Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Technically DMs aren’t suppose to be setting DCs higher than 30. Honestly they should rarely be set at 25 or higher. DCs are suppose to be set by the task difficulty not the player skill in the task.
DCs are set by task difficulty, but the DM decides what the task is and can make it as easy or difficult as they want. For example, it's obviously possible to have locks of different quality. If I were coming up with rules, I would say something like
Nothing about that is inconsistent with setting DCs by task difficulty, nor is it objectively unreasonable: you expect more valuable stuff to have better protections.
If a player puts effort into becoming so good that his character can trivialize a certain task, let him. Otherwise, there's no point in even trying to grow, because DM will nullify that growth. The game has more than one aspect, and no character can trivialize them all. You party has Sherlock Holmes with ridiculous detecting skills? Fine, let him breeze through etective investigation. Then throw a big group fight at them. Suddenly, all that perception and insight isn't exactly helpful. You got an unstoppable killing machine in your party? Make them tangled in a court intrigue from time to time. If you simply raise the difficulty to offset specific PCs strengths, you steal their triumphs, the feeling of power they work for.
Actually per the current DMG and the UA the DC for very hard should be 25 and 30 is reserved for those things that are nearly impossible. You are correct Plot devices don’t have DCs. If you are setting DCs at 30 I have to ask who made these locks. Also what are they made of, because if somehow the tumblers on the lock are a DC 30 to pick it might be easier to break the lock. Oh the lock is adamantine. Well I’ll break the box or door. Oh the entire thing is adamantine. Hmm again who made this? The reality the problem is that people forget that there is a vast difference between DC 15 and DC 17 in this game. So while a common lock is DC 15, an uncommon lock would be about DC 16-20, rare would be about DC 20-25 and very rare would be about 25-29. With 30 being legendary. Anything above 30 is God made. You probably shouldn’t even set a DC for it.
SO MUCH THIS. This is why Expertise is so underrated all the time. DC 30 is Nearly Impossible. DC 25 VERY hard. Expertise that lets you routinely pull off very hard tasks is better than a 3rd level spell slot because you can do it all day, but to do that you are going to be a pretty high level (a class with a +5 in their Ability score and expertise at level 1-4 only has a +9 so need a 14 to do very hard, +11 at 5, +13 at 9 so even here you still need a 12 to beat a DC 25, 13 you have a +15 so only now do you only need a 10 to beat the 25, finally maxxed out it is only a +17 so you still need a 13 or better to beat a 30 without magic items. Skills and expertise are highly under-rated and thankfully scales quite well. Early they will be strong, but not so strong that it over shadows, and as others get more powerful your PB goes up which means you get more and more out of it. Expertise in skills is good. Reliable talent is good, my complaint with rogues is and probably will always be that they don't get enough besides that.
Rangers and Bards get 2 sets of expertise just like the rogue does. While the rogue is getting Sneak attack, cunning actions and reliable talent, Rangers are getting spells and martial weapons and mobility, and bards are getting Spells and Bardic Inspiration. I personally have felt cunning action is really pulling the weight on rogues until 11 and then reliable talent is what you played rogue to 11 for. Subclasses are subclasses, and I don't know if I ever felt like Rogue had just inherently better subclasses than others to hold it up.
Thief is so flavorful and cool, even in this doc, but Fast hands really feels like it is missing something without object interaction. Second story work is AMAZING and by far my favorite feature that thieves get, Supreme sneak, with the way the hidden rules are just feels redundant, Use magic device could be great, in the right campaign and right setting, but if you are in a low magic setting this might as well be blank and thieves reflexes has so much potential, but seems so limited by the loss on fast hands and the actual limit of number of uses per long rest. Rogues are cool, I feel the base class is ONE level 5, or level 9 feature away from being really awesome. And the Thief is just an idea or 2 away from being a great flavorful subclass. Just bringing back object use, or even an interact with the environment option and making the use magic device do SOMETHING even if you are never given magic items, being able to once per long rest just produce a one time use item and people are like "where did you get that" and you being, "Best not to think about that hope it saves our skins" or something that isn't reliant on the GM handing out a gaggle of magic items.
Well anyway I think I just went on another random rant.
Which is why I claim that they don't have a competent numbers person; a 'nearly impossible' task should actually be nearly impossible. As it is, a tier 4 character designed to be good at lock picking will usually succeed vs DC 40.
Or maybe you don't understand the narrative function of a character WITH that high of a skill. T4 are beings who are supposed to be facing down multi-versal threats. They SHOULD be capable of the nearly impossible. A T4 character with Expertise and maxed out ability score is supposed to be monolithic in ability. Wizards at this level have spells like Wish and True Polymorph. They can practically re-write certain fabrics of reality and travel to other planes of existence. There should be almost no lock in this tier of play that a rogue can't crack with ease. And yet a 30 still will take him a 13 or better. So 60% chance to fail. For someone of that skill at this level to still fail more than half the time.... nearly impossible is the correct word for it.
