult, which leave me less head space to do interesting things for my players. That's also only one part.
I'm not going to trawl through everyone else's comments too. You have eyes, you can do that yourself.
Just because you disagree with an argument, or think that other points outweigh it, does not mean that they do not exist or have not been made.
The title of this thread is "DM pushing role play", and the topic follows accordingly. The topic is not "How does a DM set and resolve the DC for an ability check". The fact this thread has persisted off topic for eleven pages with little contribution towards the initial discussion in recent posts suggest that it is close to having fully run its course.
If people want to discuss the nuances of setting DCs and resolving ability checks, I strongly recommend starting a new thread, maybe over in Dungeon Master's Only. Please do not continue to pursue off topic discussion this thread.
My only argument against NEVER adjusting the DC and instead applying bonus to rolls is that THAT method (bonus) does not effectively reflect the facts around the situation. Scaling the wall is a 15DC, ok, fine. Climbing a ladder is also a DC 15 (for reasons I cannot understand) BUT, because you put a ladder up, you bet a magical bonus to your acrobatics or athletics, making the task easier. Putting a ladder against the wall doesn't make me any better at climbing, nor does a rope and grapple. My mind (and physics) indicate that the ladder or grapple make the TASK easier to accomplish. My actions, PRIOR to tacking this task, make the task easier. The adding bonus to my roll indicates I perform this task with greater skill than I otherwise would, which.......well........is silly.
Dropping the DC might be too big a term and might bruise those who interpret RAW in a pinpoint view, unable to see anything not printed and approved in one of the source books. If you are setting the DC "on the spot", then fine, the DC for your wall is 5 if they put a ladder on it, 10 if they use a grapple and hook and 15 if they try to spider man it. In most cases, I set a DC for a task (breaking a door, climbing a wall, convincing the guard to let you in) as part of setting up the area, so it is "decided" before the characters reach said task. Their actions, prior to undertaking said task CAN adjust how difficult it is.
That said, I see the bonus/advantage ruling to be better in other situations, where perhaps you set up that the Rogue will get a run off, and the Fighter will try to offer a stirrup boost to increase his jump height. I might give a bonus to the Rogue's Athletics roll equal to the Fighter's strength, to show how it helps them accomplish the task.
Finally, I see note of making everything transparent, so the DM isn't hiding things? So when the group approaches your guard, you tell them immediately "It's a 15 DC to convince him to let you in"? If not, and they don't know the DC (which I don't usually reveal) then where is this transparency? I press this point because a lot of tone here is that only ONE way works and is right according to RAW. Having read the RAW over several times, there is enough vagueness to allow any of the aforementioned methods to "work" with the exception of the DM who is simply ruling on player ability without even considering character ability. Linking a DC to a task needs to depend on the situation, as opposed to a flat number, considering only a single method. Sometimes it fits, other times, adjustments are required, to allow the process and what the roll and DC are tied to make sense.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
"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 ?"
Why insist on some nebulous "Bonus"? In my fighter example you stated you would give a "Bonus" to the fighter to help them with the challenge....which is exactly the same as just lowering the DC.
VERY well said Falwith. You've expressed a lot of my thoughts on this matter in a way I have been struggling to.
It does. But so does "changing" the DC or setting it later when the details have emerged. There is nothing really wrong with either technique. Both fit RAW, and both have their pros and cons, but each person is entitled to their own preference. I think you will find that most people are arguing with you because all your posts suggest you are telling us that yours is the One True Way, the only way which fits RAW, and/or all other methods are stupid. I, and others, have tried to take a conciliatory tone, to suggest that both methods can work well and it comes down to personal preference and play style, and yet we have just received more sermons on the One True Way. We have tried to show that there are advantages to our method, only for those advantages to be dismissed.
Frankly, I think this argument has run its course and am going to try to detach myself from it.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#UsingAbilityScores
So, it's not RAW to adjust a DC?
Please stop it now. Both methods work, both fit RAW, it's DM's choice how he deals with it.
I could go through the posts and highlight dozens of arguments which show why the people posting think it is a better method for them, including my own. Just because you have dismissed them and disagree with them doesn't mean they do not exist or have not been presented.
And here we get back to "only my way fits the rules, Praise Be to the One True DC!"
If anything significant has changed about what is happening, it is no longer necessarily the same task, therefore the original DC doesn't necessarily apply. If a person initially said they would climb a wall, and you "set the One True DC" for that, but then went and found a ladder, that is no longer necessarily the same task. They are climbing a ladder up the wall, not climbing the wall. Similar things can be said about using a grappling hook.
In the same way, if a player initially says they will try to deceive a guard, but then brings up a specific method of doing so (e.g. pretending to have orders from a high ranking officer), the task is different. They are no longer just trying to trick their way past a guard, they are trying to convince him that they have orders to pass. This can be viewed as a different task: It is much more specific.
Taking this into the real world: I'm a web developer. If a client gave me some content and designs and asked me to build a website, that's one task. I could quote them. If they tagged on a requirement to use a specific platform or framework, the task has changed enough that I would need to update the quote. I could do that one of two ways: I could tell them "it'll cost you £x extra to do it that way", which is your way, or I could say "That's a very different job, the new quote for this job is £y". Both are completely valid.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/91318-dm-pushing-role-play?comment=191
My comment. You had points you disagreed with, but it does show arguments as to why I consider this way to be better for me. Note that I didn't say that you were ignoring the PC actions. I said that, in order to take into account PC actions you need to track both the One True DC and the modifiers you are going to apply to it. I find that more difficult, which leave me less head space to do interesting things for my players. That's also only one part.
I'm not going to trawl through everyone else's comments too. You have eyes, you can do that yourself.
Just because you disagree with an argument, or think that other points outweigh it, does not mean that they do not exist or have not been made.
The title of this thread is "DM pushing role play", and the topic follows accordingly. The topic is not "How does a DM set and resolve the DC for an ability check". The fact this thread has persisted off topic for eleven pages with little contribution towards the initial discussion in recent posts suggest that it is close to having fully run its course.
If people want to discuss the nuances of setting DCs and resolving ability checks, I strongly recommend starting a new thread, maybe over in Dungeon Master's Only. Please do not continue to pursue off topic discussion this thread.
Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here