What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Kane0]

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

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

[Amnestic]

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I knew I would get to my infamous rant eventually.

There is no tree.

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

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

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

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

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

Well played.

Here we go again.

There is no tree.

[Theodoxus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Credence]

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

(Here we go again indeed...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Snowbluff]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Theodoxus]

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Yes.

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

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

All in all it could be quite clunky.

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

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

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

It's the d20 system, go figure.

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

Yep.

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

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

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

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