The narrative function of a character with that high of a skill is to, with extreme effort, overcome near impossible challenges. Which means 'near impossible' should be a DC somewhere between 40 and 50.
A thief who only has a +17 in tier 4 isn't trying.
Edit: this is a pointless and redundant post by me. Others have already stated this.
A tier 4 character is suppose to be succeeding at impossible things. They already succeeded at getting passed not only teir 2, but tier 3 also.
Your argument gets voided because we are talking about tier 4. You know the tier were a wizard could literally open your plot device no set DC lock with a wish spell. The wizard only had to reach level 17 and choose wish. The rogue still can’t open that lock. As for a level 30 lock, the rogue needed to focus on dex which they likely would anyway. Take expertise in thieves tools which takes away from choosing a more often used skill. So the rogue had to try a lot harder than the wizard. Oh and let’s forgot the wizard opening the plot device with wish, they can open the DC 30 lock with a 2nd level spell. Talk about not trying.
20 Dexterity and Expertise with Thieves' Tools gives you +17 to your roll. So you need to roll at least 23 on a d20. Cool, cool. I assume you set enemy saving throws at at least +20, you know, so that spellcasters that are designed to cast spells can feel some challenge)
Tier 4 artificer thief: figure 14 Dex, 20 Int, Tool Expertise, Infusion (Replicate Magic Item: Gloves of Thievery), cast Enhance Ability (Dex), use Flash of Genius. Total bonus 2 (dex) +12 (expertise) +5 (gloves of thievery) +5 (flash of genius) = 24, with advantage; 94% to achieve a 30, 75% to achieve a 35, 44% to achieve a 40. And that's not even counting any benefits that can be granted from allies, found magic items, maybe having more than a 14 dex, etc.
And no, Wish will not open plot device locks; artifact grade items will simply ignore it and even affecting a legendary exceeds the power of an 8th level spell (as legendary items are generally not less than 9th level spell equivalent) and thus runs the risk of permanently losing the ability to cast the spell.
In any case, my original point with the example wasn't about DCs above 30, it was about how DC escalation isn't exotic, it's normal gameplay.
First, how good is that god of locksmithing against an ancient black dragon, and how good is that PC in case of DC40 Persuasion check? I mean, if a lock can be DC40, then all other checks can be. Or is it a universe of hard locks but mild other challenges?
Now try that with rogue. No guarantee that they'll get Gloves of Thievery. No guarantee they'll have an artificer in the party. No guarantee for Enhance Ability or Guidance either. By the way, Knock is a 2nd level spell.
Wish literally rewrites reality. But if you want to railroad your players so hard that even Wish can't break these rails...
Ok so ya you have no idea what T4 of play is supposed to represent or what that skill level is supposed to represent +you are now multiclassing instead of single class + multiple magic items. So one of the most skilled locksmith in all planes of existence enhanced by magic and you are mad that they routinely pull off nearly impossible feats.... they SHOULD pull off nearly impossible feats routinely at that point.
T4 +magic is where herculean feats are the regular. The nearly is meant to be their playground. Your argument as to otherwise is just wrong.
Gonna admit: haven't kept up on the thread. But I can perhaps offer a little perspective here, irrespective of the math.
The Play Fantasy of an 'Expert' class - the reason people play these classes in the first place - is reliability. Within their area of expertise? The party can rely on these skilled masters. A player who favors Expert classes is after the fantasy of the Competent Man, exercising breadth and depth of skill and talent rare to find in any era. They're polymath Rennaissance (Wo)Men that routinely accomplish what others find difficult or even impossible through practiced application of wit and skill.
Despite that, it's not really the Height of Talent an Expert is looking for. Those moments are neat, but rare and hard to build for. What most Expert players are generally looking for is to be able to trust their skills. They want to know that they can say to the party "Don't worry, I've got this", and only very rarely be wrong. Most non-Expert characters cannot trust their skills - the d20 is so swingy and weird that even a character at the height of their talents flubs completely routine checks 'bout ten, fifteen percent of the time - more than often enough to feel humiliating and disrespectful. The Expert says "I should be able to open a god damned door without spending twenty minutes of session time and four spell levels' worth of magic on the motherf@#$ing attempt!"
This puts them at odds with DMs, who often lean on randomness and uncertainty in everyday activities to artificially ratchet up tension and challenge. The (bad) DM says "every door is a chance for you to hilariously humiliate yourselves and I won't skip it for all the tea in China!" Better DMs allow for mundane normal-person tasks, but still tend to crank DCs to match ability bonuses rather than utilizing the system correctly, chasing that 'magic' 65% success number. They fail to realize that the dedicated Expert player in their group is the gal who saw Crawford say "65% success rate is about where most players feel comfortable" and said "yeah, **** that, a 35% failure rate in my primary talents is unacceptable."
It's why I honestly think Expertise should work the other way around - rather than doubling your proficiency bonus and increasing the potential height of your skill checks without doing a single goddamn thing to offset humiliating and nonsensical failure, 'Expertise' should work more like Reliable Talent and institute a floor on checks. Proficiency lets you add PB to your check; Expertise lets you treat anything lower than an 8 on the d20 as an 8. That reinforces the "I've got this, trust me" fantasy of the Competent Man without bending the DC math over its knee and giving it the black-and-blue the way current Expertise does.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is so true and it does screwy things, we were trying to open a chest with a crowbar and our 18 strength half-orc failed. I pushed him aside and opened it with my 8 strength Cleric-Wizard.
I agree completely on not rescaling the DCs. In terms of play most "experts" in 5E or 1 are not as powerful in other pillars, particularly combat. So you are giving up some things to get that "automatic" and the party is giving up some things to get that automatic. In the modern game where a lot of people powergame and try to eek every last point of combat ability out of their character, it is nice to have characters focused on something else.
True but this would be the opportunity to separate them completely.
Reliable Talent makes Roguge/Bard/Now Rangers good at many many things. Not just one thing. I had a Rogue player that was using dual attacks to first prone a Balor and then do sneak attack damage on the second attack. they had expertise in athletics plus a bunch of weapon bonuses. They basically were doing sneak attack damage every other attack. Even the player who was running the character got bored.
My main point was feature creep with over powered character builds. Backgrounds that give extra feats and access to spells are a bit over much in my opinion. Gold, tools, and some small local help from friends is what backgrounds should be about.
Most games I have played or hosted don't depend on survival scenarios for fun. We get bored counting arrows, rations, and water. We usually table rule every one brought enough for the adventure and go from there. Having something in the rules that helps that makes our homebrew feel more legit. Maybe if we were playing in Dark Sun or something...
I think the separation of IAS and Fests should be formal and complete. Characters should get both but they should not have to sacrifice an IAS to get a feat or vice versa. Something like four feats per character at various levels and normal IAS at the breakpoints would be just as fun and allow feats choice to be more open.
The Rogue I was talking about had Reliable Talent so ever role was a 10, 20 Dex and expertise. They took expertise in Athletics for auto-prone sneak attack advantage, Stealth, Thieves Tools, and Perception. If they rolled a 1 on a D20 they added up their bonuses and it was 27. They were annihilating combat opponents with massive sneak attack damage. The Rogue took out 3 Balrogs all by themselves at 12 level. Yeah, I tried to step up my game as DM so that everyone was having fun but a lot of the modules that you can buy just could not challenge that Rogue. Even the player got bored and rolled a different character with a different class. We even talked about homebrewing a rule that nerfed reliable talent.
Query: three
balrogbalors in succession, or threebalrogbalors all at once? Because even with every-turn Sneak Attack (tip: 5e's math assumes rogues will find a way to sneak attack every round), at 12th level that's 7d6 sneak attack damage or a rough average of about 25 points. The rogue's first attack is a shove to prone and thus deals no damage, which means their off-hand Sneak Attack only adds 1d6 maximum with no modifier. 8d6 damage a turn, for 'bout 30 or so if we're being a migfht generous. Nine turns to fresh-to-dead a 262-HP Balor. The rogue is furthermore taking an additional 9d6 fire damage every turn (3d6 for being close to the balor, and 3d6 for each of the melee attacks the rogue lands per turn), on top of the balor's rather dire Multiattack. A balor can also use its action to teleport 120 feet instead, gaining enough distance to be unreachable by the rogue. A balor being pressed in melee combat can also take to the skies, using its Whip to lash at pesky enemies and drag them into the air to add an extra 2d6 falling damage to the whip's already commanding (for a basic attack) 5d6+8.Expertise on Athletics to Prone enemies for Sneak-generating Advantage is a cool idea. I've played rogues though, and I can safely say that taking on even one balor 'all by myself' would be an absolutely horrifying proposition at 12th level, or even 20th. I'm not necessarily discounting your story, but I don't think Expertise with Athletics to knock a balor prone multiple times is quite as powerful a way to win that fight as one might think. Against regular mooks? Absolutely, that's a neat play and it should be rewarded. But Sneak Attack is nowhere near as 'massive damage' as people make it out to be, and the rogue doesn't get a giant mess of Extra Attacks to shove with. Unless this rogue was beyond overloaded with Vestige-level gear, I would feel pretty confident as a DM that I could flatten any single given 12th-level rogue with a balor.
Please do not contact or message me.